origin of "collateral damage"
howard richler
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Who coined the term "collateral damage", and when?
I've never been able to get any closer than "U.S. military". Most
sources point to the Gulf War in 1991, although a number think that it
was coined during the conflict in Kosovo.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If a bus station is where a bus
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |stops, and a train station is where
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a train stops, what does that say
|about a workstation?
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Robert J. Kolker
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
> I've never been able to get any closer than "U.S. military". Most
> sources point to the Gulf War in 1991, although a number think that it
> was coined during the conflict in Kosovo.
I remeber the term being used during the Viet Nam war.
Bob Kolker
N.Mitchum
----
> Who coined the term "collateral damage", and when?
As I recall, the term was first used during the Viet Nam war. Who
coined it will probably remain unknown -- perhaps a White House
flack, perhaps a faceless Defense Dept. spokesman.
----NM
Ben Zimmer
The latter, probably. The earliest citation in the ProQuest database is
from a July 24, 1972 New York Times article about U.S. raids in Vietnam:
"'With "smart bombs" you can assure yourself that there will be no
collateral damage,' one officer said. 'In other words, they hit the
target and not the civilians.'"
Throughout the '70s, the term was most often used with reference to
nuclear warfare (cruise missiles and neutron bombs were thought to
minimize collateral damage in the event of nuclear war).
--Ben
Joseph W. Murphy
>Who coined the term "collateral damage", and when?
Can't help you. I know Vietnam vet Timothy McVeigh used the term when
referring to the death toll at the Oklahoma City bombing.
A new one for me has been the use of "asymmetrical attack" as a
description (I guess) of something that terrorists might be expected
to do. Has this one ever been used before or is it the latest
contribution from Pentagonese?
Joe Murphy
Boy Linguist
Spehro Pefhany
> A new one for me has been the use of "asymmetrical attack" as a
> description (I guess) of something that terrorists might be expected
> to do. Has this one ever been used before or is it the latest
> contribution from Pentagonese?
Asymmetrical warfare is a term that dates back from before September 11,
but I don't know how far back. Michael Pillsbury, a military analyst,
used it as early as January of 1998 referring to the _buduideng
zhanzheng_ military doctrine of the Chinese PLA. It's therefore possible
the phrase originated in the Chinese language.
Best regards,
--
Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
/.-.\
(( * ))
\\ // Please help if you can:
\\\ http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
//\\\
/// \\\
\/ \/
Alexander Browne
jwmur...@mindspring.com wrote:
[...]
>I know Vietnam vet Timothy McVeigh used the term when
[...] ^^^^^^^
Just to nitpick, but was McVeigh in Vietnam? I thought he was in the
Gulf War. Could be both, I guess.
--
Alexander Browne | a...@apple2.com
Saint Paul, Minn., U.S.
Jack Gavin
"Alexander Browne" <a...@apple2.com.NULL> wrote in message
news:ab-B49C4E.21...@news.black-hole.com...
> In article <3bccdc2...@news.mindspring.com>,
> jwmur...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> [...]
> >I know Vietnam vet Timothy McVeigh used the term when
> [...] ^^^^^^^
>
> Just to nitpick, but was McVeigh in Vietnam? I thought he was in the
> Gulf War. Could be both, I guess.
http://www.cnn.com/resources/newsmakers/us/newsmakers/mcveigh.html :
Timothy McVeigh
Convicted Oklahoma City Bomber
Born: April 23, 1968; Pendleton, NY
I think Vietnam is out of the running.
--
Jack Gavin
Mike Wright
>
> hric...@sympatico.ca (howard richler) wrote:
>
> >Who coined the term "collateral damage", and when?
>
> Can't help you. I know Vietnam vet Timothy McVeigh
Not old enough. Gulf War vet.
> used the term when
> referring to the death toll at the Oklahoma City bombing.
>
> A new one for me has been the use of "asymmetrical attack" as a
> description (I guess) of something that terrorists might be expected
> to do. Has this one ever been used before or is it the latest
> contribution from Pentagonese?
Probably, but it's not brand new. On google I found mention of it
going back to at least 1997, including http://www.fas.org/man/congress/1997/testimony_pillsbury.htm.
It also includes "asymmetrical threats", "asymmetrical strategies",
and "asymmetric warfare".
Also out there, a cite of: Interview: General Hugh Shelton,
Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Special Operations Command. Jane's
Defence Weekly 27:32 Mar 5 '97. "The asymmetrical attack becomes far
more appealing...now than in the past".
Several sites talk about denial of service attacks as being a form of
asymmetrical attack.
The site on Mahavishnu Orchestra is not relevant to this meaning.
--
Mike Wright
http://www.CoastalFog.net
_______________________________________
"I think Descartes got it wrong.
It's not 'I think, therefore I am.'
It's 'I am, therefore I don't know.'"
--Ken Fair
Blinky the Shark
news:u7ktv5...@hpl.hp.com:
> hric...@sympatico.ca (howard richler) writes:
>
>> Who coined the term "collateral damage", and when?
>
> I've never been able to get any closer than "U.S. military".
> Most sources point to the Gulf War in 1991, although a number
> think that it was coined during the conflict in Kosovo.
"The Morrow Book of New Words" (N.H. & S.K. Mager, New York: Quill,
1982) has an entry for it.
--
Blinky
Paul Hartman
howard richler wrote:
> Who coined the term "collateral damage", and when?
The term has been around for a while. It may be from the Strategic
Bombing Surveys from right after WW2-- just a guess, mind you.
Joseph W. Murphy
>"Joseph W. Murphy" wrote:
>>
>> hric...@sympatico.ca (howard richler) wrote:
>>
>> >Who coined the term "collateral damage", and when?
>>
>> Can't help you. I know Vietnam vet Timothy McVeigh
>
>Not old enough. Gulf War vet.
>
*slapping my forehead* Arrgh! You're right!
Joe Murphy
Boy Linguist
Robert J. Kolker
Alexander Browne wrote:
>
> Just to nitpick, but was McVeigh in Vietnam? I thought he was in the
> Gulf War. Could be both, I guess.
He was too young for Nam. He fought in the Gulf War.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Paul Hartman wrote:
You may be right.
Bob Kolker
The only difference bewteen war and peace is where
we place our bombs --- Curtis LeMay
howard richler
Personally, I find "collateral damage" to be a troubling euphemism.This
incidental damage results in innocent civilians being killed. We would
never use this term if American civilians were the ones being
slaughtered by a bomb that missed a military target. Any thoughts?
red
Tony Cooper
>
> Personally, I find "collateral damage" to be a troubling euphemism.This
> incidental damage results in innocent civilians being killed. We would
> never use this term if American civilians were the ones being
> slaughtered by a bomb that missed a military target. Any thoughts?
> red
That's the purpose of an euphemism: to substitute a less
offensive word or term for one that is less pleasant. If
you are troubled, it should not be with the euphemism, but
with the concept of acceptance of the act.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots and Tittles
Steve Hayes
As several people have pointed out, on September 11 Americans experienced at
first hand the effects of the collateral damage they inflict on others.
That is what collateral damage means to the people on the ground, and that is
precisely what is being done in the cowardly US/British attacks on Afganistan.
It is not a war on terrorism. It is a terrorist war, with innocent civilians
on both sides getting killed and injured.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Simon R. Hughes
> On 17 Oct 2001 18:29:17 -0700, hric...@sympatico.ca (howard richler) wrote:
>
> >"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<3BCD7E25...@mediaone.net>...
> >> Paul Hartman wrote:
> >>
> >> > howard richler wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Who coined the term "collateral damage", and when?
> >> >
> >> > The term has been around for a while. It may be from the Strategic
> >> > Bombing Surveys from right after WW2-- just a guess, mind you.
> >>
> >> You may be right.
> >>
> >> Bob Kolker
> >>
> >> The only difference bewteen war and peace is where
> >> we place our bombs --- Curtis LeMay
> >
> >
> >Personally, I find "collateral damage" to be a troubling euphemism.This
> >incidental damage results in innocent civilians being killed. We would
> > never use this term if American civilians were the ones being
> >slaughtered by a bomb that missed a military target. Any thoughts?
> >red
>
> As several people have pointed out, on September 11 Americans experienced at
> first hand the effects of the collateral damage they inflict on others.
>
> That is what collateral damage means to the people on the ground, and that is
> precisely what is being done in the cowardly US/British attacks on Afganistan.
>
> It is not a war on terrorism. It is a terrorist war, with innocent civilians
> on both sides getting killed and injured.
In the past few days, I have been wondering whether it might be an
American/ British campaign against the United Nations and
International Red Cross.
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>As several people have pointed out, on September 11 Americans experienced at
>first hand the effects of the collateral damage they inflict on others.
That is not the meaning of collateral damage. Not even close.
>That is what collateral damage means to the people on the ground, and that is
>precisely what is being done in the cowardly US/British attacks on Afganistan.
