24 Hours Later - Long... but I need an outlet.
Eric Payne
browser. Yesterday, I rushed to the television as soon as my Netscape
opened - my home page, you see, is the San Jose Mercury News - and
there was a tiny picture with the headline "Two planes fly into World
Trade Center." Apparently, at first, the West Coast was a little
behind on the scope of things and the story treated this as an
aviation accident.
Then, CNN. Just in time to see a crawl: "Planes crash into WTC and
Pentagon;" I called out to Bill - who was sitting at his computer in
our office, "We're under attack." As they broadcast images of the
Towers, and that black smoke, I broke into tears. Having lived in New
York, working at Bankers Trust, Co., I knew there was more than just a
building behind that cloud cover. Then, the South Tower collapsed.
Somewhere between the collapse of the South and North Tower, the
emotion simply left me. I'd like to think it was the journalist in me
taking over - but since I find myself purposely avoiding the news in
any media this morning... I think I simply became numb to it all.
As the day wore on there arose, just as we all knew they would, the
"experts" who started pointing fingers. The "I told you so"ers, who
were chomping so badly at their bit, they couldn't even wait for the
first rescue efforts to be seriously put in place. And, of course, a
couple of sleazy politicians who made their own pronouncements of
America's next step... with absolutely no authority to back their
statements.
The Senate of the United States addressed the nation as a body, free
of partisanship, to show the US would go on, and there would be true
"unity" in this matter. That's great, but singing "God Bless America"?
If that action were truly spontaneous, that was a moving outporing of
emotion which will be remembered forever. If, however, it was staged,
it was one of the tackiest, most sleazy, acts of window-dressing I've
ever seen.
Reviewing tape of the moment; looking at the faces of the Senators.
Listening for true emotion from the voices....
I think it was staged.
Ossama Bin Laden is put forward as the first, most obvious suspect in
these terrorist acts. But is he?
None of the passengers of the four aircraft involved, when making
their "goodbye" calls (or sneaking in their own 9-1-1 calls) made any
mention of the hijackers being foreign. Some talked about flight crew
being stabbed and killed; a few spoke of "four or five" men breaking
into the flight deck. But not a single indicator of their race or
apparent nationality. Not a single call mentioned any of the hijackers
mentioning "Allah," as Islamic terrorists would have. The callers
apparently knew they were going to die, and how, but not one of them
made mention their hijackers were Islamic martyrs.
That simply doesn't make sense. If the race of the hijackers wasn't
worth mentioning in their phone calls; I can think of only one reason.
The hijackers were white. If their was no mention of "religious
martyrdom" of the hijackers, I can think of only one reason. The
hijackers never mentioned it.
Whenever Bin Laden has been behind a terrorist act, he has always made
it publicly known his organization bore responsibility for that act;
many times overtly, but at others in ways so subtle as to be almost in
code, and only after the code is cracked, is the message clear.
There's been no such admission, even though terrorist organizations
need the credit for such acts to advance their cause of terrorism and
recruit new members. It does no terrorist group any good to have a
populace afraid of the nebulous "them;" the victims have to be made
aware they need to fear that group, specifically.
Our politicians want it to be Bin Laden. I'm sure a great many of our
Allies want it to be Bin Laden. On the basis of two intercepted phone
calls, the Justice Department has put Bin Laden at the top of the
suspect list.
But Bin Laden has not only not claimed credit; he's refuted it. That
doesn't make sense for a "martyr." Now there's, apparently, a trail
between four or five names on the four flights' passenger lists, and
"flight school training" in Venice, Florida , even though the
instructors/owner of that schools states the training there is not
transferrable to the flight deck of a 757/767, there's being bandied
about the thought: "Flying is flying; if you can fly a 747, you can
fly a 757..."
Fine. But a pilot of a prop put on a jet's flight deck, and told to
fly that jet hundreds of miles, on a very tight course which can only
be computed as you're flying, and having those courses end at specific
points? That takes training.
Bin Laden's personal fortune is estimated at $200 million. Is that
really enough to purchase one (or two) commerical airlines on which to
train? Is that really enough to ensure absolute secrecy while up to 20
people are trained? This type of specific training would take months;
conveivably, up to a year. For that training to have gone on,
privately, in total secrecy with no leaks is outside human nature.
They type of training involved in this was concentrated. The persons
involved had to be at peace with the fact they were giving their lives
for something. The expenses involved were staggering. I, personally,
don't think Bin Laden could have pullet it off. Though yesterday's
attack could be seen as simply a larger version of the "run, crash,
and burn" form of terroism Bin Laden prefers, using cars and
speedboats loaded with explosives. But this instance is so
overwhelming... it's almost as if that's the extrapolation that's
supposed to be made.
It's too convenient.
Just for now, for the reasons above, I'm going to exclude Bin Laden as
a possible suspect, and take a look at the targets.
The World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The Pentagon strike, again,
simply doesn't make sense. As Americans, we know the military is so
spread out, the destruction of the Pentagon would do nothing but make
the military angry and ensure instant retaliation. But there's some
thought the Pentagon strike was actually meant to be a strike against
the White House, based on the presumption the downed Pennsylvania
aircraft was meant to target Camp David.
That's important. Remove the Pentagon, the sign of America's military,
and put the White House in it's place. Not a target more easily seen
from the air like the Capitol Building, or the Washington Monument,
but the White House.
If the presumption is made the second phalanx was meant to destroy the
White House and Camp David; the second targets were the symbolic homes
of the President of the United States.
Symbols of American trade and the American President, specifically
targeted for destruction. Why?
The destruction of all four would have been incredibly demoralizing,
as symbols. The Washington attacks could not have been meant to kill
the President, specifically, as the President was on his Florida
education trip, as had been well covered by the world press. His
absence in Washington was common knowledge. The people, themselves,
were not the targets; the targets were the symbolism of the
structures.
Has there been any disagreements involving the Office of the President
and world trade - simply using the symbolism?
Yes, there has. There's been an isntance of this President,
specifically, and international trade. And in the few months he's been
in office, there's been quite a bit of speculation our President was
attempting to revive the "Cold War" of Democracy vs. Communism.
But is China, to whom Bush restricted trade within days of taking
office, following eight year of open trade, capable of the
training/costs involved?
Yes, they are.
Is China a viable suspect, though? Just as none of the calls from the
planes mentioned an Arab presence, none mentioned an Asian presence.
If that absence is enough to disqualify one group; it has to
disqualify the other. And, again, there were no leaks of information
prior to the attacks.
If that is factored into the equation, as it has to be, a suspect has
to be found that has the money and the capability for training those
involved, has to be able to maintain total secrecy in its activities,
and has to have involved personnel who unhesitatingly go to their
deaths to forward some ideal.
Are there such organizations?
Two, that I can think of.
For one of theses suspects, it would have been difficult - but not
impossible - for all the criteria to be met. But the stereotype we
have of members of that group keeps that from being taken seriously:
the Americans who firmly believe the government has taken too much
power from the people; those Americans who embody and espouse the same
beliefs that led to the Oklahoma City bombing.
If we ignore the stereotype of stalk-chewing, illiterate, "you'll pry
my gun from my cold dead fingers" hicks, it's not impossible for a
group of people who shared the same beliefs could, concievably, have
within their organization 12 people with the knowledge to fly aircraft
and pull this off. It's a stretch - but not impossible, however remote
the possibility may be. The "trail" left behind implicating others in
the attack, however, make the reach on this theory stretch almost to
the breaking point: Possibly, such a group could find twelve members
airline/pilot training to have pulled this off, but would they also
have the membership to plant the clues, that would give them access to
plant those clues? One or the other is possible... but both? Unlikely.
And especially since these attacks have to "advance" something. For
these "patriotic" groups, the mass killing of innocent civilians would
infuriate other Americans, and ignite judicial blood lust. The
downside would end up, literally, killing them and their ideas.
Now, we have to factor in that last piece: presuming it is not Bin
Laden, the attackers must possess the money, training, secrecy and
ability to steer direction of suspicion to a desired target, while
achieving a desired end result separate from simple death and
destruction. Is there such a group of people?
Yes, there is.
I'm not a bigot. I want everyone to know that. Hell, I've been the
object of bigotry most of my life. But presuming it wasn't Bin Laden,
the aggressors have to be a group that wants America to believe it was
Bin Laden, and to set America's full military against Bin Laden and
those others that support him, based on the trail left behind pointing
to "Bin Laden supporters." They also have to meet the criteria their
presence wouldn't be remarkable enough to comment on by those
passengers who placed cell calls. They have to have the money and the
means to train and keep such training entirely secret.
Would the potential upside of having the United States of America
going to war against Arab nations and people be enough for Israel to
attempt it? I don't know.
What I do know is: religious zealotry, of any cause or any side, makes
people capable of anything. Last week was the 29th anniversary of the
Israeli Olympic athlete's massacre at the hand of Black September.
This week is the 24th anniversary of the Camp David Peace Accord.
Neither event really changed anything for Israel. They still fight
their enemies, alone, as they did 29 years ago. The conscessions made
by both the Egyptian and the Israeli politicans in the accords, the
population kept from being put in place.
I hope, before a single American finger pulls a trigger, or launches a
missile, all possibilities are exhausted.
Thanks for letting me rant....
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
Robert J. Kolker
Eric Payne wrote:
>
> Reviewing tape of the moment; looking at the faces of the Senators.
> Listening for true emotion from the voices....
>
> I think it was staged.
>
> Ossama Bin Laden is put forward as the first, most obvious suspect in
> these terrorist acts. But is he?
You might be onto something here. Just suppose for one minute
that the papers are filled with get Bin Laden stories to hide the
fact we know it was someone or something else? If it is Bin Laden
the the papers will print so. If it ISN'T Bin Laden then the papers
might be given a cock and bull story to cover up the true nature
of the investigation.
Here is a nightmare scenario. Suppose the Chinese were involved
in the planning and design of the strike (it was an elegant force
multiplier, when view objectively. A little oriental subtlety?)?
Then what. How do we confront the Chicoms if they had a hand
in it. We surely would not want to start WW 3 over this.
In interesting possibility and I hope it is not true. If there is a
government involved, I hope it is a Moslem government, so
we can target their cities and destroy them.
Bob Kolker
J H
> their "goodbye" calls (or sneaking in their own 9-1-1 calls) made any
> mention of the hijackers being foreign.
I doubt all of the information those calls contained has been shared with
the public. I haven't seen any transcripts, and I don't expect to for
some time to come. All of those calls could have contained descriptions
of the apparent nationality of the hijackers, for all we know. I think
it's a great deal more likely that those brave callers _did_ attempt to
describe their attackers, but that that information hasn't been shared
with the public, either because of its importance to the investigation or
its potential to inflame passions against others who fit that description.
Just my humble opinion.
Judy Hennessey
Daniel Allen Butler
>government involved, I hope it is a Moslem government, so
>we can target their cities and destroy them.
>
>Bob Kolker
>
Well, it's nice to see you finally openly admit to your racism and bigotry,
Kolker. You're not interested in justice, you just want to satisfy the
bloodlust you and your ilk seem to be born with--a need to devastate and
destroy a Moslem nation as an act of national and racial vengeance that has
nothing to do with ending terrorism, but will satisfy the need for the Jews to
validate their self-delusion as a "chosen people." Obviously you're nothing
more than a product of your kind, so I shouldn't be surprised. Nor do I find
it at all unusual that the one nation on earth whose goverment acts most like
the Third Reich is the State of Israel. After all, what's the difference
between a "chosen people" and a "master race" except semantics?
Dan
(The Hammer)
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the management, but
they ought to be!
Robert J. Kolker
Daniel Allen Butler wrote:
>
> Well, it's nice to see you finally openly admit to your racism and bigotry,
> Kolker.
Bigotry yes. Racism no. There is no such race as Moslem.
And I have never made a secret of my antipathy toward
the fundemantalist strains of Al Islam. They are after my
pale Jewish ass, not because it is pale, but because it
is Jewish.
I suppose you would call me a bigot if I told you I don't
like Nazis and skinheads either. Same reason, btw.
I detest people who have me and mine. in their sights.
Bob Kolker
John M. Feeney
>I doubt all of the information those calls contained has been shared with
>the public. I haven't seen any transcripts, and I don't expect to for
>some time to come. All of those calls could have contained descriptions
>of the apparent nationality of the hijackers, for all we know. I think
>it's a great deal more likely that those brave callers _did_ attempt to
>describe their attackers, but that that information hasn't been shared
>with the public, either because of its importance to the investigation or
>its potential to inflame passions against others who fit that description.
I'm inclined to agree with you here, Judy. Though I admit, barring
conclusion of a thorough investigation, all we really know is that
we don't know. (If in fact we ever know.)
The last piece of that argument is particularly relevant! In just
the last 24 hours I've received reliable word of mouth *local*
accounts of: a very nice Turkish store owner who either closed shop
for the day or "disappeared" temporarily (fear); and a couple of
"American" troglodytes feeling the need to express a vehement
knee-jerk reaction to two women conversing in SPANISH! -- it was
something along the lines of, "They oughta get all these damn
foreigners out of here!"
I'd possibly agree if that meant giving it all back to the American
Indians. Then again, they're immigrants too, aren't they? (Albeit
likely the first ones.)
If there's ugliness to be visited upon someone here, the appropriate
target is the perpetrators and their sponsors. But of course, some
people have to actually be *reminded* not to automatically form up
posses and lynch mobs!
Eric, I think your guess is as good as anyone else's till we have
something firm. It might never be demonstrable, but ...
And I'll have to take Kolker off my kill filter, I suppose. My one
"Company" friend might be interested in these fairly revealing
comments he's been making. (Sounds pretty authoritative to me!)
Cheers,
John
Daniel Allen Butler
>the fundemantalist strains of Al Islam. They are after my
>pale Jewish ass, not because it is pale, but because it
>is Jewish.
Fine, you're entitled to your own version of neo-Nazi delusions of racial
grandeur, but don't plan on using my country as the vehicle for satisfying you
or your race's Zionist fantasies or fulfilling your quest for lebensraum. Your
posts have made it clear that you have no interest in seeing the United States
mete out justice to whomever is responsible for the death and destruction
yesterday. Instead you seem to think that the United States only has an
obligation to protect your Jewish ass simply because it's Jewish, and you want
the United States' response to be shaped to further Israel's territorial and
racial agenda, not effect retribution for crimes done against itself. Sorry,
Kolker, but we're not about to be a stooge for Ariel Sharon and his gang of
stormtroopers.
Robert J. Kolker
Daniel Allen Butler wrote:
> >And I have never made a secret of my antipathy toward
> >the fundemantalist strains of Al Islam. They are after my
> >pale Jewish ass, not because it is pale, but because it
> >is Jewish.
>
> Fine, you're entitled to your own version of neo-Nazi delusions of racial
> grandeur, but don't plan on using my country
Your country!!! Its my country too you anti-semite bastard!
Bob Kolker
Daniel Allen Butler
>
No, it isn't. Your country is Israel--you've it clear where your loyalties lay
by your previous statements, that you expect the United States to fulfill your
own anti-semitic agenda. Or didn't you know that Arabs are considered a
semitic people? I find it hilarious that the most anti-semitic people on earth
are the ones who are the first to accuse others of being anti-semitic.
As for me being anti-semitic, you'll have to try again. Like most Jews you
automatically equate any criticism of your people as anti-semitic sentiment.
Quite typical of people who have over-developed inferiority complexes--any
remark or observation that is even the slightest bit critical is perceived as a
personal attack. Not only did I just push every button you've got, Kolker, I
just proved that I can push them whenever I want--too bad you haven't been on
this board longer, you might have seen it coming....
Howard Zinn
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
> Bigotry yes. Racism no. There is no such race as Moslem.
You avoid the inconvenient fact that all but a tiny handful of Arabs are
non-Moslem. You are bigoted against Arabs, and won't even cop to it. The irony
is that the Arabs and Semitic Jews are the same people, genealogically. Same
God, too. Different instruction manual, and a big quibble over real estate.
> And I have never made a secret of my antipathy toward
> the fundemantalist strains of Al Islam. They are after my
> pale Jewish ass, not because it is pale, but because it
> is Jewish.
Actually, for many of "them" (Moslems) that isn't true. Many of them just want
the fighting to stop, and to live their lives and raise their children, and they
have very real experience that a major threat to those things happening is the
behavior of the Jews who occupy what was their land. As for those who do
advocate such violence, their reasons are every bit as senseless as those that
"justify" the slaughter of children and bulldozing of homes of Palestinians in
the occupied territories by the state of Israel.
If you choose to defend either side in that conflict, you have innocent blood on
your hands.
I'm married to a Jew. Most of her family was wiped out by Hitler. I know the
story only too well. But I don't buy the bullshit logic that equates martyrdom
with moral superiority or entitlement. The Holocaust doesn't buy the Jewish
people entitlement to act like Hitler, which the state of Israel has come pretty
close to doing regularly since 1949.
>
> I detest people who have me and mine. in their sights.
>
> Bob Kolker
And it is this, plus the unmitigated arrogance of any people deciding that it is
somehow more valuable, important, "chosen", or "charged by God" than any other,
that leads to more evil in the world than any other single human behavior, even
greed. Generalized "detesting" of people you have never met because you have a
cartoonish stereotype of them is a sign of a base and damaged character.
Feeling superior to another group of people because your little clump of
antecedents thinks it has Friends in High Places and that its particular bunch
of cultural habits and traditions are "better" than those of another group of
people is childish, pathetic, and wrong.
Fundamentalism of every stripe arises when people feel disempowered and
oppressed, and turn that experience on its head to tell themselves that they are
superior. Our fundamentalist Christians are mostly poor and poorly educated in
a society which values wealth and sophistication. Fundamentalist Judaism
(Zionism, Hasidism, etc.) came into prominence in the 19th century in the wake
of shtetls and pogroms, and kicked into high gear when the moral trump card of
the Holocaust appeared to create entitlement. And fundamental Islam is a direct
outgrowth of the horrific experience of Moslems under Britain and under Israel.
Evil begets evil; people who suffer will tell themselves a story that they
suffer because they are better than their oppressors.
The story never ends. Until, perhaps, people raised with such stories come to
see that they are bullshit. That they are people, and the people they were
taught to hate are just people, too.
Frankly, in my opinion, the survival of such irascible cultures does more damage
than their extinction. The world would, in my opinion, be a happier place if
ALL the traditions of "the Book" (that is, the Yahwists: Christians, Jews,
Moslems, and Zoroastrians) had died out long ago--not the people, the
traditions, through assimilation, change in philosophy, integration into kinder
and less angry societies. Could have saved ourselves a lot of forced
conversions, genocidal murder sprees, burnings at the stake, holy wars, and
self-righteous nonsense.
So I believe.
Mark
John M. Feeney
>No, it isn't. Your country is Israel--you've it clear where your loyalties lay
>by your previous statements, that you expect the United States to fulfill your
>own anti-semitic agenda. Or didn't you know that Arabs are considered a
>semitic people? I find it hilarious that the most anti-semitic people on earth
>are the ones who are the first to accuse others of being anti-semitic.
>
>As for me being anti-semitic, you'll have to try again. Like most Jews you
>automatically equate any criticism of your people as anti-semitic sentiment.
>Quite typical of people who have over-developed inferiority complexes--any
>remark or observation that is even the slightest bit critical is perceived as a
>personal attack. Not only did I just push every button you've got, Kolker, I
>just proved that I can push them whenever I want--too bad you haven't been on
>this board longer, you might have seen it coming....
Dan:
I don't even like Kolker, as you may know, but this one's going
WAAAY overboard. You're rushing headlong into the jaws of some
pretty nasty generalizations here. Let's leave "the Jews" out of
this, shall we? You don't know all the Jews, and neither does "Mr.
Answer for Everything".
Just so you know, I'm not at all at odds with you on Israel. It
*has* been fairly barbaric at times in dealing with threats both
perceived and real. And I've never noticed the U.S. take any firm
stand on the more outlandish reactions that we as a nation would
supposedly NEVER pursue -- assassinations, indiscriminate
retaliations, presumptive attacks, etc.
But then, what does that tell us?? (Hint: Moslem antipathy.)
Take a deep breath, Dan. The battle's with Kolker, not all of
Judaism. (Besides, I'm an honorary Jew, and you're starting to
offend MY sensibilities. We are friends, aren't we?) :)
Regards,
John
John M. Feeney
We may disagree on a few things, and I suspect that occasionally
your arguments below are a bit overly fervent, but this is possibly
one of the most intriguing (non-Titanic) postings I've read in quite
some time!
