Re: Anthrax addendum.

From: Mike Lorrey (
Date: Mon Oct 15 2001 - 17:05:10 MDT

Samantha Atkins wrote:
> John Clark wrote:
> >
> > Samantha Atkins <>
> >
> > > From where I sit the US is quite interested in a war.
> >
> > That's ridiculous, there is no reason America would want any war right
> > now, much less a "major and indefinite" one. Do you think Americans just
> > woke up one fine day and thought " You know what I'd really like, I'd like to
> > rule the poorest country in the world, Afghanistan"? It's not complicated, no
> > need to look for hidden motives, we are at war because somebody is trying
> > to kill us and they've already made a very good start.
> Then tell me exactly why we are talking about an indeterminate
> war against an unknown number of targets in an unknown number of
> countries. Such a war should be shouted down immediately. But
> it isn't. Why? As bad as 911 was such a response is overboard
> and overly broad.

Too bad. The problem is not in our response, it is in their behavior.
They refuse to act according to the laws of war, which were set up to
allow civilian populations to remain as free and unfettered as possible
from the inhumanities of war. Fascists all through the 20th century
worked hard to erode those laws as much as possible, and the current day
terrorists are doing the same. They don't wear uniforms, declare no
allegiance to any nation or official army, attack unarmed civilians, and
do not use recognised military weapons.

This is the worst possible behavior, because it is an attack on the very
trust foundations of our society. We cannot go blindly on insisting they
are still there when they have crumpled as assuredly as the towers in
New York did. Therefore, to insist upon behavior that depends on all
parties acting in a trust worthy manner is pollyannish behavior of the
most excessive sort. It is tantamount to a Titanic passenger demanding
room service when everyone else is in the lifeboats and jumping

> > >Are you utterly sure some elements of your own country are not planting
> > >just enough anthrax to create a scare and justify going after the next target?
> >
> > Right, and flying saucer crashed in New Mexico 50 years ago and there are
> > bodies of aliens in a freezer at a Air Force base, and we learned how to make
> > microprocessors from the debris of that crash, and JFK is still alive, Elvis too,
> > and CIA satellites are beaming thoughts into my head, and black helicopters
> > are chasing me.
> Laugh if you want to but it is a much more complicated world
> than blase assumptions that we are the good guys and those are
> the "evil ones" would lead you to believe.

Typically people who claim that the world is this complicated are those
who need to make excuses about why they continue to do nothing.

> > >Our campaign is massively dishonest
> >
> > Interesting, one side crashed two civilian jetliners into the two largest civilian
> > office buildings in the world, the same side sends letters laced with anthrax to
> > innocent people, the same side makes it a crime to educate women,
> > but that's not the side you call "massively dishonest".
> >
> >
> We do not know there is any terrorism plot behind the anthrax
> scare according to experts. Nor do we have evidence saying it
> is done by any particular group that is more than extremely
> flimsy. That the Taliban are nasty folks does not say they are
> responsible for all ills nor that an endless campaign that goes
> substantially beyond Afghanistan is in the least justified. Not
> to mention the eviscerating of our own civil liberties.

Well, it is bin Laden's MO that he doesn't claim responsibility for his
acts outside of releasing videotapes a few days or weeks before hand
talking about how his enemies will suffer the consequences. Since nobody
else is stepping up to the plate, that is a pretty good indicator. The
three locations where letters have been tracked to: Boca Raton, Newark,
and Malaysia, have known populations of islamic radicals.

> >and ill-defined.
> >
> > I would say American foreign policy has not been better defined in my lifetime,
> > it's do what you have to do in order to stay alive.
> >
> That is not what we are doing exactly.

It's fairly simple, Samantha, so try to follow along: Terrorists don't
follow the laws of war. The Laws of War help protect the foundations of
our high trust society. Therefore we pound to dust anyone who practices

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:13 MDT