What is required are attacks on terrorists in additional countries and
this will soon happen, in spite of a small minority like you who have
their heads firmly implanted up their asses. We must reign down bombs
and missiles on these evil terrorists no matter where we find them and
that, in a nutshell, is the policy of the leaders of the West. Burying
your head in the sand will not change the severity of the present
situation. Leave these problems and their solution to the people who
know what they are doing -- our elected leaders.
>It is not a war on terrorism. It is a terrorist war, with innocent civilians
>on both sides getting killed and injured.
Your knowledge of the English language is as defective as your
principles.
Charles Riggs
Spooky Guy Next Door
(kirsh...@hpl.hp.com) posted the following...
> hric...@sympatico.ca (howard richler) writes:
>
> > Who coined the term "collateral damage", and when?
>
> I've never been able to get any closer than "U.S. military". Most
> sources point to the Gulf War in 1991, although a number think that it
> was coined during the conflict in Kosovo.
It was definitely in use prior to Kosovo.
--
"some browsers are very clever. some can even render [MS FrontPage]
markup but thats not clever, thats just some kind of sick mutant thing
happening."
- brucie, alt.html 14/10/01
blog - http://www.cyberfuddle.com/infinitebabble/
cyberfuddle - http://www.cyberfuddle.com/
alt.startrek FAQ - http://www.altstartrek.f2s.com/
learn HTML - http://smiley.vh.mewl.net/markhtml/
Spooky Guy Next Door
(hric...@sympatico.ca) posted the following...
There's a poster doing the rounds ATM. It shows two burial sites, one
with the caption "USA" one with the caption "Afghanistan". On the USA
one, there's a large headstone that says "Innocent Victims". On the
Afghani one, it says "Collateral Damage".
There are no other differences between the two pictures.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>howard richler wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I find "collateral damage" to be a troubling euphemism.This
>> incidental damage results in innocent civilians being killed. We would
>> never use this term if American civilians were the ones being
>> slaughtered by a bomb that missed a military target. Any thoughts?
>> red
>
>That's the purpose of an euphemism: to substitute a less
>offensive word or term for one that is less pleasant. If
>you are troubled, it should not be with the euphemism, but
>with the concept of acceptance of the act.
In this case, the euphemis is used to promote acceptance of the act. That's
why it's more offensive than a more straightforward term.
Peter Haglund
[...]
> What is required are attacks on terrorists in additional countries and
> this will soon happen, in spite of a small minority like you who have
> their heads firmly implanted up their asses. We must reign down bombs
> and missiles on these evil terrorists no matter where we find them and
> that, in a nutshell, is the policy of the leaders of the West.
Are you sure that that's the policy in a nutshell? The idiots who send
anthrax letters seem to reside in the USA; I don't think that they
need to fear missiles as long as they stay in that country.
jan sand
Considering that the US "smart bombs" now strike targets 1 mile away
from their intended point of impact, The stupid bombs may well strike
mainland USA if dropped over Afghanistan.
Jan Sand
Odysseus
>
[snip]
> ... We must reign down bombs
> and missiles on these evil terrorists
[snip]
> Your knowledge of the English language is as defective as your
> principles.
>
Judging from your usage of "reign" above, I think you might benefit from
taking the proverb about glass houses to heart.
--Odysseus
Tony Cooper
>
> >> Personally, I find "collateral damage" to be a troubling euphemism.This
> >> incidental damage results in innocent civilians being killed. We would
> >> never use this term if American civilians were the ones being
> >> slaughtered by a bomb that missed a military target. Any thoughts?
> >> red
> >
> >That's the purpose of an euphemism: to substitute a less
> >offensive word or term for one that is less pleasant. If
> >you are troubled, it should not be with the euphemism, but
> >with the concept of acceptance of the act.
>
> In this case, the euphemis is used to promote acceptance of the act. That's
> why it's more offensive than a more straightforward term.
>
"Promote acceptance"? Is that really what's being done?
Disguise the reality, maybe. Make people less aware,
perhaps. But I don't think acceptance is either promoted or
encouraged. It's just something we don't want to think
about. We're not really into boosting enthusiasm in
accepting non-targeted body counts.
Simon R. Hughes
I read that the bombs are still considered smart, it's just that the
people entering the coordinates are stupid.
Simon R. Hughes
Thus Spake Charles Riggs:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 06:47:36 GMT, haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes)
> wrote:
>
> >As several people have pointed out, on September 11 Americans experienced at
> >first hand the effects of the collateral damage they inflict on others.
>
> That is not the meaning of collateral damage. Not even close.
True. That was a calculated act of terror, just like a number of
Western military actions of the past sixty years.
> >That is what collateral damage means to the people on the ground, and that is
> >precisely what is being done in the cowardly US/British attacks on Afganistan.
>
> What is required are attacks on terrorists in additional countries and
> this will soon happen, in spite of a small minority like you who have
> their heads firmly implanted up their asses. We must reign down bombs
> and missiles on these evil terrorists no matter where we find them and
> that, in a nutshell, is the policy of the leaders of the West. Burying
> your head in the sand will not change the severity of the present
> situation. Leave these problems and their solution to the people who
> know what they are doing -- our elected leaders.
I totally agree.
And when we find the terrorists living in downtown LA, or upstate
New York, or in rural New Hampshire; or when we find them living in
Basildon, or Chester, or Slough (hey, didn't some prophet suggest
that, years ago?), we should bomb the fuck out of them and all their
neighbours, who are just as guilty because they live next door.
And while we're at it, we should bomb the local hospital and grain
store, and then shrug our shoulders and says "whoops!".
And some foreign embassy or other.
> >It is not a war on terrorism. It is a terrorist war, with innocent civilians
> >on both sides getting killed and injured.
>
> Your knowledge of the English language is as defective as your
> principles.
"Reign drops keep falling on my head..."
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
(Sarcastic as... Hmm, well, pretty damn sarcastic, in any case.)
Paul Hartman
howard richler wrote:
It's a statement of attitude and perspective. Like in the old colonial wars, if the guys we like
were the winners it was a battle, if the other guys won, then it was a massacre.
Paul Hartman
Steve Hayes wrote:
> On 17 Oct 2001 18:29:17 -0700, hric...@sympatico.ca (howard richler) wrote:
>
> >"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<3BCD7E25...@mediaone.net>...
> >> Paul Hartman wrote:
> >>
> >> > howard richler wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Who coined the term "collateral damage", and when?
> >> >
> >> > The term has been around for a while. It may be from the Strategic
> >> > Bombing Surveys from right after WW2-- just a guess, mind you.
> >>
> >> You may be right.
> >>
> >> Bob Kolker
> >>
> >> The only difference bewteen war and peace is where
> >> we place our bombs --- Curtis LeMay
> >
> >
> >Personally, I find "collateral damage" to be a troubling euphemism.This
> >incidental damage results in innocent civilians being killed. We would
> > never use this term if American civilians were the ones being
> >slaughtered by a bomb that missed a military target. Any thoughts?
> >red
>
> As several people have pointed out, on September 11 Americans experienced at
> first hand the effects of the collateral damage they inflict on others.
>
> That is what collateral damage means to the people on the ground, and that is
> precisely what is being done in the cowardly US/British attacks on Afganistan.
>
> It is not a war on terrorism. It is a terrorist war, with innocent civilians
> on both sides getting killed and injured.
>
>
Collateral damage is damage that occurs outside the objective of the attack. When civilians are the
specific target it is called `murder'.
Helen
"Charles Riggs" <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:bo1tst07iah0ffa63...@4ax.com...
>Leave these problems and their solution to the people who
> know what they are doing -- our elected leaders.
This could go way off topic but hey, it's provided my laugh for the day.
It reminds me that an American recently told me that unlike the Americans,
the Brits did not have a history of questioning those in power; if this is
true, then I do wonder what the Americans have learnt from it.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> It reminds me that an American recently told me that unlike the Americans,
> the Brits did not have a history of questioning those in power; if this is
> true, then I do wonder what the Americans have learnt from it.
This American is clearly not familiar with British history.
Matthew Huntbach
howard richler
> As slimy things with legs walked upon the slimy sea, howard richler
> (hric...@sympatico.ca) posted the following...
>
> > "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<3BCD7E25...@mediaone.net>...
> > > Paul Hartman wrote:
> > >
> > > > howard richler wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Who coined the term "collateral damage", and when?
> > > >
> > > > The term has been around for a while. It may be from the Strategic
> > > > Bombing Surveys from right after WW2-- just a guess, mind you.
> > >
> > > You may be right.
> > >
> > > Bob Kolker
> > >
> > > The only difference bewteen war and peace is where
I've heard many media figures like Bryant Gumbel and Katie Couric use
the term "collateral damage" as if it was nothing more than military
jargon.It
is even much more than an Orwellian euphemism to describe the deaths
of innocent human beings as "collateral damage." It is meant to close
the topic, to stop the conversation, to dismiss the lost lives as not
worthy of any further discussion. They are, after all, merely
"collateral damage."