I heartily agree with your assessment of Israel. It has seemed to me
many times in the past that the oppressed had indeed become the
oppressor to the point that "you can't tell the players without a
scorecard."
As for Mr. Kolker, I suspect that if anyone is "after his pale,
Jewish ass" it is FAR more likely due to the fact that it's HIS ass.
I've know many fine people who are Jewish, and Bob, you're just a
total piece of work!
Cheers,
John
binnacle
"John M. Feeney" wrote in message
> Y'know, Mark:
>
> I heartily agree with your assessment of Israel. It has seemed to me
> many times in the past that the oppressed had indeed become the
> oppressor to the point that "you can't tell the players without a
> scorecard."
If subsequent investigation proves the carnage in America was the action
of Islamic terrorists then nothing can excuse their barbaric actions.
Equally
nothing can excuse the oppression inflicted on the Palestinians by Israel.
I just hope that the American people will take a long hard look at the
uncritical support their governments have offered to the most reactionary
forces within Israel. I find it sad that the descendants of a people who
suffered
so much at the hands of the SS are now using their handbook on the
Palestinians.
Regards,
Bill
>
> Cheers,
> John
Robert J. Kolker
Daniel Allen Butler wrote:
> >Your country!!! Its my country too you anti-semite bastard!
> >
>
> No, it isn't. Your country is Israel--you've it clear where your loyalties lay
> by your previous statements, that you expect the United States to fulfill your
> own anti-semitic agenda.
Born here, bred here, pay taxes here and obey the laws here.
This is the same kind of shit they used in Nazi Germany to
villify German Jews.
As to MY anti-semitic agenda, please remember the term
Anti-Semitism was invented by the German Philosopher
Willheim Marr to mean precisely hatred of Jews. If was a
euphimism for Jew Hatred.
My annoyance is directed to fanatic Moslems who not only want
to kill me for being Jewish, but also want to kill Americans of
any stripe for the support Israel has received from the U.S.
You ought to know who your enemies really are, sport.
Bob Kolker
Daniel Allen Butler
I do--and some of them are in Israel.
Robert J. Kolker
Daniel Allen Butler wrote:
> >You ought to know who your enemies really are, sport.
>
> I do--and some of them are in Israel.
Right now, at this moment if you live in a city,
your are more likely do be done in by some
Wog than an Israeli.
Bob Kolker
Eric Payne
<bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Daniel Allen Butler wrote:
>
>> >Your country!!! Its my country too you anti-semite bastard!
>> >
>>
>> No, it isn't. Your country is Israel--you've it clear where your loyalties lay
>> by your previous statements, that you expect the United States to fulfill your
>> own anti-semitic agenda.
>
>Born here, bred here, pay taxes here and obey the laws here.
Fine.
Then why was your first reaction not one of concern for the United
States, but one calling for the death of person(s), at that time, not
yet connected to the terrorism, but one you viewed as a threat to your
"Jewish ass"?
I'm not a big believer in the Bible; it's too contradictory to be
taken literally, and in comparison of the God of the Old Testament and
the God of the New Testament shows a schism bordering on multiple
personality disorder, however, I also have no wish to tempt fate by
entering into a battle which bears just too much similarity to the
Biblical description of Armageddon.
All I meant to do in my original post was to point out other
possibilities - what a lawyer would call the creation of "reasonable
doubt." There is enough circumstantial evidence to name two of the
alleged hijackers as "supporters of bin Laden." But is there enough to
link those two (out of 20 - 50) men directly to bin Laden, and from
there to bin Laden, himself, planning and instigating the attack?
If two supporters of the Reverend Fred Phelps - notorious for his
anti-gay posturing, up to and including, the public picketing of
funerals of persons identified as having died of AIDS, and being at
Matthew Shepard's funeral, with his contingent, displaying signs
saying Shepard was burning in hell - were to blow up a gay bar, would
the act alone make Phelps guilty of the act?
And, until all the final proofs are in place and revealed, right now
the entire "bin Laden did it!" line of "evidence" can be simple
misdirection by the actual perpetrators, if it wasn't bin Laden.
Doesn't anyone else find it mildly suspicious the FBI, after 20+
years, still doesn't know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa... couldn't
find members of the SLA who were living, out in the open, and who
can't find files in their own field offices... but, within 24 hours,
knows the names/identities/motivations of the "terrorists"?
I know I sure do. That, in itself, is suspicious as hell.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
Eric Payne
<bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
Well, duh! Unless the city he lives in is Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.
See.. that's one of the problems. Every member of the Jewish faith is
automatically a citizen of Israel, as well. That can't help but create
a dichotomy of allegiance that, in situations like this, can be
detrimental to everyone concerned.
I repeat: All I've been saying is there are other suspects who should
be looked at in this attack, including domestic groups and foreign
allies who may have their own agenda to push.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
Robert J. Kolker
Eric Payne wrote:
>
> All I meant to do in my original post was to point out other
> possibilities - what a lawyer would call the creation of "reasonable
> doubt." There is enough circumstantial evidence to name two of the
> alleged hijackers as "supporters of bin Laden." But is there enough to
> link those two (out of 20 - 50) men directly to bin Laden, and from
> there to bin Laden, himself, planning and instigating the attack?
In a war, intel is where and when you find it. We are preparing for
War, not making a brief for a court trial. If one waits for the
kind of evidence that a court of law requires he will be killed and
gone.
It is unfortunatel that the United States is laggard in pro-active
intelligence gathering. Our people have not thoroughly infiltrated
foreign terror groups, but mark that this is not easy, as many of
them are family based. We are at a disadvantage in this regard.
Where we really fell down was succoming to the fat, dumb and
happy syndrome and allowed security at airports to go to hell
in a handbasked. At this point domestic carriers (U.S.) are going
to look to El Al (damn, those Jews again!) for guidance on how
to guard their passengers and planes. If our carriers had El Al
Envy, the doings of Tuesday might not have happened as they
did.
As to your suspicions of the F.B.I. , the buro is undergoing some
drastic shakeups and culture changes. Old habits die hard, and
the era of that skirt wearing fascist, J.Edgar Hoover hung on
a long time.
It is unfortunate that lessons have to be learned at the cost of
blood, but one can hope that they will be learned.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Eric Payne wrote:
> See.. that's one of the problems. Every member of the Jewish faith is
> automatically a citizen of Israel,
No sir!!! That is not true. Every Jew as a legal right (under Israeli law)
to become a citizen of Israel and even then that is not absolute. The
late Myer Lanski (Murder Incorporated) who discovered his
"Jewish Roots" late in life was told to get lost by the Israeli government
when he applied for residence/citizenship under the Law of Return.
I am a citizen of the U.S.A. and of no other nation on earth. I have
no desire to become a citizen of Israel, at this morment or at any
other moment of my past life. I regard many of the folks in Israel
as "family" not as countrymen.
Bob Kolker
KDAD40
these bastards who have committed this horrible act will have won even a small
victory. This is a time where we must put these divisions aside as we have to
face a foe that can only be vanquished if we are united. I am not taking any
sides, and I am not assessing any blame; all I am saying is:
For the sake of the dead, stop this thread now.
Reg Pitts
Eric Payne
<bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
>Eric Payne wrote:
>
>>
>> All I meant to do in my original post was to point out other
>> possibilities - what a lawyer would call the creation of "reasonable
>> doubt." There is enough circumstantial evidence to name two of the
>> alleged hijackers as "supporters of bin Laden." But is there enough to
>> link those two (out of 20 - 50) men directly to bin Laden, and from
>> there to bin Laden, himself, planning and instigating the attack?
>
>In a war, intel is where and when you find it. We are preparing for
>War, not making a brief for a court trial. If one waits for the
>kind of evidence that a court of law requires he will be killed and
>gone.
>
>It is unfortunatel that the United States is laggard in pro-active
>intelligence gathering. Our people have not thoroughly infiltrated
>foreign terror groups, but mark that this is not easy, as many of
>them are family based. We are at a disadvantage in this regard.
It's also unfortunate the United States doesn't follow the lead of
Israel - which, for its own protection - and have an armed undercover
FBI/CIA agent on every flight, isn't it?
Until it's been determined a foreign government, and not a foreign
individual, is responsible for this, we cannot be at "war." If the
responsibility lies with an individual, but that individual is
harbored by a foreign government, fine. But until such is done, we
cannot go to war.
If we did, and began armed combat against a government based solely on
a member of that nation's population, we're perpetrating, against the
population of that country, acts just as heinous - if not more so - as
those committed against the US on Tuesday.
Our government has seen, as they've publicly admitted, the "rules of
war change." Are we to bomb Afghanistan "off the map," before giving
them the chance to surrender bin Laden to stand accountable for
allegedly perpetrating these acts?
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
Douglas King
> Our government has seen, as they've publicly admitted, the "rules of
> war change." Are we to bomb Afghanistan "off the map," before giving
> them the chance to surrender bin Laden to stand accountable for
> allegedly perpetrating these acts?
Yep. Life's not fair, is it?
By all means, let's follow 'Miss Peeble's Little Blue Book Of Moral Conduct'
and prove to the world (yet one more time) that we are indecisive and
helpless.
The time has passed to slaughter tens of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan in
reprisal for Tuesdays disaster. We have lost the chance to prove that an
attack on the US will have horrible, horrible consequences for targets that
*we* choose. The people who did this, and their allies, are rightly counting
this as a tremendous victory.
I hope that the US government will get off it's fat dumb butt and get to
work. I don't mean the investigators who are even now tracking down the
criminals responsible, and I certainly don't mean the rescue workers in NYC.
I mean that somebody will show some backbone and take the war directly to our
enemies, whether they are a nation or a diffuse group of fanatics.
We spend billions of dollars a year tracking terrorists and potential
terrorists. We might not know who did Tuesday mornings crime against
humanity, but we know many who cheered and helped and who would do the same
if they could. We *should* have already taken them OUT! But our "leaders" are
wringing their hands and wondering what to do.
I also hope that the response around the world, from surprising quarters, is
an indication that we will be able to combat this evil and win, and not be
portrayed as an big bully. But that doesn't matter, what matters is that we
do our utmost to prevent future attacks.
I hope that Americans will keep in mind what America is all about, and be
fair to each other, tolerant, and support those who need it. This isn't over
at all, folks! We'll see more terrorist attacks in the future, possibly the
near future. We will need to be alert and prepared to make the kind of
sacrifice that the heroic passengers of United Flight 93 (the one that
crashed in Penn) made in their last minutes. We will lose yet more freedom as
tighter security measures are clamped over us, not our enemies.
This is war, a kind of war that very few countries have fought and won. There
is no certainty at all that we will win, nor can we guess what kind of
country America will become. We have to work to make the best of it.
Sadly- Doug King
Eric Payne
<dou...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Eric Payne wrote:
>
>> Our government has seen, as they've publicly admitted, the "rules of
>> war change." Are we to bomb Afghanistan "off the map," before giving
>> them the chance to surrender bin Laden to stand accountable for
>> allegedly perpetrating these acts?
>
>Yep. Life's not fair, is it?
>
>By all means, let's follow 'Miss Peeble's Little Blue Book Of Moral Conduct'
>and prove to the world (yet one more time) that we are indecisive and
>helpless.
Or prove to the world we have ideals we stand behind, even when those
ideals go against our own citizen's apparent wishes, but which
ultimately prove we consider our obligations to fairness and justice
more important than succumbing to mob rule.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
Daniel Allen Butler
>>and prove to the world (yet one more time) that we are indecisive and
>>helpless.
>
>Or prove to the world we have ideals we stand behind, even when those
>ideals go against our own citizen's apparent wishes, but which
>ultimately prove we consider our obligations to fairness and justice
>more important than succumbing to mob rule.
>
Usually, Doug, you and I see pretty much eye-to-eye on subjects like this, but
in this case, I'm with Eric.
Douglas King
> Or prove to the world we have ideals we stand behind, even when those
> ideals go against our own citizen's apparent wishes, but which
> ultimately prove we consider our obligations to fairness and justice
> more important than succumbing to mob rule.
Eric, please quote the section of of my post that equated to "mob rule"?
I wonder if you read my entire post. It was rather long.
Regards- Doug King
Eric Payne
I read your entire post, Doug. Right now, the majority of people in
this country are outright saying we're at war; we have to retaliate...
we have to answer violence with violence.
Yet we also have an obligation to other, innocent, citizens of the
countries in which these terrorists have taken refuge not to punish
them until such time as their governments side with the terrorists
hiding in their country.
To retaliate, now... to "kick butt and take names later," is not one
of the principles on which this country was founded, and by which we
still operate.
There is understandable hatred right now. There's shock. There's the
overwhelming need to inflict pain, just as pain has been inflicted.
But to do so makes us no different from those who perpetrated this
act, and in many ways makes us worse, as we have a system of checks
and balances we - frequently! - hold up to the world as the standards
by which they should also govern.
if bin Laden is responsible, and that can be ascertained 100%, we need
to wait to give Afghanistan the opportunity to extradite him so our
justice system can punish him.
If they choose not to, well, then... if the "enemy of my enemy is my
friend," then the friend of my enemy must be an enemy, and that
country becomes a legitimate target for war.
But to rush off, now, and declare war against a country because of the
alleged acts of someone living in their country, who is not even a
citizen of that country, would be following the mob mentality of
bloodlust that's become all too vocal in the last 24 hours.
Look at it this way... for us to hold a country responsible for the
actions of one of its residents would be tantamount to holding Ismay
responsible for the sinking and having him criminally prosecuted. If
that country refuses to give up that resident for justice, fine. We go
in after him. Just as if Ismay had taken direct command of the bridge,
or ordered all Third Class confined to their cabins and locked in to
drown, then they could have gone after Ismay.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
Howard Zinn
"John M. Feeney" wrote:
> Y'know, Mark:
>
> We may disagree on a few things, and I suspect that occasionally
> your arguments below are a bit overly fervent, but this is possibly
> one of the most intriguing (non-Titanic) postings I've read in quite
> some time!
Thanks, John!
Mark
LDRS EMV Nica
and hatred. The issues and disagreements I have with people now seem so
insignificant in the face of what is taking place.
People are dying/dead because of these attacks. Be it China, Israel, Osama bin
Laden or the big conspiracy of whoever --- this is a scary thing. I am
absolutely terrified of what is to come. It is a reassuring thing that nations
are standing together to combat "terrorists" attacks and united as one - for
now - but what about later when we disagree? Will we then turn on each other?
Like many people I am shocked, saddened, discouraged and terrified. Can we not
tear into each other right now? It may be true that Titanic is not our topic
of choice at the moment but it doesn't have to be the assault of one another.
Lissa =)
Douglas King
> I read your entire post, Doug. Right now, the majority of people in
> this country are outright saying we're at war;
And you say we're not?
> we have to retaliate...
> we have to answer violence with violence.
That is, unfortunately, correct. We are not going to get rid of terrorists by
handing out parking tickets. The fact that you disapprove of violence does
not affect the nature of this conflict.
>
>
> Yet we also have an obligation to other, innocent, citizens of the
> countries in which these terrorists have taken refuge not to punish
> them until such time as their governments side with the terrorists
> hiding in their country.
I agree, but our obligation to protect America, and to a tremendous extent,
that means demonstrating our credibility, takes precedence over our
obligation to citizens of other countries. When your house is on fire you get
yourself and your family out. Worrying about others can come next.
There is a heirarchy of moral obligations, Eric. The scale of Tuesdays
disaster, this crime against us, rather changes the balance of our
priorities.
> To retaliate, now... to "kick butt and take names later," is not one
> of the principles on which this country was founded, and by which we
> still operate.
Baloney. You obviously have little grasp of American history. Why do you
think so many people around the world hate us? Because we are meddlesome and
selfish, and because we have done quite a few terrible things. However, that
does not make us the bad guys and it DAMN SURE doesn't mean that we deserve
this!
It's apalling that you, and many others, seem to think that a namby-pamby
holier-than-thou morality play is the answer, and that anyone who disagrees
is a "kick butt and take names later" moron.
However, that is not what I was advocating.
Here is a direct quote from my post of yesterday, which you apparently either
didn't read or did not grasp:
>>We spend billions of dollars a year tracking terrorists and potential
terrorists. We might not know who did Tuesday mornings crime against
humanity, but we know many who cheered and helped and who would do the same
if they could. We *should* have already taken them OUT!<<
More terrorists are being arrested in airports RIGHT NOW under increased
security measures. It's quite possible that we will see a wave of car
bombings, a release of biological weapons, maybe even a nuke. It's not over,
and without intelligent, decisive leadership, it will NEVER be over!
>
>
> There is understandable hatred right now. There's shock. There's the
> overwhelming need to inflict pain, just as pain has been inflicted.
> But to do so makes us no different from those who perpetrated this
> act, and in many ways makes us worse, as we have a system of checks
> and balances we - frequently! - hold up to the world as the standards
> by which they should also govern.
>
Malarkey. No difference between attack and retaliation? I don't believe that
at bit, and I suspect that you don't either. Do the math, if that's the only
way you can see it- one comes first, the other comes second.
If a maniac breaks into your house and begins murdering your family, you put
a bullet in the back of his head. Without warning. That is a very different
thing from shooting suspected maniacs in the street, or advocating the
euthanasia of all potential maniacs. Yet you suggest that there is no moral
difference.
That is wrong, and it's stupid, and if enough people in high places think
along these lines, we will see horrific suffering & death in this country for
years to come.
>
> if bin Laden is responsible, and that can be ascertained 100%, we need
> to wait to give Afghanistan the opportunity to extradite him so our
> justice system can punish him.
If that is the way events shake out, I would suggest instead turning him over
to The Hague. There will certainly be others to ride along with him, too.
> If they choose not to, well, then... if the "enemy of my enemy is my
> friend," then the friend of my enemy must be an enemy, and that
> country becomes a legitimate target for war.
Eric, you (and many others) are missing the entire point: we ALREADY have
legitimate targets! There has been a multi-billion dollar counter-terrorist
effort going on in this country for years! The Civil Defense Agency has been
working to put in place equipment and procedures and training against
terrorist attacks for years. The CIA and the NSA have long lists of known
terrorists, training camps, supporters, bagmen, etc etc. Right now, they are
winning and they will continue to win until we wipe them out.
And if we say to Iraq and North Korea and Afghanistan and any other countries
which stand to benefit from a terrorist campaign against America, "Hand over
these guys or else;" and we have no credible deterrent, they are going to
laugh it off and we will either have to suffer more losses OR kill more
widely and more indescriminately.
Think it over. Before you claim the moral high ground, think about what the
purpose of a system of morals and ethos are for. And remember that
holier-than-thou fanatacism is exactly the angle these suicide bombers work
from.
> But to rush off, now, and declare war against a country because of the
> alleged acts of someone living in their country, who is not even a
> citizen of that country, would be following the mob mentality of
> bloodlust that's become all too vocal in the last 24 hours.
> Look at it this way... for us to hold a country responsible for the
> actions of one of its residents would be tantamount to holding Ismay
> responsible for the sinking and having him criminally prosecuted. If
> that country refuses to give up that resident for justice, fine. We go
> in after him. Just as if Ismay had taken direct command of the bridge,
> or ordered all Third Class confined to their cabins and locked in to
> drown, then they could have gone after Ismay.
Agreed, although I'm not sure it's such a close analogy.
One thing I bet we agree on- this is serious problem. Life in America has
changed.
Regards- Doug King
Eric Payne
<dou...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Eric Payne wrote:
>
>> I read your entire post, Doug. Right now, the majority of people in
>> this country are outright saying we're at war;
>And you say we're not?
There's been no Declaration of War; there's been no foreign government
named as an "enemy." No, we're not at war.
>
>> we have to retaliate...
>> we have to answer violence with violence.
>That is, unfortunately, correct. We are not going to get rid of terrorists by
>handing out parking tickets. The fact that you disapprove of violence does
>not affect the nature of this conflict.
I never stated I disapproved of violence; it armed response is the
last resource, than that response is merited. But not until such time
as all other options - especially since the building belief is this is
the act of a single private individual rather than a nation - have
failed.
IOW: If the Justice/State Department(s) formally request of the Afghan
government the arrest, and extradition to the United States of Osama
bin Laden and his group, and that request is denied, then Afghanistan
becomes a legitimate target for war.
