Brian D Williams wrote:
> >From: Samantha Atkins <email@example.com>
> >What is "supposed to be about terrorism"?
> The war.
> >If we are attempting to find solutions to terrorism then it is
> >important to understand where it comes from and why. If part of
> >the why is the grievances various countries and entities have
> >against US policies then the question comes up as to whether any
> >of those grievances have merit and whether we are in fact
> >sometimes acting in oppressive manner in other countries and what
> >we might do to change that if so.
> We are not looking for the solution to terrorism at the present
> time, we are looking for the terrorists who committed a specific
> act and their supporters. We are out to destroy them.
That is contrary to what Bush is claiming about this war. We
are out to end terrorism from what I have heard him say. We are
not out only against the particular ones who carried out the
9/11 attacks but all terrorists.
If we are not looking for a solution then this is just about
vengeance. It is not even about protecting ourselves from
further terrorism or, to the extent possible, making terrorism
less likely in the world. Why should we have an unlimited and
unbounded committment to only that?
> The reasons they hate us are many, largely it seems because they
> are taught lies in Pakistani maddrasas, and are broadcast bigger
> lies via Al-Jazeera television.
This is utterly simplistic. To say that all who are angry with
us are dupes and liars is surely obviously biased and unlikely
to be accurate. For one thing it denies real events that have
angered many in that part of the world.
> >If it makes sense to agree to an open-ended "war" to root out
> >all actual terrorists from anywhere and everywhere then surely
> >it also makes sense to understand the roots and to work to
> >lessen the seeds of future terrorism where/if we can.
> Good idea, close the maddrassas, shut down Al-Jazeera....
The Al-Jazeera is one of the few relatively independent voices
in the area. I thought we are supposed to be for a free press.
Or does that only apply in America and other rules apply
anywhere else if they say unpleasant things about us? I thought
we believe in free speech. Only here?
> >I don't see how the "that alone" makes any sense at all.
> >Especially when our government is certainly not after "that
> >alone" but after finding and neutralizing all terrorists
> We are out to end this sort of thing on a permanent basis. We are
> sending a clear message: "being a terrorist will get you hunted
> down and killed, find another way to express your frustrations."
This is not the way to end terrorism. It will not work and
never has worked throughout history.
> >Al-Jareeza happens to be the most independent and competent news
> >source in the Mid East. That some of its writers may have
> >espoused an alternate theory does not mean they are incompetent
> >nincompoops. Especially when the biases in other reports from
> >more "mainstream" sources have also been quite evident.
> Find me one piece of evidence that indicates the Israelis are
> responsible for Sept 11, and I will retract my opinion about the
> ridiculous Islamic tabloid known as Al-Jazeera.
Your opinion based on one set of editorials is irrelevant.
Whether there is evidence of Israeli involvement or not is not
the issue. You are advocating blaming a particular publication
and shutting it down although it is not remotely any of our
business to do any such thing and such attitudes and acting on
them are part of what pisses many off toward the US.
> >In point of fact, we do not know who was behind the attack yet.
> >We have strong suspicion of it being bin Laden. But I haven't
> >seen anything really strong enough to convict in an open court
> You may not have seen anything that convinces you, but I was
> convinced long ago.
Then present your evidence if you would.
> If I was to become a terrorist you would never find sufficient
> evidence to convict me in any court.
But that is hardly an argument that you did or did not commit
any act is it?
> >To what end? What are your objectives?
> Destroy Bin Laden/Al-Quaeda, destroy their Taliban
> supporters/allies, re-establish a viable government (democratic)
> for the people of Afghanistan, get out and go home.
OK. That is at least much more modest than what Bush and co.
are proposing. Getting bin Laden and changing the Afghani
government are only the beginning for them. On what basis will
you destroy the Taliban rather than simply deposing their
government? I don't see any righteous basis for us fully
> >Why is crushing Kandahar a big objective?
> Taliban stronghold, see above.
OK. But I don't understand your above goal.
> >I agree on bringing in UN peacekeepers and bringing in aid before
> >winter comes on 100%.
> I'm glad we agree on this. I think the war should proceed with all
> fury to shorten it to the minimal possible time to achieve the
> objectives. Every day we delay, innocent people suffer.
Destroying the Taliban utterly would cause a lot of innocent
suffering also. As the Al-Qaeda is supposed to span multiple
countries destroying it would not end at Afghanistan either. So
where else would you see us march in for a military action?
> This is the reason I think we should have taken major centers like
> Kabul and Mazer-el-Sharif by now, to establish within the country,
> and out of Taliban control, safe zones for the people of
> Afghanistan. By releasing these centers immediatly to U.N. control
> we demonstrate we have no intention of staying.
> I think the aftermath will be disappointing. I wouldn't support a
> government for Afghanistan that didn't include things like
> universal suffrage, try selling that in an Islamic country.
Dunno. Doesn't it already exist in Egypt and Jordan or some of
the countries in the area that are largely Muslim? I am
admittedly ignorant here. I think there might be a real swing
away from theocratic state in Afghanistan after their experience
under the Taliban.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:17 MDT