And one does not assume moral responsibility for "collateral damage."
Evan Kirshenbaum
> As several people have pointed out, on September 11 Americans
> experienced at first hand the effects of the collateral damage they
> inflict on others.
Remind me again. What was the military target being aimed at that
resulted in the unfortunate, unintended consequence of having two
planes slam into the World Trade Center and killing several thousand
people?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Feeling good about government is like
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |looking on the bright side of any
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |catastrophe. When you quit looking
|on the bright side, the catastrophe
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |is still there.
(650)857-7572 | P.J. O'Rourke
Peter T. Daniels
"non-targeted body counts"? Is that this year's version?
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Evan Kirshenbaum
> And when we find the terrorists living in downtown LA, or upstate
> New York, or in rural New Hampshire; or when we find them living in
> Basildon, or Chester, or Slough (hey, didn't some prophet suggest
> that, years ago?), we should bomb the fuck out of them and all their
> neighbours, who are just as guilty because they live next door.
Depends. Did these places refuse to extradite them and actively
resist trying to capture them and letting your police go in to try to
get them? Is there not a government in place that you can deal with
diplomatically?
> And while we're at it, we should bomb the local hospital and grain
> store, and then shrug our shoulders and says "whoops!".
Hopefully, we'll never find out, but I'd hope that if we ever find
ourselves in such a war (you know, the kind where the other side
actually declares that it's coming and attacks in a recognizable way)
we'd be able to understand the notion of collateral damage. "Yeah,
they hit the hospital, but they *were* probably aiming at the ammo
dump down the block. What the hell were we thinking of putting it so
close to the hospital?" (And, of course, it's against the "rules of
war" that we (and Afghanistan) are signatories to.)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If a bus station is where a bus
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |stops, and a train station is where
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a train stops, what does that say
|about a workstation?
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
steve
>
>haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) writes:
>
>> As several people have pointed out, on September 11 Americans
>> experienced at first hand the effects of the collateral damage they
>> inflict on others.
>
>Remind me again. What was the military target being aimed at that
>resulted in the unfortunate, unintended consequence of having two
>planes slam into the World Trade Center and killing several thousand
>people?
The military mission was winning the cold war.
To that end starting in 1947, the US has been
intimately involved in aiding and supporting
anti communist governments all over the world.
A large number of these governments used the
support of the US to plunder the resources of
their Islamic people.
*The Islamic people* of Iran, Iraq, Israel, India, Pakistan,
Afganistan, Kashmir, Egypt, Turkey, The Indian Ocean,
the Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia,
the Philipines and countless other third world countries
*have been the military target* of the regimes propped up
by the US in the interests of its foreign policy.
Their ill will is the collateral damage of the cold war
that resulted in so many refugee camps and terrorists
How many millions of innocent people would you think
could be tortured, killed, maimed, impoverished,
deprived of their human rights and ignored in
their non violent protests before there were
consequences.
Hopefully its not just the US that recognizes the cold war is over,
and the time has come to end the terror and rebuild. The best thing
we could do to bring peace to the world is start devoting as many
resources to building roads, schools, sewage treatment plants,
power plants, and other infrastructure as we are presently
spending on bombs.
I like it that the US now recognizes the Palestinians
need a homeland.
Its time to start dealing with the problem
and not just the symptom of the problem
>
>--
>Evan Kirshenbaum
collateral damage: from the Hittite:
"[k]i= wa iyanun kuit
Why have I done this?"
kull-a tera el [DAM]age
"
URU
[LUG]AL Kussara URU-az katta [p]angarit e[et
UR]U
nu ] Nessan ispandi nakkit da[s
URU
N]esas LUGAL-un ISBAT
,
alu natta kuedaniki takkista"
"The King of Kussaras came down from the city
with great forces and took the city of Nesas
with violence during the night. He captured
the king of Nesas. As for the inhabitants of
Nesas he did not offend anyone: he treated
them as fathers and mothers"
except
"[(ku)]it kuit E-ri andan [(harakzi)]
whatever house inside it perishes"
Apendix 1 page 148-154 "Old Hittite Sentence Structure"
Silvia Luraghi
steve
Chip Wood
BTW- Origin of "old saw"? and "The winners get to write the history."?
"Paul Hartman" <hart...@norlight.net> wrote in message
news:3bced927$0$30974
Peter T. Daniels
>
> The old saw- "The winners get to write the history."
>
> BTW- Origin of "old saw"? and "The winners get to write the history."?
This "saw" = "saga."
Peter T. Daniels
>
> In article <uy9m87...@hpl.hp.com>, kirsh...@hpl.hp.com says...
> >
> >haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) writes:
> >
> >> As several people have pointed out, on September 11 Americans
> >> experienced at first hand the effects of the collateral damage they
> >> inflict on others.
> >
> >Remind me again. What was the military target being aimed at that
> >resulted in the unfortunate, unintended consequence of having two
> >planes slam into the World Trade Center and killing several thousand
> >people?
>
> The military mission was winning the cold war.
> To that end starting in 1947, the US has been
> intimately involved in aiding and supporting
> anti communist governments all over the world.
No, Steve.
The World Trade Center was not destroyed incidentally in the course of
bombing or otherwise attacking some adjacent military target.
Usually your ravings are inconsequential and, for a couple of rounds,
amusing, but this time you are treading on very sensitive ground.
What "Islamic people of the Indian Ocean" have been military targets of
regimes, propped or otherwise?
steve
>
>steve wrote:
>>
>> In article <uy9m87...@hpl.hp.com>, kirsh...@hpl.hp.com says...
>> >
>> >haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) writes:
>> >
>> >> As several people have pointed out, on September 11 Americans
>> >> experienced at first hand the effects of the collateral damage they
>> >> inflict on others.
>> >
>> >Remind me again. What was the military target being aimed at that
>> >resulted in the unfortunate, unintended consequence of having two
>> >planes slam into the World Trade Center and killing several thousand
>> >people?
>>
>> The military mission was winning the cold war.
>> To that end starting in 1947, the US has been
>> intimately involved in aiding and supporting
>> anti communist governments all over the world.
>
>No, Steve.
I know you live in New York Peter, I don't live far from there.
People I know died there just as your friends did.
>The World Trade Center was not destroyed incidentally in the course of
>bombing or otherwise attacking some adjacent military target.
Something being destroyed incidentally in the course of
bombing or otherwise attacking some adjacent military target
is not the only sense of collateral damage.
Collateral damage includes any and all of the
unintended consequences of an action.
The world wide terrorism we are finally confronting didn't begin with the WTC,
that's just the first time most Americans began to give it any thought.
The consequences of fifty years of waging a cold war have been millions of
deaths, not just a few thousand. Our diplomatic manuverings since 1947
have had consequences for the rest of the world and if we want to
solve the problem of terrorism once and for all we need to
recognize that.
>Usually your ravings are inconsequential and, for a couple of rounds,
>amusing, but this time you are treading on very sensitive ground.
Maybe, but if you think bombing Afganistan from the stone age
back into primordial ooze is going to solve the problem of
terrorism you are wrong.
Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Bangaladesh and Burma have Islamic populations
that have experienced or been involved in problems ranging from
terrorism to outright revolution since 1947.
Do you think its likely that nineteen reasonably intelligent young
people would not only commit mass suicide but take several years
to prepare for it living inside the thing to be destroyed unless
something had damaged them in as terrible a way as the WTC
has damaged us?
Before we can put an end to terrorism we are going to have to
get our heads to a place where we can understand why it exists.
>--
>Peter T. Daniels
best regards,
steve
Simon R. Hughes
> Simon R. Hughes <hug...@tromso.online.no> writes:
>
> > And when we find the terrorists living in downtown LA, or upstate
> > New York, or in rural New Hampshire; or when we find them living in
> > Basildon, or Chester, or Slough (hey, didn't some prophet suggest
> > that, years ago?), we should bomb the fuck out of them and all their
> > neighbours, who are just as guilty because they live next door.
>
> Depends. Did these places refuse to extradite them and actively
> resist trying to capture them and letting your police go in to try to
> get them? Is there not a government in place that you can deal with
> diplomatically?
True there is no government in Afghanistan, but political and
economic pressure has not even been given a chance. America even
refused to enter negotiations that might have resulted in
extradition (slim as the chance appeared).
I was happy to see that Kenya got the embassy bombing terrorists, by
the way. I hope their life-imprisonments in Kenyan prisons are
suitably unhealthy and painful.
> > And while we're at it, we should bomb the local hospital and grain
> > store, and then shrug our shoulders and says "whoops!".