>> Yet we also have an obligation to other, innocent, citizens of the
>> countries in which these terrorists have taken refuge not to punish
>> them until such time as their governments side with the terrorists
>> hiding in their country.
>
>I agree, but our obligation to protect America, and to a tremendous extent,
>that means demonstrating our credibility, takes precedence over our
>obligation to citizens of other countries. When your house is on fire you get
>yourself and your family out. Worrying about others can come next.
And, right now, America is being protected as much as possible.
Heightened security at airports apparently worked: Suspects were taken
off flights; there's been no repeat of Tuesday's carnage. If we let
our vigilance down, however, and there is....
Yes, when my house is on fire, I get my family out. But if I think my
house was burnt down, intentionally, by a person down the street with
whom I've had disagreements in the past, and find credible proof to
support that thought, I don't go running down the street and torch his
place... and am even more cautions if he's renting that home, as the
true owners of the home have absolutely nothing to do with the
criminal act, outside of providing him a home.
>There is a heirarchy of moral obligations, Eric. The scale of Tuesdays
>disaster, this crime against us, rather changes the balance of our
>priorities.
I disagree. Once we begin stripping away levels of "morality," they
can never be reclaimed. The only thing it achieves, actually, is to
open ourselves for further self-stripping of "moral obligations," and
can, conceivably, reach the point were we no longer feel we have a
moral obligation to ourselves.
>> To retaliate, now... to "kick butt and take names later," is not one
>> of the principles on which this country was founded, and by which we
>> still operate.
>Baloney. You obviously have little grasp of American history. Why do you
>think so many people around the world hate us? Because we are meddlesome and
>selfish, and because we have done quite a few terrible things. However, that
>does not make us the bad guys and it DAMN SURE doesn't mean that we deserve
>this!
So, by all means, let's rush to judgement and bomb the hell out of
Afghanistan - killing God knows how many innocents in the process -
simply because our intelligence tells us our suspect has taken to
ground in that country. Gee... that would really change the image of
us being the "bad guys," now wouldn't it?
While we're at it, we may as well get Pakistan, India and China. After
all, the borders are so close, our suspect may have escaped into one
of those countries before we struck.
And, heck, it's been awhile since we heard from him, but the people
don't like Qadaffi either, so let's get Lybia while we're at it. And
Iraq. Hell, we never did fully pay back Iran for the hostages, so
throw them on the list, too. Since all that may make Palestine and
Egypt upset enough to try something, guess we'd better take them out
while we're at it, huh?
>It's apalling that you, and many others, seem to think that a namby-pamby
>holier-than-thou morality play is the answer, and that anyone who disagrees
>is a "kick butt and take names later" moron.
It's apalling that you, and many others, seem to think a
we-have-to-show-how-strong-we-are-through-weapons is the answer, and
that anyone who disagrees should simply be dismissed. When weapons
become involved, the ultimate question becomes not one of "right and
wrong," but of who's the better shot, or who has the largest "posse"
backing them up.
>However, that is not what I was advocating.
>Here is a direct quote from my post of yesterday, which you apparently either
>didn't read or did not grasp:
>>>We spend billions of dollars a year tracking terrorists and potential
>terrorists. We might not know who did Tuesday mornings crime against
>humanity, but we know many who cheered and helped and who would do the same
>if they could. We *should* have already taken them OUT!<<
We should have already ignored foreign sovereignty and invaded those
nations to accomplish our own ends? And the country against whom we've
perpetrated this invasion would not consider that an Act of War
because.....?
>More terrorists are being arrested in airports RIGHT NOW under increased
>security measures. It's quite possible that we will see a wave of car
>bombings, a release of biological weapons, maybe even a nuke. It's not over,
>and without intelligent, decisive leadership, it will NEVER be over!
Threats are never over. Hell, there's still the threat the ideals of
Nazism can rise again. Look long and hard enough, and you may still
find a British resident or two who believe the colonies should be
reclaimed, by force if necessary.
But if people are being arrested at airports, with the airports
following security measures to the letter, then those persons no
longer pose a threat, do they? The ideals they espouse may be a
threat, but there will always be someone else who follows those
ideals.
>> There is understandable hatred right now. There's shock. There's the
>> overwhelming need to inflict pain, just as pain has been inflicted.
>> But to do so makes us no different from those who perpetrated this
>> act, and in many ways makes us worse, as we have a system of checks
>> and balances we - frequently! - hold up to the world as the standards
>> by which they should also govern.
>Malarkey. No difference between attack and retaliation? I don't believe that
>at bit, and I suspect that you don't either. Do the math, if that's the only
>way you can see it- one comes first, the other comes second.
Again, against whom do we retaliate? What nation should we invade
and/or declare a state of war against to achieve retaliation against
the acts of a single individual, not in government of that nation, and
his supporters?
>If a maniac breaks into your house and begins murdering your family, you put
>a bullet in the back of his head. Without warning. That is a very different
>thing from shooting suspected maniacs in the street, or advocating the
>euthanasia of all potential maniacs. Yet you suggest that there is no moral
>difference.
If he's in my home; yes, I put a bullet in the back of his head. But I
don't then go through his pockets, find an address, go there and start
punishing others who live there simply because he lived there.
>That is wrong, and it's stupid, and if enough people in high places think
>along these lines, we will see horrific suffering & death in this country for
>years to come.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion; I disagree. I tend to think by
sticking to our ideals and following our own guidelines to bring this
private individual, and any accessories he may have, to judgement our
country will seem less like the "big bully" other countries have to
sneak up on to get their licks in.
>> if bin Laden is responsible, and that can be ascertained 100%, we need
>> to wait to give Afghanistan the opportunity to extradite him so our
>> justice system can punish him.
>If that is the way events shake out, I would suggest instead turning him over
>to The Hague. There will certainly be others to ride along with him, too.
No. Not the World Court. The Superior Court(s) for the State(s) of New
York, Boston, Pennsylvania and the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia. While the terrorism and repurcussions of the acts of
terrorism affect all the US, it is against those jurisdictions the
specific criminal acts were performed.
>> If they choose not to, well, then... if the "enemy of my enemy is my
>> friend," then the friend of my enemy must be an enemy, and that
>> country becomes a legitimate target for war.
>Eric, you (and many others) are missing the entire point: we ALREADY have
>legitimate targets! There has been a multi-billion dollar counter-terrorist
>effort going on in this country for years! The Civil Defense Agency has been
>working to put in place equipment and procedures and training against
>terrorist attacks for years. The CIA and the NSA have long lists of known
>terrorists, training camps, supporters, bagmen, etc etc. Right now, they are
>winning and they will continue to win until we wipe them out.
We have private individuals who are "legitimate targets." Until such
time as a foreign nationality endorses and legitamizes the acts of
those private individuals, we do not have a nation at which to direct
military engagement.
Another of our ideals: People are allowed to think whatever they like;
they cannot be punished for their thoughts and ideals. If, however,
they act upon those thoughts, and that is a criminal activity,
punishment is then appropriate.
The CIA and the NSA may very well have "long lists" of persons who
believe in the ideals of these terrorists, but until they, themselves,
have committed an act of terrorism, they cannot - nor should they - be
punished for their beliefs and thoughts.
>And if we say to Iraq and North Korea and Afghanistan and any other countries
>which stand to benefit from a terrorist campaign against America, "Hand over
>these guys or else;" and we have no credible deterrent, they are going to
>laugh it off and we will either have to suffer more losses OR kill more
>widely and more indescriminately.
What country doesn't stand to benefit from a terroist campaign against
America? Every country on earth stands to gain some benefit through a
terrorist act against any other country, be that gain financial or
simply the making of an ally.
>Think it over. Before you claim the moral high ground, think about what the
>purpose of a system of morals and ethos are for. And remember that
>holier-than-thou fanatacism is exactly the angle these suicide bombers work
>from.
"Think about what the purpose of a system of morals and ethos are
for"? They're for exactly this type situation: to keep in check those
who would run roughshod over anyone or thing blocking them from their
ultimate goals.
>> But to rush off, now, and declare war against a country because of the
>> alleged acts of someone living in their country, who is not even a
>> citizen of that country, would be following the mob mentality of
>> bloodlust that's become all too vocal in the last 24 hours.
>
>> Look at it this way... for us to hold a country responsible for the
>> actions of one of its residents would be tantamount to holding Ismay
>> responsible for the sinking and having him criminally prosecuted. If
>> that country refuses to give up that resident for justice, fine. We go
>> in after him. Just as if Ismay had taken direct command of the bridge,
>> or ordered all Third Class confined to their cabins and locked in to
>> drown, then they could have gone after Ismay.
>
>Agreed, although I'm not sure it's such a close analogy.
Sure it is; only instead of talking about a person-to-person
situation, we're talking about a nation-to-nation situation. And the
true situation at hand is a nation-against-person situation, until
such time as that person's nation refuses to allow that person to be
punished for their crimes against the other nation.
>One thing I bet we agree on- this is serious problem. Life in America has
>changed.
Yes, life in America has changed. There are benefits: people working
together for a common goal; I wouldn't want to guess when the last
time a NY stockbroker may have helped a fireman or policeman was.
Probably when their home was on fire, or they'd been robbed.
I lived in New York, not far from the WTC. I worked in a building just
across the street from the Exchange. I know those people; they didn't
take notice of their surroundings at all... and especially of those
around them. A crime is committed right in front of their faces, and
they saw nothing, heard nothing, and get irritated (this is a
generalization, you understand) if the authorities ask for his input.
It's heartbreaking it took such an event as this to make some people
realize they're not living alone and secluded in the world.
But once we start willingly giving up our civil liberties, once we
start stripping away our ideals, can it be stopped? Or do we become
not just the "policeman of the world," but the judge, jury and
executioner, as we see fit?
We have a system in place for dealing with individuals who commit
crimes. If we don't let that system at least attempt to work in the
situation, if we simply abandon that process to satisfy a
bloodlusting, primal need for revenge, can that system ever be fairly
used against anyone else, ever again?
Our system is not about punishment or retribution. It's about justice.
The thousands of dead make us scream for retribution, our own ideals
and laws demand we seek justice.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
Douglas King
one last time.
Eric Payne wrote:
> There's been no Declaration of War; there's been no foreign government
> named as an "enemy." No, we're not at war.
I guess not... if an attack killing thousands is no reason to look up from your
little book of rules and consider the reality. According to one expert, war is
hell.
> >> we have to retaliate...
> >> we have to answer violence with violence.
>
> >That is, unfortunately, correct. We are not going to get rid of terrorists by
> >handing out parking tickets. The fact that you disapprove of violence does
> >not affect the nature of this conflict.
>
> I never stated I disapproved of violence; it armed response is the
> last resource, than that response is merited. But not until such time
> as all other options - especially since the building belief is this is
> the act of a single private individual rather than a nation - have
> failed.
>
> IOW: If the Justice/State Department(s) formally request of the Afghan
> government the arrest, and extradition to the United States of Osama
> bin Laden and his group, and that request is denied, then Afghanistan
> becomes a legitimate target for war.
And the bases which are even now training further terrorists and building weapons
of mass destruction, they are not legitimate targets?
As of Monday, I would have agreed. As of now, it appears quite obvious that the
definition of "legitimate target" may need to be re-evaluated. Apparently you
think that we can wait for these people to slip along and murder more of us, then
we can send cops to arrest them.
>
>
> >> Yet we also have an obligation to other, innocent, citizens of the
> >> countries in which these terrorists have taken refuge not to punish
> >> them until such time as their governments side with the terrorists
> >> hiding in their country.
> >
> >I agree, but our obligation to protect America, and to a tremendous extent,
> >that means demonstrating our credibility, takes precedence over our
> >obligation to citizens of other countries. When your house is on fire you get
> >yourself and your family out. Worrying about others can come next.
>
> And, right now, America is being protected as much as possible.
> Heightened security at airports apparently worked: Suspects were taken
> off flights; there's been no repeat of Tuesday's carnage. If we let
> our vigilance down, however, and there is....
Uh huh. And all bridges are being guarded, as well as subway stations,
restaurants, schools, etc etc?
Think.
You know better. All it takes for a terrorist to succeed is to find one target one
time that is insufficently guarded. Heightened security can help, but it is not
the only answer.
Think!
Israel is a much smaller country (fewer places to guard) with far fewer civil
liberties (less pesky restrictions on what the guards can do) and a greater per
capita guard force. They cannot guard themselve well enough; what gives you the
idea that we can?
> Yes, when my house is on fire, I get my family out. But if I think my
> house was burnt down, intentionally, by a person down the street with
> whom I've had disagreements in the past, and find credible proof to
> support that thought, I don't go running down the street and torch his
> place... and am even more cautions if he's renting that home, as the
> true owners of the home have absolutely nothing to do with the
> criminal act, outside of providing him a home.
That's a good analogy, but it falls short of what you are suggesting. By your
suggestions of what consitutes proper moral behavior, you would have to evaluate
all occupants of the house in terms of worthiness to be rescued, calculate how
long before the house burned down and divide that by the number of people to be
rescued, and start with the highest priority first, after filing a disclaimer of
liability of course.
> >There is a heirarchy of moral obligations, Eric. The scale of Tuesdays
> >disaster, this crime against us, rather changes the balance of our
> >priorities.
>
> I disagree.
Okay, there is no heirarchy of moral obligations. In that case, you should agree
100% with the following scenario:
A man rapes your daughter. You begin to chase him.
A child drops it's lollipop. You stop chasing the rapist to retrieve the lollipop,
because there is no priority on capturing the rapist.
Right.
If there is no heirarchy of moral obligations, why do we impose more severe
penalties for some crimes than others? I don't think you believe this yourself,
Eric.
> Once we begin stripping away levels of "morality," they
> can never be reclaimed. The only thing it achieves, actually, is to
> open ourselves for further self-stripping of "moral obligations," and
> can, conceivably, reach the point were we no longer feel we have a
> moral obligation to ourselves.
I agree with this 100%. I do not see where it conflicts with what I am saying is a
morally correct action.
> >> To retaliate, now... to "kick butt and take names later," is not one
> >> of the principles on which this country was founded, and by which we
> >> still operate.
>
> >Baloney. You obviously have little grasp of American history. Why do you
> >think so many people around the world hate us? Because we are meddlesome and
> >selfish, and because we have done quite a few terrible things. However, that
> >does not make us the bad guys and it DAMN SURE doesn't mean that we deserve
> >this!
>
> So, by all means, let's rush to judgement and bomb the hell out of
> Afghanistan - killing God knows how many innocents in the process -
> simply because our intelligence tells us our suspect has taken to
> ground in that country. Gee... that would really change the image of
> us being the "bad guys," now wouldn't it?
>
> While we're at it, we may as well get Pakistan, India and China. After
> all, the borders are so close, our suspect may have escaped into one
> of those countries before we struck.
Uh huh. Need a straw man, Eric? If you cannot refute what I have said, try not to
build up deliberate stupidities and claim they are my suggestions.
> >It's apalling that you, and many others, seem to think that a namby-pamby
> >holier-than-thou morality play is the answer, and that anyone who disagrees
> >is a "kick butt and take names later" moron.
>
> It's apalling that you, and many others, seem to think a
> we-have-to-show-how-strong-we-are-through-weapons is the answer, and
> that anyone who disagrees should simply be dismissed.
I'm not dismissing you, am I? It appears to me that I am attempting to discuss the
issue.
Although I think this will probably be my last post on this subject, I would like
to explain my views and see some sort of intelligent explanation of your views.
Instead you are making preposterous statements.
> When weapons
> become involved, the ultimate question becomes not one of "right and
> wrong," but of who's the better shot, or who has the largest "posse"
> backing them up.
It would be great if we could get this conflict onto that basis. We would win
easily. But we can't. That is part of what makes it so dangerous.
However, the idea of an absolute "right" and "wrong." is silly. In some societies,
it has been "right" for the gov't official performing marriages to have sex with
the bride before her husband could.
I believe there are very good ideas constituting "right" behaviour, but other
people have different ideas. Within certain limits, we have to get along anyway.
> >However, that is not what I was advocating.
>
> >Here is a direct quote from my post of yesterday, which you apparently either
> >didn't read or did not grasp:
>
> >>>We spend billions of dollars a year tracking terrorists and potential
> >terrorists. We might not know who did Tuesday mornings crime against
> >humanity, but we know many who cheered and helped and who would do the same
> >if they could. We *should* have already taken them OUT!<<
>
> We should have already ignored foreign sovereignty and invaded those
> nations to accomplish our own ends? And the country against whom we've
> perpetrated this invasion would not consider that an Act of War
> because.....?
We've done this in the past. The countries aainst whom we have carried out these
acts were already our enemies covertly, and were using terrorists to attack us
because they could not attack us militarily.
I believe it is more or less the same situation now, except that we have
tremendously greater justification and tremendously greater urgency.
> >More terrorists are being arrested in airports RIGHT NOW under increased
> >security measures. It's quite possible that we will see a wave of car
> >bombings, a release of biological weapons, maybe even a nuke. It's not over,
> >and without intelligent, decisive leadership, it will NEVER be over!
>
> Threats are never over. Hell, there's still the threat the ideals of
> Nazism can rise again. Look long and hard enough, and you may still
> find a British resident or two who believe the colonies should be
> reclaimed, by force if necessary.
>
> But if people are being arrested at airports, with the airports
> following security measures to the letter, then those persons no
> longer pose a threat, do they? The ideals they espouse may be a
> threat, but there will always be someone else who follows those
> ideals.
Uh huh. Especially if there are still leaders and organizer out there, gathering
up money and materials, seducing potential attackers and glorifying the terrorists
of this past attack as "brave martyrs," and working hard to bring us tragic news
on some future date.
They are the ones we have to go after. They are the ones we have to convince to
give up. If we can't, we have to kill them. Kind of unfair, but otherwise we're
the dead ones. Does that violate your moral code? It is the reality of the
situation.
By your logic, the attackers of Tuesday morning are all dead, so there's no way we
can punish them. Let's just call it even Steven, right?
> >> There is understandable hatred right now. There's shock. There's the
> >> overwhelming need to inflict pain, just as pain has been inflicted.
> >> But to do so makes us no different from those who perpetrated this
> >> act, and in many ways makes us worse, as we have a system of checks
> >> and balances we - frequently! - hold up to the world as the standards
> >> by which they should also govern.
>
> >Malarkey. No difference between attack and retaliation? I don't believe that
> >at bit, and I suspect that you don't either. Do the math, if that's the only
> >way you can see it- one comes first, the other comes second.
>
> Again, against whom do we retaliate? What nation should we invade
> and/or declare a state of war against to achieve retaliation against
> the acts of a single individual, not in government of that nation, and
> his supporters?
You are being deliberately obtuse.
Again:
>>>We spend billions of dollars a year tracking terrorists and potential
terrorists. We might not know who did Tuesday mornings crime against
humanity, but we know many who cheered and helped and who would do the same
if they could.<<<
> Everyone's entitled to their opinion; I disagree. I tend to think by
> sticking to our ideals and following our own guidelines to bring this
> private individual, and any accessories he may have, to judgement our
> country will seem less like the "big bully" other countries have to
> sneak up on to get their licks in.
Eric, what I'm suggesting *is* within our ideals. We have used nuclear weapons
twice, remember? We have never renounced the use of nuclear weapons, although
that is hardly what I am suggesting we do. We have tremendous military strength,
and it is one of our greatest assets even in this fight against a non-military
threat.
It has to be used intelligently, and it will have to be used without mercy. We
will have to kill people to protect ourselves. Not a nice thought. Not a choice
that I would pick.
But it is NOT our choice. It is theirs.
> >> if bin Laden is responsible, and that can be ascertained 100%, we need
> >> to wait to give Afghanistan the opportunity to extradite him so our
> >> justice system can punish him.
>
> >If that is the way events shake out, I would suggest instead turning him over
> >to The Hague. There will certainly be others to ride along with him, too.
>
> No. Not the World Court. The Superior Court(s) for the State(s) of New
> York, Boston, Pennsylvania and the Superior Court of the District of
> Columbia. While the terrorism and repurcussions of the acts of
> terrorism affect all the US, it is against those jurisdictions the
> specific criminal acts were performed.
Legally, you are probably right.
> >> If they choose not to, well, then... if the "enemy of my enemy is my
> >> friend," then the friend of my enemy must be an enemy, and that
> >> country becomes a legitimate target for war.
