Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> > John Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > Samantha Atkins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > >
> > > > 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.
I see. Tell me, have we ever acted outside the laws of war?
Have we ever disrupted governments using terrorist tactics (at
least tactics that would be labelled so if done by anyone but
You push a people into a corner, then you push some more and
sooner or later they strike back in any way they can. Then you
claim that they are bad sports and breaking the rules and
deserve whatever you do.
But even this was not the question. The question is why are we
calmly talking about taking on an indeterminate war with
unclear, except in the abstract, objectives? By now I thought
we knew better.
> 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
This is hypocrisy. We have done some damn dirty deeds outside
the rules also. We have not acted in a trustworthy manner and
it is not getting better, it is getting worse. To not note it
is the height of pollyannish behavior.
> > > >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.
Oh, let us by all means "do something" even if we do not bother
to take stock of where we are and how we got there and thus most
likely make things much worse. Bah!
> > 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.
That is not even circumstantial evidence! The above is
laughable. What are you calling "Islamic radicals"? According
to some sources people who you might fit that label to exist
> 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
We are ourselves terrorists. Will we take a turn? Please be
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:13 MDT