>
> Hopefully, we'll never find out, but I'd hope that if we ever find
> ourselves in such a war (you know, the kind where the other side
> actually declares that it's coming and attacks in a recognizable way)
> we'd be able to understand the notion of collateral damage. "Yeah,
> they hit the hospital, but they *were* probably aiming at the ammo
> dump down the block. What the hell were we thinking of putting it so
> close to the hospital?" (And, of course, it's against the "rules of
> war" that we (and Afghanistan) are signatories to.)
Yeah, right. I can see the newspapers and the politicians standing
together saying, "Now everyone, let's just calm down a bit...".
masakim
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>
> Joseph W. Murphy wrote:
>
>> A new one for me has been the use of "asymmetrical attack"
>> as a description (I guess) of something that terrorists might
>> be expected to do. Has this one ever been used before or is
>> it the latest contribution from Pentagonese?
It was "used before":
The asymmetrical attack becomes far more appealing ... now than in the
past.
--Interview: General Hugh Shelton, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S.
Special Operations Command, _Jane's Defence Weekly_, March, 1997.
> Asymmetrical warfare is a term that dates back from before
> September 11, but I don't know how far back. Michael Pillsbury,
> a military analyst, used it as early as January of 1998 referring
> to the _buduideng zhanzheng_ military doctrine of the Chinese
> PLA. It's therefore possible the phrase originated in the Chinese
> language.
It was used as early as May 1995:
Prof. T.V. Paul questions this explanation about why nations make war
by raising the issue of "asymmetric conflicts" -- those initiated by
so-called weaker powers against a country or coalition of superior
military force. He cites six cases in the history of such asymmetric
warfare between nations, of which one is the Indian-Pakistani war of
1965.
--Shivaji Sengupta, "Why Weaker Powers Start Wars," _The Ethnic
NewsWatch_, May 19, 1995
Regards,
masakim
Ben Zimmer
As I posted a couple days ago, the earliest New York Times citation is
from July 24, 1972, citing an unnamed military official discussing U.S.
raids in Vietnam. It was used shortly thereafter in reference to
nuclear warfare scenarios.
--Ben
Ron Hardin
collateral damage from men.
They reflect differing interests, responsibilities and duties in moral
arguments, which arguments conclude with the positions having been
stated and one side sleeping on the couch.
Collateral damage can be used with irony or sarcasm by the women's side
to conjure innocent victims, but it has an unironic use.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
Tony Cooper
>
> And when we find the terrorists living in downtown LA, or upstate
> New York, or in rural New Hampshire; or when we find them living in
> Basildon, or Chester, or Slough (hey, didn't some prophet suggest
> that, years ago?), we should bomb the fuck out of them and all their
> neighbours, who are just as guilty because they live next door.
>
> And while we're at it, we should bomb the local hospital and grain
> store, and then shrug our shoulders and says "whoops!".
There is an art, even, to sarcasm. It may be cold. It may
be biting. It may even be bald. But, it cannot run on too
long lest it bump into satire. Stick with impassioned pleas
for reason, Simon. This form doesn't suit you.
Tony Cooper
>
> I've heard many media figures like Bryant Gumbel and Katie Couric use
> the term "collateral damage" as if it was nothing more than military
> jargon.It
> is even much more than an Orwellian euphemism to describe the deaths
> of innocent human beings as "collateral damage." It is meant to close
> the topic, to stop the conversation, to dismiss the lost lives as not
> worthy of any further discussion. They are, after all, merely
> "collateral damage."
> And one does not assume moral responsibility for "collateral damage."
If Dan Rather said tonight that "A small village was bombed
today when an American bomber inadvertently released its
payload over the wrong coordinates. This brings to xx the
number of innocent civilians killed in Afghanistan.", would
this improve things? Would this dampen the outrage of you
and the other posters that object to the phrase "collateral
damage"?
Would more than, say, four or five people in the entire
country even notice the difference in wording? Would there
be a swell of moral responsibility generated by the frank
use of the word "killed"? Would the lives be less
dismissed?
The term is no more than a bone for some to chew on.
Peter T. Daniels
The destruction of the World Trade Center was not an unintended
consequence. It was the intended consequence of a pair of hijackings.
> The world wide terrorism we are finally confronting didn't begin with the WTC,
> that's just the first time most Americans began to give it any thought.
>
> The consequences of fifty years of waging a cold war have been millions of
> deaths, not just a few thousand. Our diplomatic manuverings since 1947
> have had consequences for the rest of the world and if we want to
> solve the problem of terrorism once and for all we need to
> recognize that.
>
> >Usually your ravings are inconsequential and, for a couple of rounds,
> >amusing, but this time you are treading on very sensitive ground.
>
> Maybe, but if you think bombing Afganistan from the stone age
> back into primordial ooze is going to solve the problem of
> terrorism you are wrong.
>
> >> A large number of these governments used the
> >> support of the US to plunder the resources of
> >> their Islamic people.
> >>
> >> *The Islamic people* of Iran, Iraq, Israel, India, Pakistan,
> >> Afganistan, Kashmir, Egypt, Turkey, The Indian Ocean,
> >> the Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia,
> >> the Philipines and countless other third world countries
> >> *have been the military target* of the regimes propped up
> >> by the US in the interests of its foreign policy.
> >What "Islamic people of the Indian Ocean" have been military targets of
> >regimes, propped or otherwise?
>
> Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Bangaladesh and Burma have Islamic populations
> that have experienced or been involved in problems ranging from
> terrorism to outright revolution since 1947.
The only one of those four that can remotely be called "of the Indian
Ocean" is listed separately.
The only "Islamic people of the Indian Ocean" are Comorians, some
Malagache, some Mauritians, and some Reunionians, none of whom fit your
parameter of military targethood and US-propping.
Paul Hartman
Chip Wood wrote:
> The old saw- "The winners get to write the history."
>
The Old Sawyer should consult the bibliography of the US civil war and
of WW2 before sawing so broadly.
Paul Hartman
howard richler wrote:
> Spooky Guy Next Door <mgall...@cyberfuddle.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.16393c51f...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
> > As slimy things with legs walked upon the slimy sea, howard richler
> > (hric...@sympatico.ca) posted the following...
> >
> > > "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<3BCD7E25...@mediaone.net>...
> > > > Paul Hartman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > howard richler wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Who coined the term "collateral damage", and when?
> > > > >
> > > > > The term has been around for a while. It may be from the Strategic
> > > > > Bombing Surveys from right after WW2-- just a guess, mind you.
> > > >
> > > > You may be right.
> > > >
> > > > Bob Kolker
> > > >
> > > > The only difference bewteen war and peace is where
>
> I've heard many media figures like Bryant Gumbel and Katie Couric use
> the term "collateral damage" as if it was nothing more than military
> jargon.It
> is even much more than an Orwellian euphemism to describe the deaths
> of innocent human beings as "collateral damage." It is meant to close
> the topic, to stop the conversation, to dismiss the lost lives as not
> worthy of any further discussion. They are, after all, merely
> "collateral damage."
> And one does not assume moral responsibility for "collateral damage."
>
>
The term embraces *all unintended damage, not just civilian losses. It can even be used in the context of a situation such
as bombing a bridge with an enemy force unexpectedly crossing it at the time--`Target destroyed per mission, with
considerable collateral damage to enemy's XX Armored division was accomplished as well.'
Joseph W. Murphy
Hmmmm...Now I'm sort of confused. Just what is "asymmetric warfare"
supposed to be anyway?
(a) Is it a terrorist attack by unconventional means (viz. something
like the WTC attack, bioterrorism, or nuclear terrorism) -- the
context in which I first heard it used?
(b) Or, is it simply a weaker power initiating war on a stronger one
(as referenced above in the cite to Prof. Paul)?
(c) Or, is it just unconventional war waged by any force,
irrespective of perceived power balances (viz. U.S.special forces unit
commando raids on North Vietnamese forces etc. as the last cite seemed
to imply)?
(d) All of the above?
(e) None of the above?
Also, what's "asymmetric" about it?
Joe Murphy
Boy Linguist
steve
>> Collateral damage includes any and all of the
>> unintended consequences of an action.
>
>The destruction of the World Trade Center was not an unintended
>consequence. It was the intended consequence of a pair of hijackings.
I'm not sure that even the hijackers expected the full enormity
of what happened, but lets grant you that. I'm pretty sure that
from an Islamic perspective unintended consequences fall in the
category of Inshallah.
The point I'm trying to make is that though we tend to notice the
immediate consequences of an action more, the long range consequences
of things like wars do have long lasting repurcusions. If you ask
yourself why the hijackers intended to do what they did that's when
you begin to see the collateral damage of fifty years of cold war.
....
>> >What "Islamic people of the Indian Ocean" have been military targets of
>> >regimes, propped or otherwise?
>>
>> Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Bangaladesh and Burma have Islamic populations
>> that have experienced or been involved in problems ranging from
>> terrorism to outright revolution since 1947.
>
>The only one of those four that can remotely be called "of the Indian
>Ocean" is listed separately.