>
> >Eric, you (and many others) are missing the entire point: we ALREADY have
> >legitimate targets! There has been a multi-billion dollar counter-terrorist
> >effort going on in this country for years! The Civil Defense Agency has been
> >working to put in place equipment and procedures and training against
> >terrorist attacks for years. The CIA and the NSA have long lists of known
> >terrorists, training camps, supporters, bagmen, etc etc. Right now, they are
> >winning and they will continue to win until we wipe them out.
>
> We have private individuals who are "legitimate targets." Until such
> time as a foreign nationality endorses and legitamizes the acts of
> those private individuals, we do not have a nation at which to direct
> military engagement.
We don't have to direct attacks against a country. We direct our attacks agains
the individuals and their facilities. If the country complains, we balance their
complaint against our own safety. Personally I put a rather high value on my
families lives.
> Another of our ideals: People are allowed to think whatever they like;
> they cannot be punished for their thoughts and ideals. If, however,
> they act upon those thoughts, and that is a criminal activity,
> punishment is then appropriate.
Agreed.
> The CIA and the NSA may very well have "long lists" of persons who
> believe in the ideals of these terrorists, but until they, themselves,
> have committed an act of terrorism, they cannot - nor should they - be
> punished for their beliefs and thoughts.
OK Eric, what's an act of terrorism? Talking about building a bomb? No.
Drawing up plans and gathering materials for building a bomb? Hmm.. probably not.
Building the bomb and making plans for delivering it? Gee whiz, gotta think about
that one.....
How about gathering materials such as biological or nuclear agents which could
*only* be used as a weapon? Gotta think about that one too?
By your rules, thousands more Americans will die in terrorist attacks. They are
out there now. Working on materials and plans for death and destruction, right
now. You say we must wait until after they succeed. I say, I don't want to play
your game of Morality Stoop-Tag, and I seriously hope the leaders of this country
aren't thinking along the same lines.
In fact, there are stupid choices to make at both ends of the spectrum. I hope
that we will act wisely and with resolution. And that specifically does not
include a lot of hand-wringing and crying about imaginary rules, and also
specifically excludes bombing indescriminately among perceived enemies.
> >And if we say to Iraq and North Korea and Afghanistan and any other countries
> >which stand to benefit from a terrorist campaign against America, "Hand over
> >these guys or else;" and we have no credible deterrent, they are going to
> >laugh it off and we will either have to suffer more losses OR kill more
> >widely and more indescriminately.
>
> What country doesn't stand to benefit from a terroist campaign against
> America? Every country on earth stands to gain some benefit through a
> terrorist act against any other country, be that gain financial or
> simply the making of an ally.
Boy, in some ways you are a very cynical guy. But I can see your point. FWIW I
don't think that very many countries at all calculate the gains to be made from
terrorist attack when considering policy & budget. But if you are right, then we
have all the more reason to make terrorism horrendously costly to them.
> >Think it over. Before you claim the moral high ground, think about what the
> >purpose of a system of morals and ethos are for. And remember that
> >holier-than-thou fanatacism is exactly the angle these suicide bombers work
> >from.
>
> "Think about what the purpose of a system of morals and ethos are
> for"? They're for exactly this type situation: to keep in check those
> who would run roughshod over anyone or thing blocking them from their
> ultimate goals.
Umm, no. "those who would run roughshod over anyone or thing blocking them from
their ultimate goals" are generally amoral people, including terrorists. Morals do
not affect them; fear of punishment or the coercion of others affects them.
I'll help you out. The purpose of a system of morals and ethos is to enable a
person or group of people to decide between several alternatives, consistently,
and with the greatest benefit to the person or group.
Cheating on your wife? Bad for the family in several ways. Immoral, in other
words. Robbing your enighbor? Also bad, it impoverishes him and put the rest of
the neighbors in danger of a feud. Refusing to take an available method of
defending your home against a deadly attacker?
Please point out the morality of this, Eric, it has escaped me.
> We have a system in place for dealing with individuals who commit
> crimes. If we don't let that system at least attempt to work in the
> situation, if we simply abandon that process to satisfy a
> bloodlusting, primal need for revenge, can that system ever be fairly
> used against anyone else, ever again?
Eric, it looks to me very much like you have ignored much of what I have said,
misinterpreted yet more, and again here you are attributing to me goals and
attitudes I do not propose. Did I mention anywhere, the word "revenge"?
Anyway the answer to your question is yes. We can wreak vengeance (although I
think that would be a mistake) and then back up, apologize, and bring legal
proceedings against the survivors.
> Our system is not about punishment or retribution. It's about justice.
That's pretty much a contradiction. Justice is punishment of those who deserve it.
I think that retribution fell out of the system somewhere back in Viking times,
but at one time was a sound legal principle.
>
> The thousands of dead make us scream for retribution, our own ideals
> and laws demand we seek justice.
Agreed. Although I think that most of the dead would not particularly want
retribution, they would prefer to see their families and their homes safe from
this evil.
Regards- Doug King
Jeff George
And that's only because of the U.S. support of the Kikes in Israel.
--
=====================================================================
I don't want this anger that's burning in me.
It's something from which it's so hard to be free.
But none of the tears that we cry in sorrow or rage
Can make any difference, or turn back the page.
- David Gilmour
=====================================================================
Jeff George
Robert J. Kolker
Jeff George wrote:
>
> And that's only because of the U.S. support of the Kikes in Israel.
You probably think that what happened Tuesday had anything to
do with Israel. Do you know that OSB has conceived a Jihad
against the U.S. because American troops polluted holy Islamic
soil in Saudi Arabia back during the Gulf war. That is OSB's hard on.
U.S. support for Israel has only an incidental and prudential
relation to OSB's real motivations.
If the U.S. dropped Israel tomorrow, like a hot potatoe, this
nations would still be in mortal danger from Islamic Fundementalist
Crazies.
You delude yourself.
And btw you are an anti-Semite. You probably go to bed
with the book on the U.S.S. Liberty under your pillow.
Bob Kolker
Eric Payne
<dou...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Eric, I cannot figure if you are being deliberately obtuse, but I am going to try
>one last time.
>Eric Payne wrote:
>> There's been no Declaration of War; there's been no foreign government
>> named as an "enemy." No, we're not at war.
>I guess not... if an attack killing thousands is no reason to look up from your
>little book of rules and consider the reality. According to one expert, war is
>hell.
And that comment is germaine because...? Yes, war is hell, of that I
have no doubt at all. And, yes, had the attacks on Tuesday come from a
foreign government, we would be at war. But they didn't. If the FBI's
evidence is to be believed, they were the work of a single man, and
his followers, who are residents of another country, and not
representative of the government of that country. To hold that country
responsible, prior to giving that country the chance to assist in that
resident's arrest and punishment... well, if I were an Afghan
civilian, who had no connection with the man responsible, and suddenly
my home was bombed, my family killed.... in my eyes, the US would be
no better than the people who launched/committed Tuesday's attack, and
the US has just given me reason to despise them, and perhaps be
susceptible to the next round of recruitment by these terrorist cells.
>> >> we have to retaliate...
>> >> we have to answer violence with violence.
>> >That is, unfortunately, correct. We are not going to get rid of terrorists by
>> >handing out parking tickets. The fact that you disapprove of violence does
>> >not affect the nature of this conflict.
>> I never stated I disapproved of violence; it armed response is the
>> last resource, than that response is merited. But not until such time
>> as all other options - especially since the building belief is this is
>> the act of a single private individual rather than a nation - have
>> failed.
>> IOW: If the Justice/State Department(s) formally request of the Afghan
>> government the arrest, and extradition to the United States of Osama
>> bin Laden and his group, and that request is denied, then Afghanistan
>> becomes a legitimate target for war.
>And the bases which are even now training further terrorists and building weapons
>of mass destruction, they are not legitimate targets?
Sorry, but no. If the materials to "build weapons of mass destruction"
are available on the open market, as they are - even in the United
States, we can buy those materials - then how can they be legitimate
targets? How can a gathering of people who share the same ideals, no
matter what those ideals are, be a legitimate target?
Was Timothy McVeigh a criminal when he first thought about revenge for
Ruby Ridge and Waco? Or when he purchased the materials? Perhaps a
case could be made he violated law when he planned it, or when he
stowed the chemicals and fertilizer on the truck... but it'd be a
stretch. He became a criminal when he parked that truck, walked away
from it, and let it blow up.
>As of Monday, I would have agreed. As of now, it appears quite obvious that the
>definition of "legitimate target" may need to be re-evaluated. Apparently you
>think that we can wait for these people to slip along and murder more of us, then
>we can send cops to arrest them.
>> >> Yet we also have an obligation to other, innocent, citizens of the
>> >> countries in which these terrorists have taken refuge not to punish
>> >> them until such time as their governments side with the terrorists
>> >> hiding in their country.
>> >I agree, but our obligation to protect America, and to a tremendous extent,
>> >that means demonstrating our credibility, takes precedence over our
>> >obligation to citizens of other countries. When your house is on fire you get
>> >yourself and your family out. Worrying about others can come next.
>> And, right now, America is being protected as much as possible.
>> Heightened security at airports apparently worked: Suspects were taken
>> off flights; there's been no repeat of Tuesday's carnage. If we let
>> our vigilance down, however, and there is....
>Uh huh. And all bridges are being guarded, as well as subway stations,
>restaurants, schools, etc etc?
I've forgotten who said it, but ever heard the quote: "Vigilance is
the watchword of freedom."? If we're not willing to be vigilant, we're
foregoing our freedom.
>Think.
>You know better. All it takes for a terrorist to succeed is to find one target one
>time that is insufficently guarded. Heightened security can help, but it is not
>the only answer.
>
>Think!
>Israel is a much smaller country (fewer places to guard) with far fewer civil
>liberties (less pesky restrictions on what the guards can do) and a greater per
>capita guard force. They cannot guard themselve well enough; what gives you the
>idea that we can?
And no matter what you do, you cannot 100% safeguard your home. You
can get an alarm system. You can hire a private sedurity guard. If
someone wants in badly enough; they're going to take their chances and
get in.
The use of Israel is a poor analogy; those who've fought Isreal have
done so for a myriad of reasons: religious beliefs, the special
creation of a Jewish state by taking land from others, the expansion
of that state through military force against the former
owners/residents of the land, and "payback" for the use of unwarranted
military force against those who disagree with Israel.
The overwhelming reason the US is despised by so many Arabs is our
far-reaching support for Isreal. Israel sends armed troops into
Palestine and the West Bank, simply to push the people back further
and give Isreal more room... and we don't respond.
Israel instigates a night bombing raid on a location in a nuetral
country out of their belief that location, in that country, is selling
plutonium to Israel's enemies... and outside of a diplomatic "tsk
tsk," we don't respond. In an area of the world where an overriding
belief is still "the friend of my enemy is my enemy," we're surpised
we become a target of the ongoing jihad?
>> Yes, when my house is on fire, I get my family out. But if I think my
>> house was burnt down, intentionally, by a person down the street with
>> whom I've had disagreements in the past, and find credible proof to
>> support that thought, I don't go running down the street and torch his
>> place... and am even more cautions if he's renting that home, as the
>> true owners of the home have absolutely nothing to do with the
>> criminal act, outside of providing him a home.
>
>That's a good analogy, but it falls short of what you are suggesting. By your
>suggestions of what consitutes proper moral behavior, you would have to evaluate
>all occupants of the house in terms of worthiness to be rescued, calculate how
>long before the house burned down and divide that by the number of people to be
>rescued, and start with the highest priority first, after filing a disclaimer of
>liability of course.
And we start firing missiles which, as we discovered during the Gulf
War, have a strong chance of hitting a target other than the target at
which it was aimed, we're somehow prioritizing the collateral damage?
We start sending in armed soldiers who will face the same problem our
soldiers in the Vietnam conflict faced: the inability to tell friend
from foe? Outisde of those that we, and our aliies, would be wearing,
there are no uniforms to differentiate the good guys from the bad
guys.
>> >There is a heirarchy of moral obligations, Eric. The scale of Tuesdays
>> >disaster, this crime against us, rather changes the balance of our
>> >priorities.
>> I disagree.
>Okay, there is no heirarchy of moral obligations. In that case, you should agree
>100% with the following scenario:
>A man rapes your daughter. You begin to chase him.
>A child drops it's lollipop. You stop chasing the rapist to retrieve the lollipop,
>because there is no priority on capturing the rapist.
>Right.
>If there is no heirarchy of moral obligations, why do we impose more severe
>penalties for some crimes than others? I don't think you believe this yourself,
>Eric.
You're correct, and I didn't read your "heirarchy" comment with such a
broad base; I was limiting it to the situation today. Of course there
is a greater moral obligation to bring to justice the perpetrators of
Tuesday's massacre than ther is of, say, bringing to justice someone
who shoplifted on Tuesday.
I interpreted your "heirarchy" statement to mean we are somehow
morally obligated to respond, in kind, to the terrorist acts of
Tuesday, rather than attempt any other means of obtaining justice. My
mistake.
It's not a straw man arguement. If we're willing to declare war on a
nation because of the criminal acts of one man in that nation, we'd
best be prepared to wage war on that nation's neighbors, who would
have legitimate reason to wonder if "they were next," and might, then,
make their own pre-emptive moves, or ally themselves, against us.
Would China declare war on the US alone? Would Pakistan? Or India?
Probably not; but if the four nations joined in a common cause -
namely the invasion by the United States of a sovereign nation - that
risk should simply be ignored in order to effect, as you put it,
"retribution"?
>> >It's apalling that you, and many others, seem to think that a namby-pamby
>> >holier-than-thou morality play is the answer, and that anyone who disagrees
>> >is a "kick butt and take names later" moron.
>> It's apalling that you, and many others, seem to think a
>> we-have-to-show-how-strong-we-are-through-weapons is the answer, and
>> that anyone who disagrees should simply be dismissed.
>I'm not dismissing you, am I? It appears to me that I am attempting to discuss the
>issue.
>Although I think this will probably be my last post on this subject, I would like
>to explain my views and see some sort of intelligent explanation of your views.
>Instead you are making preposterous statements.
One paragraph above, you state: "I'm not dismissing you, am I?" Then
you claim I'm making "preposterous statements." Sure seems like a
dismissal of my ideas to me. I'd thought I'd been careful in backing
up what I've stated with both legal and personal belief explanations.
>> When weapons
>> become involved, the ultimate question becomes not one of "right and
>> wrong," but of who's the better shot, or who has the largest "posse"
>> backing them up.
>It would be great if we could get this conflict onto that basis. We would win
>easily. But we can't. That is part of what makes it so dangerous.
We would? Are you certain? That was the prevailing though in the
Vietnam conflict. Didn't turn out to be true, though, did it?
>However, the idea of an absolute "right" and "wrong." is silly. In some societies,
>it has been "right" for the gov't official performing marriages to have sex with
>the bride before her husband could.
And if that's "right" within the framework of that society, it's
right. We have absolutely no business saying otherwise; we especially
have no business to force them to change that "right."
>I believe there are very good ideas constituting "right" behaviour, but other
>people have different ideas. Within certain limits, we have to get along anyway.
>> >However, that is not what I was advocating.
>> >Here is a direct quote from my post of yesterday, which you apparently either
>> >didn't read or did not grasp:
>> >>>We spend billions of dollars a year tracking terrorists and potential
>> >terrorists. We might not know who did Tuesday mornings crime against
>> >humanity, but we know many who cheered and helped and who would do the same
>> >if they could. We *should* have already taken them OUT!<<
>> We should have already ignored foreign sovereignty and invaded those
>> nations to accomplish our own ends? And the country against whom we've
>> perpetrated this invasion would not consider that an Act of War
>> because.....?
>We've done this in the past. The countries aainst whom we have carried out these
>acts were already our enemies covertly, and were using terrorists to attack us
>because they could not attack us militarily.
And when we've done it in the past, we've always failed either
outright, or in the Court of public opinion. Nixon and Allende. Carter
and the Ayatollah. Reagan and Qadafi. The CIA and Castro. Not to
mention Noriega. Failurers, all; ultimately costing us even more
American lives and a sullying of our reputation in the eyes of the
world. With Noriega, we finally ended up waiting for him to come to
us.
>I believe it is more or less the same situation now, except that we have
>tremendously greater justification and tremendously greater urgency.
Why? The damage done is not going to be forgotten in six weeks.. or
six months... or six years. If it is, all anyone would have to do is
re-broadcast the video of the events, and the damage done to the
nation, to the people, is right there again. We have a small window of
opportunity to achieve our goals of justice without risking the lives
of more innocents, both American and Afghan. Shouldn't that be the
over-riding consideration, rather than to rush in, guns blazing? Do we
want justice... or do we simply want to add to the body count?
>> >More terrorists are being arrested in airports RIGHT NOW under increased
>> >security measures. It's quite possible that we will see a wave of car
>> >bombings, a release of biological weapons, maybe even a nuke. It's not over,
>> >and without intelligent, decisive leadership, it will NEVER be over!
>> Threats are never over. Hell, there's still the threat the ideals of
>> Nazism can rise again. Look long and hard enough, and you may still
>> find a British resident or two who believe the colonies should be
>> reclaimed, by force if necessary.
>> But if people are being arrested at airports, with the airports
>> following security measures to the letter, then those persons no
>> longer pose a threat, do they? The ideals they espouse may be a
>> threat, but there will always be someone else who follows those
>> ideals.
>Uh huh. Especially if there are still leaders and organizer out there, gathering
>up money and materials, seducing potential attackers and glorifying the terrorists
>of this past attack as "brave martyrs," and working hard to bring us tragic news
>on some future date.
So find all the American separatists - residents of this country - and
imprison them for their beliefs? They may be seducing potential
attackers - even more American citizens - and glorifying the outcomes
of Ruby Ridge, Waco and Oklahoma City as "brave martyrs."
In this country, though, we do not, have not, and have expressly bound
ourselves to never have thought and/or association with those of
similar beliefs a crime. If, under American law, it's not a crime for
our citizenry, we can't hold it as a crime against foreigners, no
matter how potentially damaging their beliefs can be. Until potential
becomes reality; there's no offense.
>They are the ones we have to go after. They are the ones we have to convince to
>give up. If we can't, we have to kill them. Kind of unfair, but otherwise we're
>the dead ones. Does that violate your moral code? It is the reality of the
>situation.
That's your reality; you choose to be in a "dog eats dog" mindset. I
choose not to be (and again I repeat) until such time as there is no
other choice but to embrace that mindset in order to gain justice.
>By your logic, the attackers of Tuesday morning are all dead, so there's no way we
>can punish them. Let's just call it even Steven, right?
I have never made that assertion. I've continuously stated we should
utilize our system of justice and request of Afghanistan the arrest
and extradition of Osama bin Laden, when the evidence overwhelmingly
shows he is responsible for Tuesday's acts. If Afghanistan chooses not
to accede to that request, then that refusal becomes a legitimate act
of war against the nation and people of Afghanistan.
>> >> There is understandable hatred right now. There's shock. There's the
>> >> overwhelming need to inflict pain, just as pain has been inflicted.
>> >> But to do so makes us no different from those who perpetrated this
>> >> act, and in many ways makes us worse, as we have a system of checks
>> >> and balances we - frequently! - hold up to the world as the standards
>> >> by which they should also govern.
>> >Malarkey. No difference between attack and retaliation? I don't believe that
>> >at bit, and I suspect that you don't either. Do the math, if that's the only
>> >way you can see it- one comes first, the other comes second.
There would be no difference between the attack of, and the
retaliation against, Osama bin Laden. There is a difference, though,
in equating the citizens of Afghanistan with bin Laden and they're
being caught in the crosshairs of our retaliatory strikes.
>> Again, against whom do we retaliate? What nation should we invade
>> and/or declare a state of war against to achieve retaliation against
>> the acts of a single individual, not in government of that nation, and
>> his supporters?
>You are being deliberately obtuse.
But not simply dismissing me, and others who share my beliefs, huh?
To be honest, I feel you're the obtuse one here.
1. Osama bin Laden is conclusively shown to be the ultimate
perpetrator of Tuesday's attacks against the US; and
2. Osama bin Laden is not a ruler, king, president, or head in any way
of any foreign government; and
3. Osama bin Laden is currently residing in the nation of Afghanistan;
and
4. Afghanistan has not been formally requested to arrest and extradite
bin Laden to stand trial for the crimes of which he is accused; then
5. There is no reason to go to war against Afghanistan. But, if;
6. Afghanistan is formally requested to surrender bin Laden and
refuses to do so; then
7. Afghanistan has now committed an act of war against the United
States, and becomes a legitimate target for such warfare.