>
>The only "Islamic people of the Indian Ocean" are Comorians, some
>Malagache, some Mauritians, and some Reunionians, none of whom fit your
>parameter of military targethood and US-propping.
Would you say that the only people of the Atlantic Ocean were
those who lived in its islands or would you include the Americas
Europe and Africa?
Even if you only include islands and not coasts in your idea of
what constitutes the Indian ocean I'm curious why you wouldn't
include Sri Lanka and Indonesia? 87 % of the people who
live in Indonesia's archipelago of 13,500 islands are Islamic.
>--
>Peter T. Daniels
regards,
steve
Frances Kemmish
>
> Simon R. Hughes <hug...@tromso.online.no> writes:
>
> > And when we find the terrorists living in downtown LA, or upstate
> > New York, or in rural New Hampshire; or when we find them living in
> > Basildon, or Chester, or Slough (hey, didn't some prophet suggest
> > that, years ago?), we should bomb the fuck out of them and all their
> > neighbours, who are just as guilty because they live next door.
>
> Depends. Did these places refuse to extradite them and actively
> resist trying to capture them and letting your police go in to try to
> get them? Is there not a government in place that you can deal with
> diplomatically?
>
The USA did refuse to extradite IRA terrorists to the UK. Does that
count?
Fran
Richard Fontana
Those refusals to extradite were pursuant to the then-existing extradition
treaty between the US and the UK, the terms of which were
admittedly somewhat generous to desired-extraditees, as interpreted by an
independent judiciary (and not arbitrary or extra-legal action by the
executive branch of the US government).
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>> >> Personally, I find "collateral damage" to be a troubling euphemism.This
>> >> incidental damage results in innocent civilians being killed. We would
>> >> never use this term if American civilians were the ones being
>> >> slaughtered by a bomb that missed a military target. Any thoughts?
>> >> red
>> >
>> >That's the purpose of an euphemism: to substitute a less
>> >offensive word or term for one that is less pleasant. If
>> >you are troubled, it should not be with the euphemism, but
>> >with the concept of acceptance of the act.
>>
>> In this case, the euphemis is used to promote acceptance of the act. That's
>> why it's more offensive than a more straightforward term.
>>
>
>"Promote acceptance"? Is that really what's being done?
>Disguise the reality, maybe. Make people less aware,
>perhaps. But I don't think acceptance is either promoted or
>encouraged. It's just something we don't want to think
>about. We're not really into boosting enthusiasm in
>accepting non-targeted body counts.
I suppose as memory of the bombing of Yugoslavia recedes into the past, ones
memory of everything grows fuzzy. But I seem to remmember Nato spokesmen using
the term "collateral damage" to say, in effect, "Nothing can spoil this lovely
war."
Steve Hayes
It reminded me of the song:
What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned our government must be strong
It's always right and never wrong
our leaders are the finest men
and we elect 'em again and again.
That's what I learned in school today
That's what I learned in school.
Long may they rain, as Charles would say.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>
>
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> On 17 Oct 2001 18:29:17 -0700, hric...@sympatico.ca (howard richler) wrote:
>>
>> >"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<3BCD7E25...@mediaone.net>...
>> >> Paul Hartman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > howard richler wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Who coined the term "collateral damage", and when?
>> >> >
>> >> > The term has been around for a while. It may be from the Strategic
>> >> > Bombing Surveys from right after WW2-- just a guess, mind you.
>> >>
>> >> You may be right.
>> >>
>> >> Bob Kolker
>> >>
>> >> The only difference bewteen war and peace is where
>> >> we place our bombs --- Curtis LeMay
>> >
>> >
>> >Personally, I find "collateral damage" to be a troubling euphemism.This
>> >incidental damage results in innocent civilians being killed. We would
>> > never use this term if American civilians were the ones being
>> >slaughtered by a bomb that missed a military target. Any thoughts?
>> >red
>>
>> As several people have pointed out, on September 11 Americans experienced at
>> first hand the effects of the collateral damage they inflict on others.
>>
>> That is what collateral damage means to the people on the ground, and that is
>> precisely what is being done in the cowardly US/British attacks on Afganistan.
>>
>> It is not a war on terrorism. It is a terrorist war, with innocent civilians
>> on both sides getting killed and injured.
>>
>>
>
> Collateral damage is damage that occurs outside the objective of the attack. When civilians are the
>specific target it is called `murder'.
You didn't read what I said.
If your friends or family are killed or injured, being "outside the objective
of the attack" does nothing, absolutely nothing, to bring them back to life.
If a bomb hits your house or the place where you work, the building does not
escape unscathed because it was called "collateral damage" by some spin
artist.
What it means to the people on the ground is precistely the same, whatever the
propaganda artists choose tio call it.
Pat Durkin
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bcf9608...@news.saix.net...
> >
> >>Leave these problems and their solution to the people who
> >> know what they are doing -- our elected leaders.
> >
> >
> >This could go way off topic but hey, it's provided my laugh for the day.
> >
> >It reminds me that an American recently told me that unlike the
Americans,
> >the Brits did not have a history of questioning those in power; if this
is
> >true, then I do wonder what the Americans have learnt from it.
>
> It reminded me of the song:
>
> What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
> I learned our government must be strong
> It's always right and never wrong
> our leaders are the finest men
> and we elect 'em again and again.
> That's what I learned in school today
> That's what I learned in school.
>
> Long may they rain, as Charles would say.
>
I seem to recall some such verses (at least "That's what I learned in my
school"). I think they were a rough translation from a German song ( also
sung to a polka, I believe), and a bit different from the "Ist das nicht
ein Schnitzelbunk? Ja das ist ein etc... "
Or the other song I recall.... a marching song called "Kameraden"...
strange how only German type songs come up. I just thought I had better
read the basic message, and these are not as far off topic as I had thought.
How soon the indoctrination starts, not???
Tony Cooper
>
> But I seem to remmember Nato spokesmen using
> the term "collateral damage" to say, in effect, "Nothing can spoil this lovely
> war."
Using "in effect" gives one a great deal of room to
interpret. Handy, innit?
Tony Cooper
>
>
> The USA did refuse to extradite IRA terrorists to the UK. Does that
> count?
Odd. I'd just written something about situations where we
*did* extradite IRA (or splinter group) terrorists to the
UK. Smyth and Doherty. I don't remember the ones where we
refused, but that only means it doesn't come to mind. I was
trying to think of the one that the Kennedy (?) relative was
involved with, but can't remember how that went.
Is yours an example of the US government refusing to
extradite, or a situation where the subject's lawyers
successfully fought extradition? In most cases of failure
to extradite, it's not government unwillingness but the
ability of the subject's lawyers to stall and stall and
stall. Our old friend "due process" required drill for
extradition as it is for anything else.
The GFA provides amnesty, which will complicate any future
extradition procedures for IRA (or splinter group) members.
Tony Cooper
>
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Frances Kemmish wrote:
>
> > Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> > >
> > > Simon R. Hughes <hug...@tromso.online.no> writes:
> > >
> > > Depends. Did these places refuse to extradite them and actively
> > > resist trying to capture them and letting your police go in to try to
> > > get them? Is there not a government in place that you can deal with
> > > diplomatically?
> > >
> >
> > The USA did refuse to extradite IRA terrorists to the UK. Does that
> > count?
>
> Those refusals
Who?
to extradite were pursuant to the then-existing extradition
> treaty between the US and the UK, the terms of which were
> admittedly somewhat generous to desired-extraditees, as interpreted by an
> independent judiciary (and not arbitrary or extra-legal action by the
> executive branch of the US government).
What did you say? Simple English for the likes of me,
please.
Tony Cooper
> > Collateral damage is damage that occurs outside the objective of the attack. When civilians are the
> >specific target it is called `murder'.
>
> You didn't read what I said.
>
> If your friends or family are killed or injured, being "outside the objective
> of the attack" does nothing, absolutely nothing, to bring them back to life.
>
> If a bomb hits your house or the place where you work, the building does not
> escape unscathed because it was called "collateral damage" by some spin
> artist.
>
> What it means to the people on the ground is precistely the same, whatever the
> propaganda artists choose tio call it.
I think we can all grasp this, Steve. As long as we are
pointing out the obvious, is the intended victim any less
dead because he was intended to be a victim? Is the soldier
any less dead because he was killed in a legitimate act of
war? Do you mourn less or more for legitimate victims? You
seem to hold some special place for the innocent. Their
death is no more or no less special than the death of the
participants. Once we go over the line where any death -
innocent's or participant's - is acceptable, the semantics
or the spin become rather trivial.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> You didn't read what I said.
>
> If your friends or family are killed or injured, being "outside the
> objective of the attack" does nothing, absolutely nothing, to bring
> them back to life.
>
> If a bomb hits your house or the place where you work, the building
> does not escape unscathed because it was called "collateral damage"
> by some spin artist.
>
> What it means to the people on the ground is precistely the same,
> whatever the propaganda artists choose tio call it.