That's what I've stated, continuously. That's what I've used to
counter your arguements, continuously. There's been no addition to,
deletion of, or re-wording of any of those 7 statements.
We war against nations; individuals are subject to justice. Until such
time Afghanistan formally chooses to side with bin Laden, bin Laden is
not representative of any nation against which we could go to war.
In the 1980s, the American government declared a "war on drugs." Since
that time, illegal drugs have probably been responsible for at least
double - and maybe even treble - the number of deaths of Tuesday's
attacks.
Yet, as much as many Americans would have liked to, we didn't sent
armed forces into Columbia or Nicarauga. We worked with those
governments to rid their countries of those individuals who were the
actual targets; we then had those individuals stand trial in a United
States Court of Law. In that court, they were accorded all the rights
and obligations of any American citizen facing criminal charges in an
American court.
That's the way we do it.
>Again:
>>>>We spend billions of dollars a year tracking terrorists and potential
>terrorists. We might not know who did Tuesday mornings crime against
>humanity, but we know many who cheered and helped and who would do the same
>if they could.<<<
>> Everyone's entitled to their opinion; I disagree. I tend to think by
>> sticking to our ideals and following our own guidelines to bring this
>> private individual, and any accessories he may have, to judgement our
>> country will seem less like the "big bully" other countries have to
>> sneak up on to get their licks in.
>Eric, what I'm suggesting *is* within our ideals. We have used nuclear weapons
>twice, remember? We have never renounced the use of nuclear weapons, although
>that is hardly what I am suggesting we do. We have tremendous military strength,
>and it is one of our greatest assets even in this fight against a non-military
>threat.
Now there's something scary. A single rifle has yet to be raised; a
single American soldier has yet to set foot on "enemy territory." And
already the defense of using nuclear weapons is being drafted.
>It has to be used intelligently, and it will have to be used without mercy. We
>will have to kill people to protect ourselves. Not a nice thought. Not a choice
>that I would pick.
>But it is NOT our choice. It is theirs.
That's right. It is. So before we raise a rifle, or send in the
troops, we gather our evidence, present it to Afghanistan, and GIVE
THEM THE CHOICE of turning bin Laden over to American authorities to
stand trial for his crimes.
>> >> if bin Laden is responsible, and that can be ascertained 100%, we need
>> >> to wait to give Afghanistan the opportunity to extradite him so our
>> >> justice system can punish him.
>> >If that is the way events shake out, I would suggest instead turning him over
>> >to The Hague. There will certainly be others to ride along with him, too.
>> No. Not the World Court. The Superior Court(s) for the State(s) of New
>> York, Boston, Pennsylvania and the Superior Court of the District of
>> Columbia. While the terrorism and repurcussions of the acts of
>> terrorism affect all the US, it is against those jurisdictions the
>> specific criminal acts were performed.
>Legally, you are probably right.
Not to mention the federal charges that would be forthcoming. Plus,
I'd be surprised if there weren't charges (crimes against humanity)
that ultimately put bin Laden before the World Court. But, firstly,
justice comes to the people of New York and Washington and Boston.
>> >> If they choose not to, well, then... if the "enemy of my enemy is my
>> >> friend," then the friend of my enemy must be an enemy, and that
>> >> country becomes a legitimate target for war.
>> >Eric, you (and many others) are missing the entire point: we ALREADY have
>> >legitimate targets! There has been a multi-billion dollar counter-terrorist
>> >effort going on in this country for years! The Civil Defense Agency has been
>> >working to put in place equipment and procedures and training against
>> >terrorist attacks for years. The CIA and the NSA have long lists of known
>> >terrorists, training camps, supporters, bagmen, etc etc. Right now, they are
>> >winning and they will continue to win until we wipe them out.
>> We have private individuals who are "legitimate targets." Until such
>> time as a foreign nationality endorses and legitamizes the acts of
>> those private individuals, we do not have a nation at which to direct
>> military engagement.
>We don't have to direct attacks against a country. We direct our attacks agains
>the individuals and their facilities. If the country complains, we balance their
>complaint against our own safety. Personally I put a rather high value on my
>families lives.
If a sovereign nation complains about an armed invasion of their
country, our values take higher precedent than theirs over their own
country? If we're going to take that road, we've got to be willing to
live with what will happen when others start seeing that road as a
two-way street.
>> Another of our ideals: People are allowed to think whatever they like;
>> they cannot be punished for their thoughts and ideals. If, however,
>> they act upon those thoughts, and that is a criminal activity,
>> punishment is then appropriate.
>Agreed.
>> The CIA and the NSA may very well have "long lists" of persons who
>> believe in the ideals of these terrorists, but until they, themselves,
>> have committed an act of terrorism, they cannot - nor should they - be
>> punished for their beliefs and thoughts.
>
>OK Eric, what's an act of terrorism? Talking about building a bomb? No.
Actually, talking about building a bomb and using it - especially if
the talk is concerning using it solely against residents of a single
nation, or a single race, or any group of people who share a
singularity - is hate speech, and is a crime in many states. I don't
know if it is or not in the states on which damages and criminal acts
were directly inflicted or not, but it is here in California.
>Drawing up plans and gathering materials for building a bomb? Hmm.. probably not.
No, drawing up plans and gathering materials - if purchased
legitimately - for building a bomb is not illegal.
>Building the bomb and making plans for delivering it? Gee whiz, gotta think about
>that one.....
Again, not a crime. Thought cannot be a crime, only action.
>How about gathering materials such as biological or nuclear agents which could
>*only* be used as a weapon? Gotta think about that one too?
Are they available via legitimate channels? Then it's not a crime to
purchase them. If they're stolen, or available only on the "black
market," then, yes, it is a crime.
In the 1880s, nitroglycerin could "only" be used as a tool of
destruction: a component of dynamite. But through someone's
experimentation and refinement, it's now a strong medicinal tool in
the treatment of cardiac disease.
It's extremely rare that any material can "only" be used for a single
purpose.
>By your rules, thousands more Americans will die in terrorist attacks. They are
>out there now. Working on materials and plans for death and destruction, right
>now. You say we must wait until after they succeed. I say, I don't want to play
>your game of Morality Stoop-Tag, and I seriously hope the leaders of this country
>aren't thinking along the same lines.
And I don't want to play a game of "We're the Big, Bad, United States,
and we know what you're thinking about doing, so we're going to stop
you now, before you do anything." Or -even worse - "We're the Big, Bad
United States and we know YOU didn't do anything, but someone who
lives here with you did, so you're all going to be targets of war."
Again, "vigilance is the watchword of freedom." If we're not going to
be vigilant, we're going to lose our freedom.
And it's now coming out we weren't vigilant. Six of the 18 suspected
hijacker/terrorists were on INS "watch" lists, under the names they
were using on their passports. None of the six were being watched,
even though our government believed there was more than enough reason
to keep our eyes on them, and had ordered such a watch to be in place
if they ever entered the country.
That, in no way, lessens the responsibility of the terrorists for
their criminal acts upon the people of this nation, but it does
reinforce we need to be aware, to be truly free.
>In fact, there are stupid choices to make at both ends of the spectrum. I hope
>that we will act wisely and with resolution. And that specifically does not
>include a lot of hand-wringing and crying about imaginary rules, and also
>specifically excludes bombing indescriminately among perceived enemies.
>> >And if we say to Iraq and North Korea and Afghanistan and any other countries
>> >which stand to benefit from a terrorist campaign against America, "Hand over
>> >these guys or else;" and we have no credible deterrent, they are going to
>> >laugh it off and we will either have to suffer more losses OR kill more
>> >widely and more indescriminately.
>> What country doesn't stand to benefit from a terroist campaign against
>> America? Every country on earth stands to gain some benefit through a
>> terrorist act against any other country, be that gain financial or
>> simply the making of an ally.
>Boy, in some ways you are a very cynical guy. But I can see your point. FWIW I
>don't think that very many countries at all calculate the gains to be made from
>terrorist attack when considering policy & budget. But if you are right, then we
>have all the more reason to make terrorism horrendously costly to them.
Of course no country does; but where does the line get drawn on your
definition of "countries which stand to benefit from a terrorist
campaign..."? Just as, as I've pointed out, every country involved in
world politics somehow benefits from a terrorist attack, the reverse
is also true: Every country in the world is damaged by a terrorist
attack, be it financially, or the loss of countries thought to be
allies.
The only way to make terrorism "horrendously costly to" terrorists is
to bring those individuals to justice, as individuals. If Afghanistan
were fired upon before being given the chance to offer bin Laden, the
terrorists are not harmed. Odds are, they'd simply pack up and go
someplace else, leaving the government of the country in which they
hid from justice footing the "horrendously costly" bill of the
terrorists' activities.
>> >Think it over. Before you claim the moral high ground, think about what the
>> >purpose of a system of morals and ethos are for. And remember that
>> >holier-than-thou fanatacism is exactly the angle these suicide bombers work
>> >from.
>> "Think about what the purpose of a system of morals and ethos are
>> for"? They're for exactly this type situation: to keep in check those
>> who would run roughshod over anyone or thing blocking them from their
>> ultimate goals.
>Umm, no. "those who would run roughshod over anyone or thing blocking them from
>their ultimate goals" are generally amoral people, including terrorists. Morals do
>not affect them; fear of punishment or the coercion of others affects them.
Bingo. So... if we run roughshod over the government and people of
Afghanistan in order to obtain retribution against Osama bin Laden,
are we showing fear of punishment or fear of coercion? Are we showing
morals and ethics in violating a foreign state, and its people, to
obtain justice over the acts of a single individual simply using their
state as a hide-out?
>I'll help you out. The purpose of a system of morals and ethos is to enable a
>person or group of people to decide between several alternatives, consistently,
>and with the greatest benefit to the person or group.
Oh... then you're saying our first course of action should be to ask
Afghanistan to arrest and deport bin Laden to stand trial, as that
less violent alternative can't help but be the greatest benefit to the
peson or group, rather than war. I'm sorry, I thought you had been
saying exactly the opposite.
Or is war somehow the alternative with the greatest benefit because we
would be allowed some small degree of death and destruction as that
perpetrated against us?
>Cheating on your wife? Bad for the family in several ways. Immoral, in other
>words. Robbing your enighbor? Also bad, it impoverishes him and put the rest of
>the neighbors in danger of a feud. Refusing to take an available method of
>defending your home against a deadly attacker?
>
>Please point out the morality of this, Eric, it has escaped me.
Cheating on your wife? Get caught; get divorced and possibly all your
material possessions and complete ostracization by your family.
Robbing your neighbor? Get caught; find yourself brought up on
breaking and entering charges, as well as other charges, go to prison,
and risk complete ostracization by society.
"Refusing to take an available method of defending your home against a
deadly attacker?"
No one's saying that. I've been saying how I feel those who've already
attacked and made their exit should be brought to justice.
You've been refuting that with methods of defending your home against
a POSSIBLE deadly attacker.
You can fortify your home. You can get alarms. You can get watchmen.
You can teach family members the absolute neccessity to adhere to
those security measures in place.
What you can't do is punish someone based on your interpretation of
his activities making him a POSSIBLE deadly attacker.
If your home security measures fail, and you are attacked, you do
everything you can to ensure the attacker be brought to justice, and
increase your home security to compensate for whatever lack of
security existed which the new attacker used against you
>> We have a system in place for dealing with individuals who commit
>> crimes. If we don't let that system at least attempt to work in the
>> situation, if we simply abandon that process to satisfy a
>> bloodlusting, primal need for revenge, can that system ever be fairly
>> used against anyone else, ever again?
>
>Eric, it looks to me very much like you have ignored much of what I have said,
>misinterpreted yet more, and again here you are attributing to me goals and
>attitudes I do not propose. Did I mention anywhere, the word "revenge"?
I've done nothing of the kind. You have one outlook; I have another.
And, no, the word you used is "retribution." Which is defined as
"punishment justly deserved." Yet, in your quest for retribution, you
would willingly wage war against the people of Afghanistan - or of any
foreign country in which you believed there existed people who posed
some future potential harm on the same scale.
Punishing the people of Afghanistan is not "retribution." Punishing
the citizens of other foreign countries based on the perception of
possible future atrocities is not retribution, either.
It's invasion of a sovereign foreign nation by another nation. If such
a nation - a nation, now... not an individual who resides in that
nation - were to invade the shores of the United States, it would be
an act of war. Yet, because we've been the latest targets, and we've
had no experience dealing with this type of criminality, you would
have us willingly commit an act of war against people, currently
innocent, rather than allow those people the opportunity to deliver
that criminal to us.
>Anyway the answer to your question is yes. We can wreak vengeance (although I
>think that would be a mistake) and then back up, apologize, and bring legal
>proceedings against the survivors.
And make war reparations to the people of the nation we invaded? Give
them money and apologize for the deaths of their families and the
destruction of their property? Or, when we have bin Laden, do we
simply pull out, leaving the people to their own means for rebuilding
their homes, their families, their country and their lives?
>> Our system is not about punishment or retribution. It's about justice.
>That's pretty much a contradiction. Justice is punishment of those who deserve it.
>I think that retribution fell out of the system somewhere back in Viking times,
>but at one time was a sound legal principle.
At one time, it was a sound legal principle to throw women into a
lake; if they floated to the surface, they were dragged from the water
and stoned to death, if not burnt at the stake, for being a witch, the
proof being the water refused to embrace them.
A woman accused of withcraft had to drown to prove she wasn't a
practitioner of witchcraft. Legal principles change.
Justice is a constant. An individual is tried for his crimes; a nation
becomes a legitimate war target for theirs.
>> The thousands of dead make us scream for retribution, our own ideals
>> and laws demand we seek justice.
>
>Agreed. Although I think that most of the dead would not particularly want
>retribution, they would prefer to see their families and their homes safe from
>this evil.
If this evil makes us abandon, in any way, those principles and ideals
we have in place concerning justice and punishment....
If this evil makes us rethink, in any way, and act contrary to the
basic tenants on which this country was founded...
Then this evil has succeeded, and America has been destroyed.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
JEFF LOKKERHEIM
>are available on the open market, as they are - even in the United
>States, we can buy those materials
the cult of the dead cow's web page bolsters such propaganda.
take heed, a few months ago the u.s. govt, backed out on the "gun buy
back" program.
look at the numbers now....people are back to buying them again. in
record numbers.
not that i would be buying or producing such items, but can!
P.S. this is what part of the alphabet would look like, if Q and R were eliminated.
Eric Payne
concerning the differences between an immediate armed response to
Osama bin Laden's act of terrorism, and holding off such a response
until the government and people of Afghanistan have had the
opportunity to peacefully surrender the man to the United States for
punishment. I'd like to thank Doug for helping to maintain the
civility of that discussion; on either side, it would have been very
easy to give into acrimony.
Apparently, according to this morning's news, the possibility of any
diplomatic resolution is now exhausted. The ruling Taliban of
Afghanistan has told its people to be prepared to defend their faith
against an invasion by the United States, and warned that countries
which assist the United States in their military efforts, will "see
their borders invaded." A very subtle threat attacks of Tuesday's
nature against the US will be committed against those countries, as
well.
The chances for a peaceful resolution have, seemingly, evaporated. We
have no choice but an armed incursion. My thoughts and prayers will be
with every American and American-allied man and woman called to this
battle.
My best to all,
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
Eric Payne
<bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
>Eric Payne wrote:
>
>> The chances for a peaceful resolution have, seemingly, evaporated. We
>> have no choice but an armed incursion. My thoughts and prayers will be
>> with every American and American-allied man and woman called to this
>> battle.
>
>Yes indeed. Your tax dollars and mine at work. At last I will be
>getting my money's worth. I wish I were 40 years younger. I
>would love to do some applied killing. Alas, all I can do is
>donate blood and cheer, which is not much.
Does your family know of your willingness to kill? How about the women
in your neighborhood? The police? Your doctor?
With each subsequent posting you've made, you've degerated from
discussion to racism (and contrary to what you may think, if you're
going to state being Jewish makes you of a different race, then the
opposite applies: If someone's Muslim, they're also of a different
race), and now are salivating at the though of a pool of blood in
which you can roll.
In eight years, there've been only two people I've ever kill-filtered,
who remained kill-filtered, on this newsgroup. You're number three.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
Eric Payne
<bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
>Eric Payne wrote:
>
>> The chances for a peaceful resolution have, seemingly, evaporated. We
>> have no choice but an armed incursion. My thoughts and prayers will be
>> with every American and American-allied man and woman called to this
>> battle.
>
>Yes indeed. Your tax dollars and mine at work. At last I will be
>getting my money's worth. I wish I were 40 years younger. I
>would love to do some applied killing. Alas, all I can do is
>donate blood and cheer, which is not much.
Does your family know of your willingness to kill? How about the women
in your neighborhood? The police? Your doctor?
With each subsequent posting you've made, you've degenerated from
discussion to racism (and contrary to what your opinion, if you're
going to state being Jewish makes you of a different race, then the
opposite applies: If someone's Muslim, they're also of a different
race), and now are salivating at the thought of a pool of blood in
which you can roll.
In eight years, there've been only two people I've kill-filtered, who
remained kill-filtered, on this newsgroup. You're number three.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
Damn, I miss Bill Walden.
dale stevens
when the attack against Afghanistan will occur. Many American military
sources even seem to be providing tidbits of information to them. But, do
you honestly think anyone in a position to really know would reveal what
they know?
Whatever will happen will be completely unexpected, at an unexpected time
and place, perhaps a country thousands of miles away from Afghanistan.
Remember the Gulf War? We kept several battallions of Marines on ships
offshore of Kuwait City, ready to storm ashore. This kept large numbers
of Iraqi troops tied down while the real attack was several hundred miles
away.
It would not surprise me to see the first strike occur in Iraq, Iran,
Libya or even Italy.
Dale
Eric Payne wrote:
<lots of stuff snipped>
Robert J. Kolker
Eric Payne wrote:
> The chances for a peaceful resolution have, seemingly, evaporated. We
> have no choice but an armed incursion. My thoughts and prayers will be
> with every American and American-allied man and woman called to this
> battle.
Yes indeed. Your tax dollars and mine at work. At last I will be
getting my money's worth. I wish I were 40 years younger. I
would love to do some applied killing. Alas, all I can do is
donate blood and cheer, which is not much.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Eric Payne wrote:
>
> Does your family know of your willingness to kill? How about the women
> in your neighborhood? The police? Your doctor?
Killing the enemy of our country is not only legal, it is laudible.
They gave Audey Murphy a Congressional Medal of Honor for that.
Killing is GOOD, if the right person is killed.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Eric Payne wrote:
> opposite applies: If someone's Muslim, they're also of a different
> race), and now are salivating at the thought of a pool of blood in
> which you can roll.
Puhleeeeeze. Will you cut the race shit. There is no Moslem Race.
Al Islam is a religion and a set of values. All sorts of people adhere
to it. Tall ones, short ones, dark ones, light ones, blue eyed ones,
brown eyed ones.
Race pertains to genetically inherited chacteristics such as skin
color, eye color, hair color, facial features, succeptability to
certain diseases etc etc etc.
Bob Kolker
Bill_Leary
news:6c17qtc5g3ihja1q5...@4ax.com...
> Apparently, according to this morning's news, the possibility of any
> diplomatic resolution is now exhausted. The ruling Taliban of
> Afghanistan has told its people to be prepared to defend their faith
> against an invasion by the United States, and warned that countries
> which assist the United States in their military efforts, will "see
> their borders invaded." A very subtle threat attacks of Tuesday's
> nature against the US will be committed against those countries, as
> well.
I've been hearing two versions of this. The "short version" is pretty much
exactly as you say. The "long version" has phrases similar to "...without
proof he's responsible..." or "...without positive proof..." in it. That
is, the longer version seems to say that if we come to get him WITHOUT
proof, they'll get nasty. It doesn't say how they'll respond if we HAVE
proof.
Of course, since we're ALL hearing this Nth hand, it's hard to say exactly
what they said or meant.
The short version wouldn't surprise me. There being no proof they'd
believe, in the longer version, wouldn't either. The only thing that
actually would surprise me would be if we get the proof, and they say, "Ah,
yes. Well here he is."
- Bill
Douglas King
very long an unweildy and I have many other things to attend to. Her is the best
answers I can give at the moment.
> DSK
> >I guess not... if an attack killing thousands is no reason to look up from your
> >little book of rules and consider the reality. According to one expert, war is
> >hell.
>
> Eric Payne wrote:
> And that comment is germaine because...? Yes, war is hell, of that I
> have no doubt at all. And, yes, had the attacks on Tuesday come from a
> foreign government, we would be at war. But they didn't.
Well, there are several foreign gov'ts that benefit, and several who contributed to the
attack. Others are working to carry out more.
BTW neither Viet Nam nor Korea were "declared wars" and neither were officially waged
against a foreign gov't.
> If the FBI's
> evidence is to be believed, they were the work of a single man, and
> his followers, who are residents of another country, and not
> representative of the government of that country. To hold that country
> responsible, prior to giving that country the chance to assist in that
> resident's arrest and punishment... well, if I were an Afghan
> civilian, who had no connection with the man responsible, and suddenly
> my home was bombed, my family killed.... in my eyes, the US would be
> no better than the people who launched/committed Tuesday's attack, and
> the US has just given me reason to despise them, and perhaps be
> susceptible to the next round of recruitment by these terrorist cells.
Eric, did you read Binnacle's post of this morning titled 'Food for Thought'? I think
it accurately sums up what we are up against. We are up against a diffuse group of
irrational fanatics who have nothing to lose and a number of logistic and tactical and
psychological advantages.
We have little enough advantages, but to insist on sticking to a trite and unrealistic
moral code is merely to condemn thousands more Ameicans to death. IMHO it will also
ensure our cause is lost.
> DSK
> >> >That is, unfortunately, correct. We are not going to get rid of terrorists by
> >> >handing out parking tickets. The fact that you disapprove of violence does
> >> >not affect the nature of this conflict.
>
> EP
> >> I never stated I disapproved of violence; it armed response is the
> >> last resource, than that response is merited. But not until such time
> >> as all other options - especially since the building belief is this is
> >> the act of a single private individual rather than a nation - have
> >> failed.
>
> >> IOW: If the Justice/State Department(s) formally request of the Afghan
> >> government the arrest, and extradition to the United States of Osama
> >> bin Laden and his group, and that request is denied, then Afghanistan
> >> becomes a legitimate target for war.
Well, that's pretty much happened.
And Afghanistan is still not our target. The terrorists are our target. The Afghani
people are victims of their own "government" just as the Iraqi people are. Killing
amssive numbers of them won't accomplish much, in fact their "governments" would
proabably laugh and thank us saving them the trouble.
>
> DSK
> >And the bases which are even now training further terrorists and building weapons
> >of mass destruction, they are not legitimate targets?
>
> EP
> Sorry, but no. If the materials to "build weapons of mass destruction"
> are available on the open market, as they are - even in the United
> States, we can buy those materials - then how can they be legitimate
> targets?
Excuse me, but when was the last time you saw fissionable plutonium on the mark-down
rack at Wal-Mart? How about aerosol-dispersible anthrax spores?
I suppose it depends on how you define "weapons of mass destruction" and
open market." Certainly one cannot openly buy heavy-caliber automatic weapons, nor
materials for nuclear or biological weapons. One can buy components of a truck bomb,
but even that involves some deceit.
> How can a gathering of people who share the same ideals, no
> matter what those ideals are, be a legitimate target?
>
> Was Timothy McVeigh a criminal when he first thought about revenge for
> Ruby Ridge and Waco? Or when he purchased the materials? Perhaps a
> case could be made he violated law when he planned it, or when he
> stowed the chemicals and fertilizer on the truck... but it'd be a
> stretch. He became a criminal when he parked that truck, walked away
> from it, and let it blow up.
Eric, we'll just have to disagree here. On Tuesday morning, as of 8am, I would have
agreed with you. However, the basis of my point here is that our moral imperatives
*must* change or we are simply committing mass suicide. And where is the morality in
that?
AFAIK, no moral code ever demanded that a man sheepishly cut his own throat, and his
families throats, instead of risk offending a deadly attacker.
Onward......
> DSK-
> >> >> Yet we also have an obligation to other, innocent, citizens of the
> >> >> countries in which these terrorists have taken refuge not to punish
> >> >> them until such time as their governments side with the terrorists
> >> >> hiding in their country.
>
> EP
> >> >I agree, but our obligation to protect America, and to a tremendous extent,
> >> >that means demonstrating our credibility, takes precedence over our
> >> >obligation to citizens of other countries. When your house is on fire you get
> >> >yourself and your family out. Worrying about others can come next.
>
> >> And, right now, America is being protected as much as possible.
> >> Heightened security at airports apparently worked: Suspects were taken
> >> off flights; there's been no repeat of Tuesday's carnage. If we let
> >> our vigilance down, however, and there is....
>
> DSK
> >Uh huh. And all bridges are being guarded, as well as subway stations,
> >restaurants, schools, etc etc?
>
> EP
> I've forgotten who said it, but ever heard the quote: "Vigilance is
> the watchword of freedom."? If we're not willing to be vigilant, we're
> foregoing our freedom.
Eric, I agree with this wholeheartedly. I was trying to be vigilant on not only this
but a number of issues for a long time.
Vigilance will not eliminate the danger. Vigilance can increase our safety, but no
amount will guarantee our safety. And it will not even make a dent in eliminating our
enemy.
And to quote our President, let there be no mistake. We must eliminate this enemy. His
goal is to destroy this country, or at the very least to twist our way of life out of
all recognition. Being merely vigilant is to concede that all initiative is his. To not
use our great strength against him is stupid.
I do not agree that a valid code of morals requires stupidity.
>
> DSK
> >Think.
>
> >You know better. All it takes for a terrorist to succeed is to find one target one
> >time that is insufficently guarded. Heightened security can help, but it is not
> >the only answer.
> >
> >Think!
>
> >Israel is a much smaller country (fewer places to guard) with far fewer civil
> >liberties (less pesky restrictions on what the guards can do) and a greater per
> >capita guard force. They cannot guard themselve well enough; what gives you the
> >idea that we can?
> EP
> And no matter what you do, you cannot 100% safeguard your home. You
> can get an alarm system. You can hire a private sedurity guard. If
> someone wants in badly enough; they're going to take their chances and
> get in.
So let's give up, right?
> EP
> The use of Israel is a poor analogy; those who've fought Isreal have
> done so for a myriad of reasons: religious beliefs, the special
> creation of a Jewish state by taking land from others, the expansion
> of that state through military force against the former
> owners/residents of the land, and "payback" for the use of unwarranted
> military force against those who disagree with Israel.
>
> The overwhelming reason the US is despised by so many Arabs is our
> far-reaching support for Isreal. Israel sends armed troops into
> Palestine and the West Bank, simply to push the people back further
> and give Isreal more room... and we don't respond.
That's not entirely accurate. We do respond, but we don't really have much leverage
against Israel. We can only withdraw support, which would be taking a gamble that
Israel would vanish in a puff of smoke.
I deplore Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. I cannot believe that a people who
had suffered the Holocaust, within living memory of many of their citizens and leaders,
would do some of the things they have done. But that does not mean that Israel deserve
extermination, which is the Palestinian (and much of the Arab worlds) goal.
> Israel instigates a night bombing raid on a location in a nuetral
> country out of their belief that location, in that country, is selling
> plutonium to Israel's enemies... and outside of a diplomatic "tsk
> tsk," we don't respond.
Shucks, if I had a neighbor who was trying to kill me, I'd damn sure take the same
actions.
> In an area of the world where an overriding
> belief is still "the friend of my enemy is my enemy," we're surpised
> we become a target of the ongoing jihad?
It's an overriding belief because it has served well as a guideline (a moral ethos, if
you like) since caveman times.
And no, I am not surprised that we are the target of a jihad, and I don't think that
the Joint Chiefs of Staff are surprised.
> EP
> >> Yes, when my house is on fire, I get my family out. But if I think my
> >> house was burnt down, intentionally, by a person down the street with
> >> whom I've had disagreements in the past, and find credible proof to
> >> support that thought, I don't go running down the street and torch his
> >> place... and am even more cautions if he's renting that home, as the
> >> true owners of the home have absolutely nothing to do with the
> >> criminal act, outside of providing him a home.
>
> DSK
> >That's a good analogy, but it falls short of what you are suggesting. By your
> >suggestions of what consitutes proper moral behavior, you would have to evaluate
> >all occupants of the house in terms of worthiness to be rescued, calculate how
> >long before the house burned down and divide that by the number of people to be
> >rescued, and start with the highest priority first, after filing a disclaimer of
> >liability of course.
>
> And we start firing missiles which, as we discovered during the Gulf
> War, have a strong chance of hitting a target other than the target at
> which it was aimed, we're somehow prioritizing the collateral damage?
All we can do is our best.
I firmly believe that we should minimize collateral damage, that we have a moral
obligation to not hurt anybody we don't have to; but I also believe even more firmly
that squeamishness about inflicting potential collateral damage should not stay our
hand from using what few strengths we have. We must destroy this enemy or he will
destroy us. There is, unfortunately, no third alternative.
>
>
> We start sending in armed soldiers who will face the same problem our
> soldiers in the Vietnam conflict faced: the inability to tell friend
> from foe? Outisde of those that we, and our aliies, would be wearing,
> there are no uniforms to differentiate the good guys from the bad
> guys.
Proabably yes. I hope that the Joint Chiefs are not contemplating a long-term
involvement of ground troops in Afghanistan. The whole country is a death trap. No
outside power has ever (and I mean from Alexander the Great on up through Queen
Victoria's British Empire and the Soviet Union) succeeded in Afghanistan.
> DSK
> >> >There is a heirarchy of moral obligations, Eric. The scale of Tuesdays
> >> >disaster, this crime against us, rather changes the balance of our
> >> >priorities.
>
> EP
> >> I disagree.
>
> >Okay, there is no heirarchy of moral obligations. In that case, you should agree
> >100% with the following scenario:
>
> >A man rapes your daughter. You begin to chase him.
>
> >A child drops it's lollipop. You stop chasing the rapist to retrieve the lollipop,
> >because there is no priority on capturing the rapist.
>
> >Right.
>
> >If there is no heirarchy of moral obligations, why do we impose more severe
> >penalties for some crimes than others? I don't think you believe this yourself,
> >Eric.
>
> You're correct, and I didn't read your "heirarchy" comment with such a
> broad base; I was limiting it to the situation today. Of course there
> is a greater moral obligation to bring to justice the perpetrators of
> Tuesday's massacre than ther is of, say, bringing to justice someone
> who shoplifted on Tuesday.
OK, sorry, that I didn't write that more clearly
> I interpreted your "heirarchy" statement to mean we are somehow
> morally obligated to respond, in kind, to the terrorist acts of
> Tuesday, rather than attempt any other means of obtaining justice. My
> mistake.
No no no! I think that you have been interpreting my statements all along that I was
advocating merely killing as many people as we can on the "other side" which would be
stupid. We could kill 1/2 the world population if our leaders chose. Indeed, we could
destroy the whole world. In weapons, we hold incredible strength. But if we could kill
every inhabitant of Iraq and Afghanistan and the Palestinian villages at the push of a
button, that would not win this war for us anyway. And this would be morally wrong.
Although.... if I genuinely thought it *would* win this war for us, I would urge our
leaders to give it serious thought before sacrificing ONE further American life.
> EP
> >> Once we begin stripping away levels of "morality," they
> >> can never be reclaimed. The only thing it achieves, actually, is to
> >> open ourselves for further self-stripping of "moral obligations," and
> >> can, conceivably, reach the point were we no longer feel we have a
> >> moral obligation to ourselves.
>
> DSK
> >I agree with this 100%. I do not see where it conflicts with what I am saying is a
> >morally correct action......
>
> >Uh huh. Need a straw man, Eric? If you cannot refute what I have said, try not to
> >build up deliberate stupidities and claim they are my suggestions.
>
> It's not a straw man arguement. If we're willing to declare war on a
> nation because of the criminal acts of one man in that nation, we'd
> best be prepared to wage war on that nation's neighbors, who would
> have legitimate reason to wonder if "they were next," and might, then,
> make their own pre-emptive moves, or ally themselves, against us.
> Would China declare war on the US alone? Would Pakistan? Or India?
> Probably not; but if the four nations joined in a common cause -
> namely the invasion by the United States of a sovereign nation - that
> risk should simply be ignored in order to effect, as you put it,
> "retribution"?
Yep.
The fact of the matter is, we could at this point in history whip the ass off any
conceivable group of countries allied against us. That is one of our few advantages.
I don't think, and never did, that we should simply go for a massive body count in
retribution. If we had done so, say Tuesday at lunch time, the world would have
understood. Our friends and allies would be horrified, they would certainly condemn our
action. Our enemies who counted on our helplessness and indecision would be horrified
even more. And they would almost certainly scramble to defuse whatever terrorist plans
they had in the works before they suffered even further slaughter.
>
> One paragraph above, you state: "I'm not dismissing you, am I?" Then
> you claim I'm making "preposterous statements." Sure seems like a
> dismissal of my ideas to me. I'd thought I'd been careful in backing
> up what I've stated with both legal and personal belief explanations.
Well, you seem to be espousing the idea that we can settle this non-war without hurting
people or risking offending other countries; and you seemed to be denying (through my
not explaining very well) a basic and universal moral premise.
And you seem to not grasp that far from always following a strict conventional moral
code, the United States has done some pretty horrible things. Deliberately and with
malice aforethought, to our perceived enemies.
>
> EP
> >> When weapons
> >> become involved, the ultimate question becomes not one of "right and
> >> wrong," but of who's the better shot, or who has the largest "posse"
> >> backing them up.
>
> DSK
> >It would be great if we could get this conflict onto that basis. We would win
> >easily. But we can't. That is part of what makes it so dangerous.
>
> We would? Are you certain? That was the prevailing though in the
> Vietnam conflict. Didn't turn out to be true, though, did it?
Umm, no. We did not exert our strength in Viet Nam, because we did not want to get the
USSR and China both involved in unconditional and unlimited war. Which IMHO was stupid,
we should never have allowed the French to try and go back after WW2 and we certainly
should not have allied ourselves with a corrupt and brutal oligarchy simply because it
offered an opportunity to "contain" Communism.
Fighting fair is a just a dumb way to get killed when playing geopolitics.
>
>
> >However, the idea of an absolute "right" and "wrong." is silly. In some societies,
> >it has been "right" for the gov't official performing marriages to have sex with
> >the bride before her husband could.
>
> And if that's "right" within the framework of that society, it's
> right. We have absolutely no business saying otherwise; we especially
> have no business to force them to change that "right."
Agreed. And I think that resect for others ways and tolerance for differences is an
important part of America's moral code that *must* not be abandoned.
However, the idea that others have the right to plot to kill us, to gather materials to
kill us, to carry out those plots right up to the moment of execution, does this
constitute "tolerance" or is it just long and drawn-out suicide?
>
> DSK
> >We've done this in the past. The countries aainst whom we have carried out these
> >acts were already our enemies covertly, and were using terrorists to attack us
> >because they could not attack us militarily.
>
> And when we've done it in the past, we've always failed either
> outright, or in the Court of public opinion. Nixon and Allende. Carter
> and the Ayatollah. Reagan and Qadafi. The CIA and Castro. Not to
> mention Noriega. Failurers, all; ultimately costing us even more
> American lives and a sullying of our reputation in the eyes of the
> world. With Noriega, we finally ended up waiting for him to come to
> us.
Actually, all those examples could be taken as blueprints as to what we can and perhaps
should do now. Did we "fail" with Qadafi? Certainly the CIA and Castro is not an
example of "failure" in what I'm talking about. We certainly have not gone after Castro
with any amount of military strength. Not even when he was holding Russian ICBMs. Did
we use any air power at the Bay of Pigs? When two attack jets could have turned the
tide, we withheld even that small fraction of our military strength from dedicated
allies. I suggest that constitutes a failure of the sort of morality you are espousing,
not me.
Carter and the Ayatollah? Your memory is rather bad, we used the *minimum possible*
military strength, and failed rather badly. The use of force against an openly hostile
country was so abhorrent to Cyrus Vance that he resigned as Secretary of State. And our
attempts to use even the minimum was after almost a year of "negotiating." Not at all
anywhere close to the sort of approach I am advocating.
As for Noriega, yes that was pretty dumb.
> >>very big snip<<
> EP
> Justice is a constant. An individual is tried for his crimes; a nation
> becomes a legitimate war target for theirs.
I agree. And there is no "nation" that is our enemy. We are fighting against a cause, a
particularly despicable cause that is encouraging genocide.
>
> EP
> >> The thousands of dead make us scream for retribution, our own ideals
> >> and laws demand we seek justice.
>
> DSK
> >Agreed. Although I think that most of the dead would not particularly want
> >retribution, they would prefer to see their families and their homes safe from
> >this evil.
>
> EP
> If this evil makes us abandon, in any way, those principles and ideals
> we have in place concerning justice and punishment....
>
> If this evil makes us rethink, in any way, and act contrary to the
> basic tenants on which this country was founded...
>
> Then this evil has succeeded, and America has been destroyed.
I agree.
I just think that you are deluded in what you think of as our basic tenets and the
fundamentals of our moral code. Turn back to page 1....
We agree on much, and tolerance for disagreement is one of the fundamentals that we
cannot discard.
Regards, Doug King
Eric Payne
<dou...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Am continuing, Eric, I thnk this is a discussion of interest. However, it has gotten
>very long an unweildy and I have many other things to attend to. Her is the best
>answers I can give at the moment.
Yes, it is, so I'll be snipping all but those most recent points
you've tried to get across.
>BTW neither Viet Nam nor Korea were "declared wars" and neither were officially waged
>against a foreign gov't.
Both conflicts were directed towards the governments of the North (in
both countries, oddly enough), and those governments embrace of
Communism on a population which didn't want Communism.
<snip>
>> Was Timothy McVeigh a criminal when he first thought about revenge for
>> Ruby Ridge and Waco? Or when he purchased the materials? Perhaps a
>> case could be made he violated law when he planned it, or when he
>> stowed the chemicals and fertilizer on the truck... but it'd be a
>> stretch. He became a criminal when he parked that truck, walked away
>> from it, and let it blow up.
>
>Eric, we'll just have to disagree here. On Tuesday morning, as of 8am, I would have
>agreed with you. However, the basis of my point here is that our moral imperatives
>*must* change or we are simply committing mass suicide. And where is the morality in
>that?
Then you would advocate punishment for thought, as well as punishment
for actions. At what point does that stop? What's to prevent other
"thoughts" as being seen as "bad"? Does it then become "bad" and
"wrong" to write of such activities, since those writings could be
responsible for others to think about them?
Once anything but the specific act becomes criminalized, we're
starting down a slip that is not only naturally slippy, but has had a
couple of extra coats of wax thrown on top of it.
In Las Vegas a few years ago, a young man played with a small 7 year
old girl. He then lured her to an area where he greivously assaulted
her, killed her, and literally attempted to hide her body by flushing
it away. An acquaintance of the young man's was there when the young
man lured the girl, but left before the young man assaulted and killed
the girl.
Even though the man was convicted, and sentenced to life without the
possibility of parole, that didn't assauge the public. They wanted the
other man's head, as well, for not attempting to stop the crime...
before the crime had actually been committed. Several states
introduced "Good Samaritan" laws in legislature, in which the failure
to try to stop someone else from committing a crime would be a crime
in itself. Most states realized the fallacy of such a law... that in
all probablity, such a law would only create more victims of the
criminal. Nevada, however passed it, after modifying it to read "a
crime against children." But Nevada acknowledges the law's
unenforcability and has stated its passage was a "symbolic gesture."
If one is involved in the activity before-hand, or afterwards, they
are accessories. But it takes the action of involvement in the actual
criminal activity itself, and not simple association with the
criminal.
That's a fine line - to have the act of involvement as a necessary
factor in punishment. But I feel it has to be there, and has to be
maintained. If we apply the idea of "guilt by association" to another
country, how long before our lawmakers begin using it against us? And
how broad does that association go? Just two days after the attack,
two nationally known religious leaders were stating I held "some
responsibility" for the attack, simply because I'm gay. They have to
stretch the imagination to form an "association" between me and the
terrorists... but they've done so, to their satisfaction.
>AFAIK, no moral code ever demanded that a man sheepishly cut his own throat, and his
>families throats, instead of risk offending a deadly attacker.
<snip>
>And to quote our President, let there be no mistake. We must eliminate this enemy. His
>goal is to destroy this country, or at the very least to twist our way of life out of
>all recognition. Being merely vigilant is to concede that all initiative is his. To not
>use our great strength against him is stupid.