And yet, outside of war for some reason we make a distinction between
murder and manslaughter and accidental death.
My grandfather, who died on the operating table after an apparently
successful, carefully performed heart operation, is no less dead than
if the surgeon had intentionally slashed his throat with a scalpel.
And yet somehow, while mourning his loss, I had none of the rage and
bore the doctors none of the animosity that I would have had they
intended to kill him. I guess I'm just a victim of the medical
establishment's propaganda artists.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Any programming problem can be
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |solved by adding another layer of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |indirection. Any performance
|problem can be solved by removing
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |one.
(650)857-7572
Ben Zimmer
It would have been clearer if you had said "Muslims of the Indian Ocean
*region*". Similarly, scholars refer to "the Atlantic (Ocean) region",
"the Mediterranean region", etc.
> Even if you only include islands and not coasts in your idea of
> what constitutes the Indian ocean I'm curious why you wouldn't
> include Sri Lanka and Indonesia? 87 % of the people who
> live in Indonesia's archipelago of 13,500 islands are Islamic.
By most reckonings, Indonesia is not *in* the Indian Ocean but *borders*
it on the country's western and southern extremities. From the
Indonesian perspective, the Indian Ocean extends west of Sumatra and
south of Java, Bali and Nusatenggara (Lesser Sunda Islands). Fun fact:
one of Sukarno's nationalist/expansionist gestures was to unilaterally
rename the Indian Ocean ("Lautan Hindia") the Indonesian Ocean ("Lautan
Indonesia")! It still appears that way on many Indonesian maps.
Sri Lanka, though indubitably in the Indian Ocean, is only 7% Muslim.
Additional nitpick: estimates of the total number of islands in
Indonesia range from 13,000 to 17,000, but only about 6,000 are
inhabited.
--Ben
Frances Kemmish
>
> Frances Kemmish wrote:
> >
> >
> > The USA did refuse to extradite IRA terrorists to the UK. Does that
> > count?
>
> Odd. I'd just written something about situations where we
> *did* extradite IRA (or splinter group) terrorists to the
> UK. Smyth and Doherty. I don't remember the ones where we
> refused, but that only means it doesn't come to mind. I was
> trying to think of the one that the Kennedy (?) relative was
> involved with, but can't remember how that went.
>
> Is yours an example of the US government refusing to
> extradite, or a situation where the subject's lawyers
> successfully fought extradition? In most cases of failure
> to extradite, it's not government unwillingness but the
> ability of the subject's lawyers to stall and stall and
> stall. Our old friend "due process" required drill for
> extradition as it is for anything else.
>
Doherty is the only one that I have heard much about. It took nine
years for him to be extradited. Fortunately, the UK was more patient
with the US, than the US is with the Taliban.
Fran
Frances Kemmish
>
> haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) writes:
>
> > You didn't read what I said.
> >
> > If your friends or family are killed or injured, being "outside the
> > objective of the attack" does nothing, absolutely nothing, to bring
> > them back to life.
> >
> > If a bomb hits your house or the place where you work, the building
> > does not escape unscathed because it was called "collateral damage"
> > by some spin artist.
> >
> > What it means to the people on the ground is precistely the same,
> > whatever the propaganda artists choose tio call it.
>
> And yet, outside of war for some reason we make a distinction between
> murder and manslaughter and accidental death.
>
> My grandfather, who died on the operating table after an apparently
> successful, carefully performed heart operation, is no less dead than
> if the surgeon had intentionally slashed his throat with a scalpel.
> And yet somehow, while mourning his loss, I had none of the rage and
> bore the doctors none of the animosity that I would have had they
> intended to kill him. I guess I'm just a victim of the medical
> establishment's propaganda artists.
>
That doesn't seem like a very good analogy. People do tend to get very
angry if they think that a surgeon has operated on the wrong body, or
the wrong organ.
Fran
Matthew M. Huntbach
> Do you think its likely that nineteen reasonably intelligent young
> people would not only commit mass suicide but take several years
> to prepare for it living inside the thing to be destroyed unless
> something had damaged them in as terrible a way as the WTC
> has damaged us?
There is no evidence that any of those involved with this terrorist
event had been particularly damaged by tragedy. They seem, on the whole,
to be well-educated people from fairly privileged backgrounds. Like
many other such young people, they have found a cause which gave them
excuse to engage in derring-do. Of course they may have been influenced
by the fact that in other areas those engaged in terrorism have managed
to draw attention to some problem they are concerned with in a way those
who have stuck to peaceful means have not. But it is not unknown for
privileged young people to stage a big happening which involves their deaths
as well as the deaths of others, simply to make a grand scene, just like
in the films. The group these terrorists most remind me of is those
responsible for the Columbine School massacre.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> I was happy to see that Kenya got the embassy bombing terrorists, by
> the way. I hope their life-imprisonments in Kenyan prisons are
> suitably unhealthy and painful.
The group which New York State Congressman Peter King, and our own
Charles Riggs, are so keen, on would describe such people, imprisoned
for terrorist killings as "political hostages". They would expect them
to receive special privileged pampered treatement while in prison,
and treat them as heroes on their release.
Matthew Huntbach
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>
>> ... We must reign down bombs
>> and missiles on these evil terrorists
>
>[snip]
>
>> Your knowledge of the English language is as defective as your
>> principles.
>>
>Judging from your usage of "reign" above, I think you might benefit from
>taking the proverb about glass houses to heart.
Judging from your use of "usage", you live in a similarly constructed
house.
By the way, are you able to differentiate between a case of someone
misdefining and misusing words, in an attempt to mislead the reader,
and the case of someone making a typo?
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
>Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> writes:
>[...]
>> What is required are attacks on terrorists in additional countries and
>> this will soon happen, in spite of a small minority like you who have
>> their heads firmly implanted up their asses. We must reign down bombs
>> and missiles on these evil terrorists no matter where we find them and
>> that, in a nutshell, is the policy of the leaders of the West.
>
>Are you sure that that's the policy in a nutshell? The idiots who send
>anthrax letters seem to reside in the USA; I don't think that they
>need to fear missiles as long as they stay in that country.
That's a very difficult problem to solve alright. What's the answer?
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:39:38 +0100, "Helen" <iiiHe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charles Riggs" <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote in message
>>news:bo1tst07iah0ffa63...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 06:47:36 GMT, haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes)
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>Leave these problems and their solution to the people who
>>> know what they are doing -- our elected leaders.
>>
>>
>>This could go way off topic but hey, it's provided my laugh for the day.
>>
>>It reminds me that an American recently told me that unlike the Americans,
>>the Brits did not have a history of questioning those in power; if this is
>>true, then I do wonder what the Americans have learnt from it.
>
>It reminded me of the song:
>
>What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
>I learned our government must be strong
>It's always right and never wrong
>our leaders are the finest men
>and we elect 'em again and again.
>That's what I learned in school today
>That's what I learned in school.
I remember that amusing little song too. I agree with what the US
government is doing; you don't. The difference is I don't twist words
around to make my point.
>Long may they rain, as Charles would say.
If I said it, would my pronunciation give me away? Richard?
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
>Maybe, but if you think bombing Afganistan from the stone age
>back into primordial ooze is going to solve the problem of
>terrorism you are wrong.
ObAUE: Good one, Steve. Original?
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
>Hopefully its not just the US that recognizes the cold war is over,
>and the time has come to end the terror and rebuild.
How is the terrorist problem related to the cold war?
> The best thing
>we could do to bring peace to the world is start devoting as many
>resources to building roads, schools, sewage treatment plants,
>power plants, and other infrastructure as we are presently
>spending on bombs.
I don't think the solution is as simple as that. We could provide
10,000 piss-pots to the Afghans and I reckon many anti-Western,
screwball terrorists would still exist in their country.
>I like it that the US now recognizes the Palestinians
>need a homeland.
Blair too. It's about time.
>Its time to start dealing with the problem
>and not just the symptom of the problem
These symptoms result, today and at this moment, in the of killing of
Americans and the threat to kill more Americans and other Westerners.
The root "problem", if that problem can even be identified, will take
a long time to solve.
Charles Riggs
LarryLard
"Richard Fontana" <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.21.011018...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu...
> desired-extraditees
I know what you mean here (people who(m?) other people wish to extradite, or
is that to have extradited?) , but it's not very pretty is it?
--
Larry Lard. Replies to group please.
Peter T. Daniels
> >> Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Bangaladesh and Burma have Islamic populations
> >> that have experienced or been involved in problems ranging from
> >> terrorism to outright revolution since 1947.
> >
> >The only one of those four that can remotely be called "of the Indian
> >Ocean" is listed separately.
Naturally, you snipped the paragraph showing your redundancy. And thanks
to Ben for noting that its population is 7% Muslim -- hardly making it
an Islamic nation.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
felix
> If Dan Rather said tonight that "A small village was bombed
> today when an American bomber inadvertently released its
> payload over the wrong coordinates. This brings to xx the
> number of innocent civilians killed in Afghanistan.", would
> this improve things? Would this dampen the outrage of you
> and the other posters that object to the phrase "collateral
> damage"?