>I do not agree that a valid code of morals requires stupidity.
Yes, this enemy must be eliminated. This enemy is, in all probablity,
Osama bin Laden. We cannot take his guilt and apply it to the Afghan
people, simply due to his residence in that country.
Now that the Taliban, the ruling government of Afghanistan, has told
its populace they must prepare for an invasion by the US; they must
fight to defend their faith, and that any country that assists the US
is subject to the same actions against the US; it's a different story.
There are, however, two problems with that, as well. We have not yet
presented the Taliban with our proof and requested bin Laden be given
to us for prosecution. When he does, if they refuse, then they become
a legitimate country on which to wage war, and for a legitimate
reason.
The second problem? We're not actually sure bin Laden is still in
Afghanistan. Our own government is even saying he's "gone to ground,"
and has had no ingoing/outgoing communication they've been able to
detect. Afghan became the "home" of bin Laden has a history of
committing a terrorist act, then vanishing - to show up later in
another country altogether. If that pattern is maintained, then it's a
very strong possibility he's held true to from and left Afghanistan.
IOW: The man's a coward who kills and destroys, but allows someone
else to be left facing punishment for his own, acknowledged, actions.
<snip>
>> The overwhelming reason the US is despised by so many Arabs is our
>> far-reaching support for Isreal. Israel sends armed troops into
>> Palestine and the West Bank, simply to push the people back further
>> and give Isreal more room... and we don't respond.
>
>That's not entirely accurate. We do respond, but we don't really have much leverage
>against Israel. We can only withdraw support, which would be taking a gamble that
>Israel would vanish in a puff of smoke.
But we don't respond as we would with most any other country on the
face of the earth - including Russia, after the USSR fell - by
offering monetary or military support. If Isreal were to be invaded
tomorrow... if every Palestine simply grabbed a rifle and began to
occupy Israel, we would back Israel, despite Israel's continued
aggressive status against these people which helped to cement old
animosities between the two people, and create new ones.
Can you imagine that? Growing up to face the very real risk of a
violent, bloody death at the hands of another country? And facing that
on a daily basis? And knowing that, no matter what atrocity is
committed against them - no matter how many thousands killed, how many
lives devestated - the country which puts itself forward as the most
fair country in the world and as the most powerful country in the
world, is going to do absolutely nothing to assist you, solely because
they've already become "friends" with the country that is terrorizing
you?
>I deplore Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. I cannot believe that a people who
>had suffered the Holocaust, within living memory of many of their citizens and leaders,
>would do some of the things they have done. But that does not mean that Israel deserve
>extermination, which is the Palestinian (and much of the Arab worlds) goal.
I can understand that, though. They're both fighting over their "most
holy" places; both want to keep the sanctity of their religion and the
physical manifestations of their faith "untainted." Israel's claim has
always been about room, and the creation of a "buffer zone" between
themselves and Palestinians/Arabs.
As Israel has long known, however, and as America just had to learn
the hard way, there is no such thing as a buffer zone.
Israel wants to exterminate Palestinians (and much of the Arab world)
just as strongly, they've simply had the good PR not to say it.
>> Israel instigates a night bombing raid on a location in a nuetral
>> country out of their belief that location, in that country, is selling
>> plutonium to Israel's enemies... and outside of a diplomatic "tsk
>> tsk," we don't respond.
>
>Shucks, if I had a neighbor who was trying to kill me, I'd damn sure take the same
>actions.
Really? If you believe your neighbor to the left of you - with whom
there is a long history of acrimony - is being given gunpowder by the
folks who live across the street from you, you'd be within your rights
to go across the street and take action against them, simply because
you believe there exists the possibility that your next door neighbors
could take that gunpowder and create ammunition which might be used
against you?
<snip>
>> And we start firing missiles which, as we discovered during the Gulf
>> War, have a strong chance of hitting a target other than the target at
>> which it was aimed, we're somehow prioritizing the collateral damage?
<snip>
>I firmly believe that we should minimize collateral damage, that we have a moral
>obligation to not hurt anybody we don't have to; but I also believe even more firmly
>that squeamishness about inflicting potential collateral damage should not stay our
>hand from using what few strengths we have. We must destroy this enemy or he will
>destroy us. There is, unfortunately, no third alternative.
Here, we don't disagree. But the collateral damage, in my eyes, has to
be kept to the very smallest degree imaginable; if it's possible to
have bin Laden face justice without a single death, we have the moral
obligation to ourselves to first pursue that route.
<snip>
>The fact of the matter is, we could at this point in history whip the ass off any
>conceivable group of countries allied against us. That is one of our few advantages.
But that's not a "fact." The only way it can be proven as "fact" is to
engage in combat with "any conceivable group of countries allied
against us." You'd have us play a global game of "Chicken" simply to
prove (or disprove) an assertion as fact?
I wouldn't.
>I don't think, and never did, that we should simply go for a massive body count in
>retribution. If we had done so, say Tuesday at lunch time, the world would have
>understood. Our friends and allies would be horrified, they would certainly condemn our
>action. Our enemies who counted on our helplessness and indecision would be horrified
>even more. And they would almost certainly scramble to defuse whatever terrorist plans
>they had in the works before they suffered even further slaughter.
They would? Why? We would have just depleted a good amount of our
fighting strength and armaments. We'd have been in the naturally
weaked state of having just come out of combat. I don't think that
would dissuade others from making their attempts; I think it would
encourage them.
I think I'm beginning to understand were our philosophies differ.
You're espousing a philosophy that was inherent in the US from the
early 1960s back to the founding of this nation: We're the strongest;
we simply can't lose.
I, however, am remembering the 60s and 1970s, where we were the
strongest, and readily acknowledged as such, and got our butts kicked
in spite of that.
It's not simply "might" or "superiority" which determine the "winner"
of any conflict. It's guile, cunning, and familiarity with the
environment of the conflict, as well as "might" and "superiority."
I also remember the public opion of the mid-70s. Just end it. We've
had enough. Bring our people home, and let them stop getting killed.
If, for every advance we'd make in Afghanistan/our fight against bin
Laden, an act of terrorism occured somewhere in the United States in
retaliation to those advances, just how long do you think it would be
before public opinion would again be: "Stop. Just stop it. If
unalliance with Israel will make them stop, then do it. If a promise
to support a country which Israel attacks will make them stop, then
make that promise!"
I don't know how long it would take, but it probably wouldn't take
nearly as long as it did in Vietnam. In both cases, we're fighting a
foe who can strike, then vanish. In Vietnam, the enemy vanished into
the population we supported. In this instance, the enemy simply
vanishes into their own death, but in their single death, having the
capacity to eliminate, literally, thousands of American lives.
>> One paragraph above, you state: "I'm not dismissing you, am I?" Then
>> you claim I'm making "preposterous statements." Sure seems like a
>> dismissal of my ideas to me. I'd thought I'd been careful in backing
>> up what I've stated with both legal and personal belief explanations.
>Well, you seem to be espousing the idea that we can settle this non-war without hurting
>people or risking offending other countries; and you seemed to be denying (through my
>not explaining very well) a basic and universal moral premise.
>And you seem to not grasp that far from always following a strict conventional moral
>code, the United States has done some pretty horrible things. Deliberately and with
>malice aforethought, to our perceived enemies.
I think we need to attempt to settle this with the most minimal loss
of life, in order to have one man be brought to justice for his
crimes. I've never stated otherwise.
You know, if Northern Ireland had the firepower, they'd have done to
us, many years ago, what we now contemplate doing to Afghanistan. Our
government has, knowingly, harbored Irish terrorists, refusing their
extradition to Ireland for reasons as broad as "the accused cannot
receive a fair trial in that climate," to "to send them back to face
certain death is cruel and unusual punishment."
If they did have the firepower, though, and we had been invaded by the
Irish seeking a terrorist who had committed crimes against the people
of Ireland... how would you have reacted to that? "Let's go and kick
us some green butt!"?
<snip>
>However, the idea that others have the right to plot to kill us, to gather materials to
>kill us, to carry out those plots right up to the moment of execution, does this
>constitute "tolerance" or is it just long and drawn-out suicide?
Are you permitted to think about killing your neighbor? Yes, you are.
Are you entitled to plot to kill your neighbor? Guess what, you sure
are. Are you allowed to go out and by a gun, at the same time you're
thinking about killing your neighbor? Once again, you are. Are you
permitted to act on those thoughts, and kill your neighbor?
The flip side of the coin: Is your neighbor allowed to worry you may
be thinking about killing him? Yes, he is. Is he allowed to worry you
may be plotting his death? Is he allowed to physically stop from
purchasing a gun? No, he's not. Is he allowed to kill you because he
believed you may be thinking about killing you; he believes you may
have plotted to kill you, and he knows you just bought a gun?
>> DSK
>> >We've done this in the past. The countries aainst whom we have carried out these
>> >acts were already our enemies covertly, and were using terrorists to attack us
>> >because they could not attack us militarily.
>>
>> And when we've done it in the past, we've always failed either
>> outright, or in the Court of public opinion. Nixon and Allende. Carter
>> and the Ayatollah. Reagan and Qadafi. The CIA and Castro. Not to
>> mention Noriega. Failurers, all; ultimately costing us even more
>> American lives and a sullying of our reputation in the eyes of the
>> world. With Noriega, we finally ended up waiting for him to come to
>> us.
>
>Actually, all those examples could be taken as blueprints as to what we can and perhaps
>should do now....
Oh, simply practicing so we can do better next time?
>Carter and the Ayatollah? Your memory is rather bad, we used the *minimum possible*
>military strength, and failed rather badly. The use of force against an openly hostile
>country was so abhorrent to Cyrus Vance that he resigned as Secretary of State. And our
>attempts to use even the minimum was after almost a year of "negotiating." Not at all
>anywhere close to the sort of approach I am advocating.
I was speaking of the only "go in, get him, kill him if you have to"
strategy approved by Carter, where - because we were unfamiliar with
the environment of the area - two helicarriers filled with American
soldiers crashed into each other, burned and killed those soldiers.
<snip>
>> EP
>> Justice is a constant. An individual is tried for his crimes; a nation
>> becomes a legitimate war target for theirs.
>I agree. And there is no "nation" that is our enemy. We are fighting against a cause, a
>particularly despicable cause that is encouraging genocide.
And several radical religious groups in this country encourage the
murder of abortionists. Many radical religious groups encourage the
infliction of physical harm against homosexuals. Or feminists. Or
non-believers. Or even the government, for not embodying their beliefs
and making them law.
The act of murder is wrong. The act of assault is wrong. Americans
treat the right of free belief, of free thought, as sacrosanct.
Beliefs and thought, no matter how "wrong" anyone else may believe
those thoughts and beliefs to be, simply cannot be seen/construed as a
crime, or as legitimization of someone(s) being made a target of death
or prosecution because of those thoughts. Once we begin a porgrom
based on the perceived thoughts of individuals - even if those
individuals have vocalized those thoughts - when and how do we draw up
the list of what thoughts are worthy of punishment, and which aren't?
And do thoughts get added to that list, simply because of public
opinion? I only mention "added," as I have no doubt at all that once a
thought makes the list, it would never be deleted.
<snip>
>> If this evil makes us abandon, in any way, those principles and ideals
>> we have in place concerning justice and punishment....
>>
>> If this evil makes us rethink, in any way, and act contrary to the
>> basic tenants on which this country was founded...
>>
>> Then this evil has succeeded, and America has been destroyed.
>
>I agree.
>
>I just think that you are deluded in what you think of as our basic tenets and the
>fundamentals of our moral code. Turn back to page 1....
As American citizens, we are allowed to believe as we wish. As
Americans, we are allowed to think as we wish. In this country, a
person is not subject to punishment at the hands of the government for
thoughts, beliefs, statements or associations. It is the act that
receives the punishment.
If we're going to hold ourselves to that standard, we cannot abandon
that standard when dealing with others.
>We agree on much, and tolerance for disagreement is one of the fundamentals that we
>cannot discard.
But you're already saying we should. You and I are free to disagree,
and take that disagreement public, for many reasons. But the biggest
reasons are we don't punish thought, and we're maintaining civility in
our discussion.
We have to tolerate others when they act within the same rights we
allow for ourselves: the freedom of thought and speech, the freedom of
belief and the freedom of association.
We only punish ourselves for our actions; we should only punish
someone else for theirs.
If a member of Fred Phelp's church follows the preachings of the
Reverend Phelps, and actually guns down a homosexual, is the Reverend
guilty because he believed in it, and spoke of his belief?
Are other members of the congregation guilty of murder, simply because
the associate with each other, sharing many common beliefs, one of
those beliefs being the Reverend's stand on homosexuals?
If members of the congregation, or smaller groups of the
congreagation, purchased guns together - or even simply owned guns and
went hunting/to the firing range together - are they guilty of murder
because one of their own used a gun to kill a homosexual?
Much as I may, personally, want them to be, they're not.
Now, if beforehand, the man who will be killer confides to the
Reverend, or members of the congregation, or stands up in church and
states he is going to use his gun and kill a homosexual; that's a
different story.
Depending upon the DA, they could all be charged with aiding and
abetting, or being an accessory before the fact.
Notice, I said they "could be charged." Though those laws are still on
the books, proving guilt in those circumstances beyond a reasonable
doubt is incredibly difficult to achieve.
If, however, the congregant stands up in church afterwards, and
announces he's killed a homosexual, then all the present members of
that church, should they fail to turn him in, could (and probably
would) be prosecuted for being an accessory after the fact. In capital
cases, like murder, the punishment for being such an accessory is as
severe as the penalty for the actual commission of the act.
I disagree with the Reverend Phelps, his followers, and their beliefs.
That's not enough to make them my targets, nor does the number of
people who dislike the group's beliefs qualify them as a target for
punishment following the commission of a crime by one of its members.
Every nation in the world may abhor bin Laden's terrorist actions
(and, if bin Laden is responsible for Tuesday's attack; the majority
of them do), but that number doesn't make people who associate with,
or share the beliefs of, bin Laden targets if they, themselves,
performed no actions.
If they had knowledge of the actions, however, either before or after
the commission of those acts then, yes, they share the guilt.
The rights and processes we have in place, however flawed they may be
- or however "wrong" people may think they are in "this instance" -
must still be used as the standard against bin Laden, the individual.
If we fail to do so, then we have abandoned a those principle and
ideal we have in place concerning justice and punishment....
If we rethink the structure we have in place, solely to be able to
treat someone contrary to the basic tenants on which this country was
founded...
Then this evil has succeeded, and America has been destroyed.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
Douglas King
> >against a foreign gov't.
>
> Both conflicts were directed towards the governments of the North (in
> both countries, oddly enough), and those governments embrace of
> Communism on a population which didn't want Communism.
>
Right. The point stands that neither were declared wars, yet they were in fact wars. Just
like this current situation.
>
> <snip>
>
> >...However, the basis of my point here is that our moral imperatives
> >*must* change or we are simply committing mass suicide. And where is the
> >morality in that?
>
> Then you would advocate punishment for thought, as well as punishment
> for actions.
I'm not sure where you get this out of what I'm saying, other than to interpret in the
stupidest and unfairest possible way.
I said that since it is impossible to have quantitative certainty of peoples thoughts (at
least, at our present level of technology); we cannot punish people for thoughts. Simple?
What I am saying:
The seriousness of the crime of terrorism has just changed dramatically. We are stupid if we
do not also change our legal standard of culpability for terrorism. Stupid and suicidal.
> Once anything but the specific act becomes criminalized, we're
> starting down a slip that is not only naturally slippy, but has had a
> couple of extra coats of wax thrown on top of it.
I agree. It is an area that must be treated with extremem caution.
But this is not a legal matter. It is not going to be settled by courts & lawyers. It is
going to be settled- one way or the other- with violence. It is not our choice. You insist
we must extend every legal right to terrorists, to grant them self-determination and give
them the benefit of doubt; in other words treat them like jaywalkers on a first offense. I
disagree very strongly, this approach is tantamount to surrender. And attitudes like yours
are one of the terrorists strongest advantages.
> If one is involved in the activity before-hand, or afterwards, they
> are accessories. But it takes the action of involvement in the actual
> criminal activity itself, and not simple association with the
> criminal.
Tell that to Susan McDougle.
Eric, our rights are under assault as well as our physical safety. I am as worried as you
are about the diminishment of our civil liberties. We are already giving up far too much
freedom IMHO.
>
>
> That's a fine line - to have the act of involvement as a necessary
> factor in punishment. But I feel it has to be there, and has to be
> maintained. If we apply the idea of "guilt by association" to another
> country, how long before our lawmakers begin using it against us?
When the State Department and the Army take over the courts.
> And
> how broad does that association go? Just two days after the attack,
> two nationally known religious leaders were stating I held "some
> responsibility" for the attack, simply because I'm gay. They have to
> stretch the imagination to form an "association" between me and the
> terrorists... but they've done so, to their satisfaction.
Yep. To paraphrase a popular religious leader, the ignorant and the loud-mouthed ye shall
always have with ye.
>
>
> >AFAIK, no moral code ever demanded that a man sheepishly cut his own throat, and his
> >families throats, instead of risk offending a deadly attacker.
>
> <snip>
>
> >And to quote our President, let there be no mistake. We must eliminate this enemy. His
> >goal is to destroy this country, or at the very least to twist our way of life out of
> >all recognition. Being merely vigilant is to concede that all initiative is his. To not
> >use our great strength against him is stupid.
>
> >I do not agree that a valid code of morals requires stupidity.
>
> Yes, this enemy must be eliminated. This enemy is, in all probablity,
> Osama bin Laden. We cannot take his guilt and apply it to the Afghan
> people, simply due to his residence in that country.
I'm not convinced of that yet, although it will be a nice political convenience to demonize
one particular figure. And I don't think the US gov't is eager to go to war with
Afghanistan. And I really hope they are not stupid enough to invade the place.
>
>
> Now that the Taliban, the ruling government of Afghanistan, has told
> its populace they must prepare for an invasion by the US; they must
> fight to defend their faith, and that any country that assists the US
> is subject to the same actions against the US; it's a different story.
No, it's the same story. They are using what few weapons they have.
> There are, however, two problems with that, as well. We have not yet
> presented the Taliban with our proof and requested bin Laden be given
> to us for prosecution. When he does, if they refuse, then they become
> a legitimate country on which to wage war, and for a legitimate
> reason.
Eric, there is no "legitimate" reason for war. This is not a board game, there are no rules,
and there is no umpire, and Daddy & Mommy are not waiting to scoop us up at the end of the
game and tuck us into beddy-bye.
The US goes to war for money, and to defend vital strategic interests (usually money). It is
in our vital strategic interest that US citizens not be slaughtered any time a fanatic
(Middle Eastern or otherwise) gets a hard-on.
We have to do two things: 1- eliminate or disable the groups of people who are currently
plotting terrorism against the US... and since we have a large number of like-minded allies
who are also victims, we should extend the scope of this to include as many terrorists as we
can bag. 2- wage a psychological campaign in the Third World to gain recognition for our
good deeds, and reduce to a small fraction of current size the number of people who
fanatically hate the US (and our allies).
Without succeeding in both areas, success in either one alone is pointless.
> ......We're not actually sure bin Laden is still in
> Afghanistan. Our own government is even saying he's "gone to ground,"
> and has had no ingoing/outgoing communication they've been able to
> detect. Afghan became the "home" of bin Laden has a history of
> committing a terrorist act, then vanishing - to show up later in
> another country altogether. If that pattern is maintained, then it's a
> very strong possibility he's held true to from and left Afghanistan.
Agreed.
> IOW: The man's a coward who kills and destroys, but allows someone
> else to be left facing punishment for his own, acknowledged, actions.
Actually, that part of his MO. He is hoping that we will kill a lot of Moslems (not his
supporters) so that it will be easier to recruit terrorists.
> <snip>
>
> But we don't respond as we would with most any other country on the
> face of the earth - including Russia, after the USSR fell - by
> offering monetary or military support.
No, it's pretty much the same. What happened to our financial support of Russia after it was
proven that a few crime bosses were absconding with 90% of the money? Stayed the same. How
about the time we demanded that they not sell plutonium or biological weapon technology to
US-hating Middle Eastern regimes? Same thing.
The US has a pitiful record when come to rationalizing foreign aid.