Well, there must be *some* reason why Dan Rather doesn't say this,
rather than:
"Our glorious airmen once more struck at the forces of anti-american
running dog fundamentalism, and again were victorious..." or whatever
stuff you get fed.
felix
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Chip Wood wrote:
>
> > The old saw- "The winners get to write the history."
> >
>
> The Old Sawyer should consult the bibliography of the US civil war and
> of WW2 before sawing so broadly.
>
> > BTW- Origin of "old saw"? and "The winners get to write the history."?
I don't find it in the index of the 1968 Bartlett's.
steve
>
>On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:30:24 GMT, whi...@shore.net (steve) wrote:
>
>
>>Hopefully its not just the US that recognizes the cold war is over,
>>and the time has come to end the terror and rebuild.
>
>How is the terrorist problem related to the cold war?
The US supported anti communist regimes led by strongmen that
often plundered the resources of their people with little regard
for the well being of the general population.
The resentment against the US for having supported regimes that left
millions of people mired in poverty, disease while murdering any who
stood up to protest is deep seated. Then there is the issue of our
perceived position as a broker of mideast peace effectively
in the pocket of Israel ie; as corrupt and partial judge.
>> The best thing
>>we could do to bring peace to the world is start devoting as many
>>resources to building roads, schools, sewage treatment plants,
>>power plants, and other infrastructure as we are presently
>>spending on bombs.
>
>I don't think the solution is as simple as that. We could provide
>10,000 piss-pots to the Afghans and I reckon many anti-Western,
>screwball terrorists would still exist in their country.
Bombing refugee camps just makes more refugees and terrorists.
Its like a petroleum fire. Putting water on it just spreads it.
What you need to do to extinguish the anger that fuels the fire
is to begin treating third world people fairly as human beings.
>
>>I like it that the US now recognizes the Palestinians
>>need a homeland.
>
>Blair too. It's about time.
>
>>Its time to start dealing with the problem
>>and not just the symptom of the problem
>
>These symptoms result, today and at this moment, in the of killing of
>Americans and the threat to kill more Americans and other Westerners.
>The root "problem", if that problem can even be identified, will take
>a long time to solve.
If, after we are through bombing Afganistan, we cleared it of mines and
turned it and the Kashmir into ski resorts like Aspen or Zermat, and
or built a few casinos like those that have provided wealth to once
impoverished indian reservations in the US, I am pretty sure that
there would be fewer people looking for an opportunity to strap
on some dynamite and blow themselves up.
>
>Charles Riggs
steve
Joseph W. Murphy
>If, after we are through bombing Afganistan, we cleared it of mines and
>turned it and the Kashmir into ski resorts like Aspen or Zermat, and
>or built a few casinos like those that have provided wealth to once
>impoverished indian reservations in the US, I am pretty sure that
>there would be fewer people looking for an opportunity to strap
>on some dynamite and blow themselves up.
I'm not so sure that a lot of people would want to go to Afghanistan
or Kashmir to ski and/or gamble. But maybe you're being facetious
with this proposal?
Joe Murphy
Boy Linguist
Frances Kemmish
People will travel almost anywhere to gamble, if the lines around the
block for the "Powerball" lottery were anything to go by.
Fran
Joseph W. Murphy
You've convinced me! Somebody send this thread to Colin Powell and
the Northern Alliance pronto! Let the "rebuilding" process begin!
Um, one question. Will the cocktail waitresses still wear hijabs?
Joe Murphy
Boy Linguist
Richard Fontana
Most likely not. Americans generally, if not universally, have "rain" and
"reign" (and "rein") as homophones.
jan sand
<fkem...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> My grandfather, who died on the operating table after an apparently
>> successful, carefully performed heart operation, is no less dead than
>> if the surgeon had intentionally slashed his throat with a scalpel.
>> And yet somehow, while mourning his loss, I had none of the rage and
>> bore the doctors none of the animosity that I would have had they
>> intended to kill him. I guess I'm just a victim of the medical
>> establishment's propaganda artists.
>>
>
>That doesn't seem like a very good analogy. People do tend to get very
>angry if they think that a surgeon has operated on the wrong body, or
>the wrong organ.
>
>Fran
And from what I had heard in newspaper reports of medical mistakes
this last year, that's not as unusual as one would hope.
Jan Sand
Richard Fontana
> steve (whi...@shore.net) wrote:
>
> > Do you think its likely that nineteen reasonably intelligent young
> > people would not only commit mass suicide but take several years
> > to prepare for it living inside the thing to be destroyed unless
> > something had damaged them in as terrible a way as the WTC
> > has damaged us?
>
> There is no evidence that any of those involved with this terrorist
> event had been particularly damaged by tragedy. They seem, on the whole,
> to be well-educated people from fairly privileged backgrounds.
Dead right. Like their left-wing revolutionary counterparts in the West,
they are upper-class people who want to take over their societies so that
they can persecute and oppress the lower classes instead of their parents
doing it.
Mark Rosenfelder
Ben Zimmer <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>Fun fact:
>one of Sukarno's nationalist/expansionist gestures was to unilaterally
>rename the Indian Ocean ("Lautan Hindia") the Indonesian Ocean ("Lautan
>Indonesia")! It still appears that way on many Indonesian maps.
Cute! Though I have to wonder, if he was appropriating an entire ocean
anyway, why not rename the larger Pacific?
Are there other interesting ocean renamings in the world?
The Pacific is Tai4ping2yang2 'Great Peace Ocean' to the Chinese; I assume
this is a calque on 'Pacific'. If so, what did they call it before?
steve
If you don't like to ski or gamble there is also parasailing,
rockclimbing, hiking, and all the scenic views any hotel
developer could wish for. The opium and marijuana makes
Amesterdam look expensive, and there are incredible
bargains on gold, saphires, and other collectibles.
>
>Joe Murphy
>Boy Linguist
steve
steve
Have you been to the Mohegan Sun lately?
Richard Fontana
> Richard Fontana wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Frances Kemmish wrote:
> >
> > > Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Simon R. Hughes <hug...@tromso.online.no> writes:
> > > >
> > > > Depends. Did these places refuse to extradite them and actively
> > > > resist trying to capture them and letting your police go in to try to
> > > > get them? Is there not a government in place that you can deal with
> > > > diplomatically?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The USA did refuse to extradite IRA terrorists to the UK. Does that
> > > count?
> >
> > Those refusals
>
> Who?
>
> to extradite were pursuant to the then-existing extradition
> > treaty between the US and the UK, the terms of which were
> > admittedly somewhat generous to desired-extraditees, as interpreted by an
> > independent judiciary (and not arbitrary or extra-legal action by the
> > executive branch of the US government).
>
> What did you say? Simple English for the likes of me,
> please.
What I think you suggested in another posting. The UK-based posters have
been, I think, implying that the US State Dept. or Dept. of Justice issued
an order refusing to extradite these people. In all cases, I believe, it
was done by the judiciary, and, as you say, lawyers were able to convince
judges that, under the terms of the extradition treaty between the US and
the UK, the desired-extraditees shouldn't be extradited. During the
1980s certainly the relevant US administrations supported UK requests
for extraditions, so you can't blame that branch. It was, as you
say, pursuant to "due process" that such persons were not extradited, or
that extradition was delayed. If there is a blameworthy part of the US
government in this it is the US Congress. The UK does not have the
'separation of powers' system of government that we have, so all this
might not be so obvious to such posters.
I don't know how extradition is handled in the UK, but I would think that
the US government would similarly have to file an action in a UK court
requesting extradition or that the extraditee could file an action
resisting such extradition.
Conditions in Northern Ireland during the relevant time period might
be worth considering; I think that such lawyers probably found
it easy to argue that extradition to Northern Ireland specifically (I
think that these extraditions were generally directed to Northern Ireland
authorities) might result in extra-legal violence against the
extraditees. As I say, though, the extradition treaty in effect during
the relevant period apparently contained a loophole that was designed to
be generous to IRA types. The UK agreed to this though.
Ben Zimmer
Mark Rosenfelder wrote:
>
> In article <3BCFD2C2...@midway.uchicago.edu>,
> Ben Zimmer <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> >Fun fact:
> >one of Sukarno's nationalist/expansionist gestures was to unilaterally
> >rename the Indian Ocean ("Lautan Hindia") the Indonesian Ocean ("Lautan
> >Indonesia")! It still appears that way on many Indonesian maps.
>
> Cute! Though I have to wonder, if he was appropriating an entire ocean
> anyway, why not rename the larger Pacific?
Indonesia, or at least the densely populated western islands (Java,
Sumatra, Bali), has historically had a much stronger orientation towards
the Indian Ocean than towards the Pacific. It's only been in the last
couple decades (e.g., with the founding of APEC) that Indonesia's place
in the Pacific Rim has had much geopolitical significance.