> If Isreal were to be invaded
> tomorrow... if every Palestine simply grabbed a rifle and began to
> occupy Israel, we would back Israel, despite Israel's continued
> aggressive status against these people which helped to cement old
> animosities between the two people, and create new ones.
You have a very silly view of the military situation. If "every Palestinian grabbed a rifle
and began to occupy Israel" they'd get massacred. They have very little artillery, no armor,
no air power. The Palestinians fight with rocks and suicide bombers because that's about all
they have. Some of them have AK-47s, but little or no training. They have a few RPGs and
mortars. They have less than zero chance using force against Israel. That's why they are
using political weapons.
To ignore that basic geopolitical fact is... well, ignorant. And contrary to a popular
slogan ignorance is not strength.
> Can you imagine that? Growing up to face the very real risk of a
> violent, bloody death at the hands of another country? And facing that
> on a daily basis?
Yes, I can Eric, I actually did for several years. Military service, don't you know.
> And knowing that, no matter what atrocity is
> committed against them - no matter how many thousands killed, how many
> lives devestated - the country which puts itself forward as the most
> fair country in the world and as the most powerful country in the
> world, is going to do absolutely nothing to assist you, solely because
> they've already become "friends" with the country that is terrorizing
> you?
And of course, that's a good justification for becoming a terrorist, isn't it? Hey, why
think seriously about justice and geopolitics, when you can get morally outraged and assure
yourself that God is on your side while you blow up helpless unarmed people.
>
>
> >I deplore Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. I cannot believe that a people who
> >had suffered the Holocaust, within living memory of many of their citizens and leaders,
> >would do some of the things they have done. But that does not mean that Israel deserve
> >extermination, which is the Palestinian (and much of the Arab worlds) goal.
>
> I can understand that, though. They're both fighting over their "most
> holy" places; both want to keep the sanctity of their religion and the
> physical manifestations of their faith "untainted." Israel's claim has
> always been about room, and the creation of a "buffer zone" between
> themselves and Palestinians/Arabs.
>
> As Israel has long known, however, and as America just had to learn
> the hard way, there is no such thing as a buffer zone.
>
> Israel wants to exterminate Palestinians (and much of the Arab world)
> just as strongly, they've simply had the good PR not to say it.
I don't believe that. And it doesn't make any sense. For one thing, if they wanted to
exterminate the Palestinians they could have done so easily. The fact that you (and
apparently many others think they do want to exterminate the Palestinians) is a tremendous
victory for the Arab PR campaign.
> >> Israel instigates a night bombing raid on a location in a nuetral
> >> country out of their belief that location, in that country, is selling
> >> plutonium to Israel's enemies... and outside of a diplomatic "tsk
> >> tsk," we don't respond.
> >
> >Shucks, if I had a neighbor who was trying to kill me, I'd damn sure take the
> >same actions.
>
> Really?
Really.
> If you believe your neighbor to the left of you - with whom
> there is a long history of acrimony - is being given gunpowder by the
> folks who live across the street from you, you'd be within your rights
> to go across the street and take action against them, simply because
> you believe there exists the possibility that your next door neighbors
> could take that gunpowder and create ammunition which might be used
> against you?
Yep. Without hesitation, buddy.
On the other hand, one might worry about the legalities and moralities of the situation,
wring ones hands, respect the neighbors rights to blow your ass up, and wake up dead.
Sorry, but IMHO other peoples rights don't include killing me or my family.
> >.......We must destroy this enemy or he will
> >destroy us. There is, unfortunately, no third alternative.
>
> Here, we don't disagree. But the collateral damage, in my eyes, has to
> be kept to the very smallest degree imaginable; if it's possible to
> have bin Laden face justice without a single death, we have the moral
> obligation to ourselves to first pursue that route.
I agree strongly; with the caveat that while we persue this course let's be aware that he is
not the only terrorist leader, he's just the most well known. While we accord bin Laden his
Constitutional rights, others will be trying their utmost to kill us.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> >The fact of the matter is, we could at this point in history whip the ass off any
> >conceivable group of countries allied against us. That is one of our few advantages.
>
> But that's not a "fact." The only way it can be proven as "fact" is to
> engage in combat with "any conceivable group of countries allied
> against us." You'd have us play a global game of "Chicken" simply to
> prove (or disprove) an assertion as fact?
>
> I wouldn't.
No I wouldn't either. Not just to prove a point.
But then, wars are not fought for bragging rights. It's not a debate, it's survival. And to
ignore geopolitical fact is to risk our survival.
>
>
> >I don't think, and never did, that we should simply go for a massive body count in
> >retribution. If we had done so, say Tuesday at lunch time, the world would have
> >understood. Our friends and allies would be horrified, they would certainly condemn our
> >action. Our enemies who counted on our helplessness and indecision would be horrified
> >even more. And they would almost certainly scramble to defuse whatever terrorist plans
> >they had in the works before they suffered even further slaughter.
>
> They would? Why? We would have just depleted a good amount of our
> fighting strength and armaments. We'd have been in the naturally
> weaked state of having just come out of combat. I don't think that
> would dissuade others from making their attempts; I think it would
> encourage them.
Again, you ahve a very silly viewpoint of war. The US was stronger at the end of WW2 than at
the beginning. We can build plenty of bombs and cruise missiles; in fact no other country
including all the industrialized ones can match our weapons production.
That does not mean we'll win. That is one advantage we have, and should not hesitate to use
IF we can. The enemy is certainly maximizing all his advantages.
>
>
> I think I'm beginning to understand were our philosophies differ.
> You're espousing a philosophy that was inherent in the US from the
> early 1960s back to the founding of this nation: We're the strongest;
> we simply can't lose.
No, that's dumb. We can lose. In fact, the odds are rather heavily against us. Very few
countries have fought against well-funded terrorist campaigns and won.
>
>
> I, however, am remembering the 60s and 1970s, where we were the
> strongest, and readily acknowledged as such, and got our butts kicked
> in spite of that.
Yep. Although "getting our butts kicked" in those cases was not a matter of thousands or
possibly tens of thousands of American civilians dying on American soil. In this case,
that's exactly what is at stake.
We cannot afford to lose.
>
>
> It's not simply "might" or "superiority" which determine the "winner"
> of any conflict. It's guile, cunning, and familiarity with the
> environment of the conflict, as well as "might" and "superiority."
Hey Eric, where have you been? That has been my point along.
> I also remember the public opion of the mid-70s. Just end it. We've
> had enough. Bring our people home, and let them stop getting killed.
>
> If, for every advance we'd make in Afghanistan/our fight against bin
> Laden, an act of terrorism occured somewhere in the United States in
> retaliation to those advances, just how long do you think it would be
> before public opinion would again be: "Stop. Just stop it. If
> unalliance with Israel will make them stop, then do it. If a promise
> to support a country which Israel attacks will make them stop, then
> make that promise!"
Yep.
I take it that you are not really advocating we "win" by surrendering immediately to
terrorist demands regarding US foreign policy?
1- that's despicable
2- that would not end it. You would then see a new wave of terrorism aimed at some other
goal.
> I don't know how long it would take, but it probably wouldn't take
> nearly as long as it did in Vietnam. In both cases, we're fighting a
> foe who can strike, then vanish. In Vietnam, the enemy vanished into
> the population we supported. In this instance, the enemy simply
> vanishes into their own death, but in their single death, having the
> capacity to eliminate, literally, thousands of American lives.
Well, during Viet Nam there used to be a joke "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out." Yet the
US conducted the war along very strict rules of engagement, allowed the enemy the
initiative, took dramatic steps to reduce collateral damage and noncombatant deaths, and
received no credit for any of this effort. Apparently the enemy's PR campaign was so
successful that you still accept as a matter of fact that not only did we lose in Viet Nam,
but that we were cowardly bullies while losing, and that there is no possible other
scenario. That's not history, it's propaganda.
Enemy propaganda from a lost war more than a generation ago is a poor basis for moral
guidelines.
> >> One paragraph above, you state: "I'm not dismissing you, am I?" Then
> >> you claim I'm making "preposterous statements." Sure seems like a
> >> dismissal of my ideas to me. I'd thought I'd been careful in backing
> >> up what I've stated with both legal and personal belief explanations.
And much of what you say is on a level of saying that water is not wet.
> You know, if Northern Ireland had the firepower, they'd have done to
> us, many years ago, what we now contemplate doing to Afghanistan. Our
> government has, knowingly, harbored Irish terrorists, refusing their
> extradition to Ireland for reasons as broad as "the accused cannot
> receive a fair trial in that climate," to "to send them back to face
> certain death is cruel and unusual punishment."
>
> If they did have the firepower, though, and we had been invaded by the
> Irish seeking a terrorist who had committed crimes against the people
> of Ireland... how would you have reacted to that? "Let's go and kick
> us some green butt!"?
Possibly. If I were a citizen of a small weak country, and had been indoctrinated to think
myself superior to all others and that my country was unjustly beset by evil enemies, then
perhaps I'd want to be a terrorist too.
However, I know what my ancestors did when they were in that same situation. They were
intelligent enough to see through the propaganda, realistically assess the situation, and
emigrate to the US for a better future.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> >However, the idea that others have the right to plot to kill us, to gather materials to
> >kill us, to carry out those plots right up to the moment of execution, does this
> >constitute "tolerance" or is it just long and drawn-out suicide?
>
> Are you permitted to think about killing your neighbor? Yes, you are.
> Are you entitled to plot to kill your neighbor? Guess what, you sure
> are. Are you allowed to go out and by a gun, at the same time you're
> thinking about killing your neighbor? Once again, you are.
Actually, that very much depends on what neighborhood you live in. In some neighborhoods,
you are not allowed to even own a gun, no matter if you bought it years ago in another place
or inherited it.
> Are you
> permitted to act on those thoughts, and kill your neighbor?
>
> The flip side of the coin: Is your neighbor allowed to worry you may
> be thinking about killing him? Yes, he is. Is he allowed to worry you
> may be plotting his death?
Yes, although at some point he risks having social workers or doctors intervene for his own
good.
> Is he allowed to physically stop from
> purchasing a gun? No, he's not. Is he allowed to kill you because he
> believed you may be thinking about killing you; he believes you may
> have plotted to kill you, and he knows you just bought a gun?
Yep, under certain circumstances (such as you point a gun at him) he darn sure is allowed to
kill you to prevent you from killing first.
And in many communities, he is required by law to kill you to prevent you from killing or
grievously harming another.
>
>
> I was speaking of the only "go in, get him, kill him if you have to"
> strategy approved by Carter, where - because we were unfamiliar with
> the environment of the area - two helicarriers filled with American
> soldiers crashed into each other, burned and killed those soldiers.
Yep, an example of poor planning, in this case by Carter himself, because he could not stand
the idea of using overwhelming force against a small target. His moral code killed those
soldiers, in other words. A poor example to point to if you are espousing the same morality.
And the orders were not to kill the Ayatollah at all. They were going to rescue the
hostages. Or perhaps you forgot about that detail......
> Americans, we are allowed to think as we wish. In this country, a
> person is not subject to punishment at the hands of the government for
> thoughts, beliefs, statements or associations. It is the act that
> receives the punishment.
>
> If we're going to hold ourselves to that standard, we cannot abandon
> that standard when dealing with others.
We damn sure can, Eric. And furthermore, if the others are actively killing us by the
thousands, then we damn well better!
>
>
> If a member of Fred Phelp's church follows the preachings of the
> Reverend Phelps, and actually guns down a homosexual, is the Reverend
> guilty because he believed in it, and spoke of his belief?
To a large extent, yes.
> Are other members of the congregation guilty of murder, simply because
> the associate with each other, sharing many common beliefs, one of
> those beliefs being the Reverend's stand on homosexuals?
If one is a militant homosexual in a nation of homosexuals, probably yes. If they are
citizens of the same country as the homosexuals, then probably not. Except possibly to
homosexual terrorists.
> If members of the congregation, or smaller groups of the
> congreagation, purchased guns together - or even simply owned guns and
> went hunting/to the firing range together - are they guilty of murder
> because one of their own used a gun to kill a homosexual?
>
> Much as I may, personally, want them to be, they're not.
Well, that's dumb. And wrong. There is no moral imperative to suicide.
>
>
> Now, if beforehand, the man who will be killer confides to the
> Reverend, or members of the congregation, or stands up in church and
> states he is going to use his gun and kill a homosexual; that's a
> different story.
>
> Depending upon the DA, they could all be charged with aiding and
> abetting, or being an accessory before the fact.
>
> Notice, I said they "could be charged." Though those laws are still on
> the books, proving guilt in those circumstances beyond a reasonable
> doubt is incredibly difficult to achieve.
Eric, last time I looked, acts of mass murder by foreigners did not come under any DAs
jurisdiction.
> The rights and processes we have in place, however flawed they may be
> - or however "wrong" people may think they are in "this instance" -
> must still be used as the standard against bin Laden, the individual.
> If we fail to do so, then we have abandoned a those principle and
> ideal we have in place concerning justice and punishment....
I agree, with the exception just above. Mass murder by foreigners is not a case for the
courts, not when further acts of mass murder are imminent. It is war.
> If we rethink the structure we have in place, solely to be able to
> treat someone contrary to the basic tenants on which this country was
> founded...
>
> Then this evil has succeeded, and America has been destroyed.
It's quite possible that many of the Founding Fathers would agree that the country they
started has indeed been destroyed.
However, you are once again proving that water isn't wet. I am not at all advocating that we
"rethink the structure we have in place, solely to be able to
treat someone contrary to the basic tenants on which this country was
founded" (BTW I think the words you want is 'tenet').
It is not a guiding principle of the US, and never was, to respond to acts of agression and
murder by reaching for the little book of Totally Proper Moral Conduct, to let our actions
be shackled by impractical and unworkable ideals, especially when those ideals would lead to
certain defeat. I'm a little puzzled at why you think it ever was.
Regards- Doug King
Robert J. Kolker
Eric Payne wrote:
>
Utter and complete hogwash! Until the Initifadah, the main employer
of Palestinean labor was Israeli firms. Israelis bought and sold goods
to and from Palestinean businesses. Palestineas from the East Bank
and Gaza were an integral part of the Israeli economy and most of
the jobs that Palestinean who did not own there own businesses
were by Isreaeli employers (mostly Jewish).
You bad attitude toward Jews, is showing again
Bob Kolker
Eric Payne
Whatever you say, Mr. "Wog".
I have no "attitude" toward Jews. I have an attitude toward the nation
of Israel. That nation has has invaded countries, killed wantonly, and
made the decision, many times, to strike BEFORE their opponents got
the opportunity to strike.
That country has decided other, third country's, trade may provide the
means to possibly build weaponry which could, presumably, be used
against them, and bombed those targets selected in those countries not
involved in the Arab/Israeli conflict(s).
That country has entwined faith with affairs of state, then decries
specific other countries from doing the same.
I firmly believe our foreign policy with Israel, and the actions we
(and other countries) have allowed the nation of Israel to conduct,
free of the fear of reprisal, is one of the primary reasons our nation
is seen as a legitimate target in this jihad.
If we had treated the nation of Israel, in our foreign policy, the
same way we treat other nations, Israel would have been removed from
"most favored" status a long time ago.
Yes, atrocities were committed against members of the Jewish faith in
World War II. I'm sorry that happened. I can't view pictures of
Holocaust victims without coming to tears.
And, yes, we should remain vigilant that such a situation not arise
again.
But I, personally, don't feel our foreign policy today should be
shaping our treatment of another nation based on actions of 50 years
ago.
Times and situations change. No entity should be immune to change
based on history.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
Eric Payne
King and myself to continue.
I feel by being at "war" with terrorists, and those we perceive as
terrorists, should be limited to those people and/or groups who were
responsible for Tuesday's attack. Though, emotionally, I can agree
with the "get them all, before they have the chance to do anything"
arguement; I see that arguement as advocating guilt by association,
and making certain thoughts, not just the actions, punishable, and
believe, should we accept that criteria for punishment, we are
willingly surrendering, to our own government, a great portion of the
civil liberties we enjoy.
Mr. King agrees, to a point, but believes the self-interest involved
in both sending a message of non-tolerance to those we deem "terrorist
groups," and the potential of possibly sparing the United States some
future terrorist act outweighs the civil liberty arguement.
That's one of the things that's great about America. In the United
States, we are free to disagree... with each other, with our
employers, with our community... heck, even with our government.
For now... but once we start surrendering liberties and civil rights,
I fear where that surrender may stop... if it does.
Eric Payne
Livermore, CA
Jeff George
>
> Jeff George wrote:
>
> >
> > And that's only because of the U.S. support of the Kikes in Israel.
>
>
> with the book on the U.S.S. Liberty under your pillow.
>
No, I am not. I just hate your narrow-mindedness.
Howard Zinn
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
> Utter and complete hogwash! Until the Initifadah, the main employer
> of Palestinean labor was Israeli firms. Israelis bought and sold goods
> to and from Palestinean businesses. Palestineas from the East Bank
> and Gaza were an integral part of the Israeli economy and most of
> the jobs that Palestinean who did not own there own businesses
> were by Isreaeli employers (mostly Jewish).
Uh huh. Except that until the forcible theft of their land with the
creation of Israel in 1949, the main employer of Palestinians in
Palestine was Palestinians. Perhaps a minor point to you, but certainly
not to them.
I suppose that you would argue that because the main employer of black
South Africans in 1980 was white South Africans, apartheid was a great
idea and shouldn't have been criticized.
>
>
> You bad attitude toward Jews, is showing again
>
> Bob Kolker
Nah. Bad attitude towards nation-states employing a racially-defined,
militarily enforced class system, torture, murder, bulldozing of homes,
and indiscrimate killing of children to "defend" itself. Of the truly
rotten governments in the world today, Israel ranks nearly, though not
quite, up there with the Taliban.
Mark
Robert J. Kolker
Howard Zinn wrote:
>
> Uh huh. Except that until the forcible theft of their land with the
> creation of Israel in 1949, the main employer of Palestinians in
> Palestine was Palestinians. Perhaps a minor point to you, but certainly
> not to them.
When the Turks ran Palestine, it was a 3-rd world hell hole.
Thee was little improvement under the British Mandate.
Incidentally, if the Palestineans, the Syrians, the Hashemites,
were willing to live the Partition, Israel as it is now, never
would have come into being. There would have been a
smallish Jewish enclave. But the U.N. partition was rejected
by the Palestineans (acctually their surrogates in surrounding
states) and when the Jews declared their little bit as a state
the war was one, with the consequences we are all familiar
with. The Palestineans wanted it all, and as a result of 3 lost
wars, they got nothing.
I think the Jews should give it back to the Palestineans, one
day after the Americans give it back to the Indians and the Brits
give it back to the Irish (in the North).
Bob Kolker
binnacle
"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message >
> Howard Zinn wrote:
>
> >
> > Uh huh. Except that until the forcible theft of their land with the
> > creation of Israel in 1949, the main employer of Palestinians in
> > Palestine was Palestinians. Perhaps a minor point to you, but certainly
> > not to them.
>
> When the Turks ran Palestine, it was a 3-rd world hell hole.
>
> Thee was little improvement under the British Mandate.
>
> Incidentally, if the Palestineans, the Syrians, the Hashemites,
> were willing to live the Partition, Israel as it is now, never
> would have come into being. There would have been a
> smallish Jewish enclave. But the U.N. partition was rejected
> by the Palestineans
And by the Zionist extremists who assassinated the UN mediator,
the Swedish Red Cross official, Count Folke Bernadotte.
(The year before his death, when standing sabotage watch aboard
ship in Haifa, I was not unaware of the "can of worms", Lord Grey
had bestowed on us)
(acctually their surrogates in surrounding
> states) and when the Jews declared their little bit as a state
> the war was one, with the consequences we are all familiar
> with. The Palestineans wanted it all, and as a result of 3 lost
> wars, they got nothing.
>
> I think the Jews should give it back to the Palestineans, one
> day after the Americans give it back to the Indians and the Brits
> give it back to the Irish (in the North).
The last thing the Government in Dublin want is N. Ireland.
They have executed more IRA terrorists than the Brits ever did.
A New York fund raising dinner for the continued supply of bombs
and detonators to the IRA makes them cringe, as it does most
peoples who oppose terrorism. The sole reason for British army
presence in N. Ireland is to prevent bloodshed. When Tommy Atkins
left Palestine, his bagpipes never sounded sweeter. A departure
from that troubled land would be similarly received.
Regards,
Bill
>
> Bob Kolker
>
>