> Are there other interesting ocean renamings in the world?
Don't Koreans call the Sea of Japan "Tonghae" ("the Eastern Sea")?
Until the nineteenth century, Europeans called the North Atlantic "the
North Sea" and the South Atlantic "the Ethiopian Ocean"...
--Ben
steve
There is the so called Persian Gulf which in Saudi is called the Arabian Sea.
regards,
steve
Pierre Jelenc
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:30:24 GMT, whi...@shore.net (steve) wrote:
>
> >I like it that the US now recognizes the Palestinians
> >need a homeland.
>
> Blair too. It's about time.
Hmm. They got a homeland in 1948 but they refused it and started a war.
Clearly it's not the point.
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc | H o m e O f f i c e R e c o r d s
| * The Dan Emery Mystery Band * Pawnshop *
T h e G i g o m e t e r | * The Cucumbers * RAW Kinder *
www.thegigometer.com | www.homeofficerecords.com
Tony Cooper
>
> Tony Cooper wrote:
> >
> > Frances Kemmish wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The USA did refuse to extradite IRA terrorists to the UK. Does that
> > > count?
> >
> > *did* extradite IRA (or splinter group) terrorists to the
> > UK. Smyth and Doherty. I don't remember the ones where we
> > refused, but that only means it doesn't come to mind. I was
> > trying to think of the one that the Kennedy (?) relative was
> > involved with, but can't remember how that went.
> >
> > Is yours an example of the US government refusing to
> > extradite, or a situation where the subject's lawyers
> > successfully fought extradition? In most cases of failure
> > to extradite, it's not government unwillingness but the
> > ability of the subject's lawyers to stall and stall and
> > stall. Our old friend "due process" required drill for
> > extradition as it is for anything else.
> >
>
> Doherty is the only one that I have heard much about. It took nine
> years for him to be extradited. Fortunately, the UK was more patient
> with the US, than the US is with the Taliban.
>
I was rather hoping that you'd address the question of who
is blocking the extradition. Is it the government or those
in charge of the government as in the case in Afghanistan,
or is it the extraditee's lawyers as in the case of Doherty
et al? As far as I know, the US government has not drug
their feet in any case of extradition of an IRA or splinter
group member. Even our government cannot override the due
process system.
I offer that your sentence above would be more accurate had
you said "the UK was more patient with the US legal
system..."
I don't think we'll see a similar situation with bin Laden.
He won't be able to go to some country and claim sanctuary
and sit back and wait while the lawyers work out
extradition. A government can refuse sanctuary. We have
done this several times with tinpot dictators.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots and Tittles
Tony Cooper
>
>
> If, after we are through bombing Afganistan, we cleared it of mines and
> turned it and the Kashmir into ski resorts like Aspen or Zermat, and
> or built a few casinos like those that have provided wealth to once
> impoverished indian reservations in the US, I am pretty sure that
> there would be fewer people looking for an opportunity to strap
> on some dynamite and blow themselves up.
> >
I know you jest, but your post still reveals a complete lack
of understanding. You whinge on about what the US has done
to deserve the hatred of the world, but everything you
suggest above is exactly what earns us that hatred. Muslims
will hate us far less for bombing the innocents than for
"improving" Afghanistan with Western culture. They are
quite able to accept our killing of hundreds of innocents
(hopefully, to them, all females), but one casino with a
cocktail waitress would have them all strapping dynamite on.
Tony Cooper
Dan Rather is network. We only get the running dog bit on
local channels.
Spehro Pefhany
> Dan Rather is network. We only get the running dog bit on
> local channels.
If you miss the old rhetoric, I can highly recommend:
http://www.kcna.co.jp/ (News from North Korea)
Pyongyang, October 18 (KCNA) -- Evening galas of youth and students were
held in Pyongyang and local areas yesterday to mark the 75th anniversary
of the Down-With-Imperialism Union. Looking back on President Kim Il
Sung's immortal exploits of declaring the new start of the Korean revolution
with the formation of the DIU and ushering in the building of a
revolutionary party of Juche type, youth and students danced to the tune
of songs including "Long live generalissimo Kim Il Sung" and "Hold
aloft the flag of DIU" at the monument to party founding, the tower of
the Juche idea, the Pyongyang Grand Theatre, the Pyongyang Indoor Stadium
and other places of the capital. Evening galas were also held in provinces,
cities and counties yesterday. The galas showed the faith and will of the
youth and students to accomplish the revolutionary cause of Juche started
by Kim Il Sung to the last under the army-first leadership of Kim Jong Il.
They also illustrate well the proper use of quotation marks in journalism
when discussing the "goverment" of South Korea and the Japanese
"Self-Defence Force".
Best regards,
--
Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
/.-.\
(( * ))
\\ // Please help if you can:
\\\ http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
//\\\
/// \\\
\/ \/
Mark Rosenfelder
>Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> writes:
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:30:24 GMT, whi...@shore.net (steve) wrote:
>> >I like it that the US now recognizes the Palestinians
>> >need a homeland.
>>
>> Blair too. It's about time.
>
>Hmm. They got a homeland in 1948 but they refused it and started a war.
>Clearly it's not the point.
Things can change in politics, you know, in 53 years.
Mark Rosenfelder
Tony Cooper <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>howard richler wrote:
>> I've heard many media figures like Bryant Gumbel and Katie Couric use
>> the term "collateral damage" as if it was nothing more than military
>> jargon.It
>> is even much more than an Orwellian euphemism to describe the deaths
>> of innocent human beings as "collateral damage." It is meant to close
>> the topic, to stop the conversation, to dismiss the lost lives as not
>> worthy of any further discussion.
>If Dan Rather said tonight that "A small village was bombed
>today when an American bomber inadvertently released its
>payload over the wrong coordinates. This brings to xx the
>number of innocent civilians killed in Afghanistan.", would
>this improve things? Would this dampen the outrage of you
>and the other posters that object to the phrase "collateral
>damage"?
Here's a paragraph from cnn.com:
"Local Afghan employees of an international aid agency met with reporters
in Islamabad, Pakistan, on Friday and said 10 civilians in Kabul,
Afghanistan, had been killed in the U.S. bombing campaign. That figure is
much lower than around 70 civilians the Taliban have claimed were killed
in the city. Across Afghanistan, the Taliban say "around 500" civilians
have been killed or injured."
So in fact at least some news outlets do talk about "killing civilians"
instead of "collateral damage". I doubt that anyone is really fooled by
the euphemism, or morally jolted by the more neutral description.
Spooky Guy Next Door
(rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu) posted the following...
Uh, for all that Matthew's point may well be correct (OBN fighting in
Afghanistan vs. USSR, for example, is IMHO comparable to non-Spanish
Westerners fighting in the Spanish Civil War), I doubt it's quite so
simple as you make it out to be.
And I *very much* doubt that all - or even particularly many - of those
terrorists fighting against the US are doing so because, once US
troops/support are/is gone from <insert country here> they can take over
from the corrupt govts. in power and institute their own corrupt regimes.
--
"some browsers are very clever. some can even render [MS FrontPage]
markup but thats not clever, thats just some kind of sick mutant thing
happening."
- brucie, alt.html 14/10/01
blog - http://www.cyberfuddle.com/infinitebabble/
cyberfuddle - http://www.cyberfuddle.com/
alt.startrek FAQ - http://www.altstartrek.f2s.com/
learn HTML - http://smiley.vh.mewl.net/markhtml/
Spooky Guy Next Door
(chr...@gofree.indigo.ie) posted the following...
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:30:24 GMT, whi...@shore.net (steve) wrote:
>
> >Hopefully its not just the US that recognizes the cold war is over,
> >and the time has come to end the terror and rebuild.
>
> How is the terrorist problem related to the cold war?
The US' went out of their way to fuck various countries as a result of
the cold war.
The terrorists are upset about this.
> > The best thing
> >we could do to bring peace to the world is start devoting as many
> >resources to building roads, schools, sewage treatment plants,
> >power plants, and other infrastructure as we are presently
> >spending on bombs.
>
> I don't think the solution is as simple as that. We could provide
> 10,000 piss-pots to the Afghans and I reckon many anti-Western,
> screwball terrorists would still exist in their country.
Many anti-Western screwball terrorists exist in the US. Hell, many pro-
Western super-screwball terrorists exist in the US (KKK, various
Christian Militias, etc.).
> >I like it that the US now recognizes the Palestinians
> >need a homeland.
>
> Blair too. It's about time.
*Why* do they continue to support Israel's illegal actions?
> >Its time to start dealing with the problem
> >and not just the symptom of the problem
>
> These symptoms result, today and at this moment, in the of killing of
> Americans and the threat to kill more Americans and other Westerners.
> The root "problem", if that problem can even be identified, will take
> a long time to solve.
Indeed.