>From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
>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.
You are referring to the difference between the short term and long
term goals.
I personally think the long term goal will fail as it degenerates
into the usual political bickering.
>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?
I was wondering when you were going to raise the vengeance issue
again. Yes, it's partly vengeance, which I know you have a problem
with, But the families of the victims and millions of my fellow
Americans do not.
By the way, if you destroy all the terrorists and their supporters,
there would be no more terrorism.
>> 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.
I don't find it particularly simplistic at all, I've watched a lot
of material on this, and as usual, when questioned those who oppose
us have very simplistic answers they can't particularly defend.
I've already said I don't care if they hate us, I intend on making
it clear that if they attack us they will be destroyed.
>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?
Al Jazeera is an Islamic media tabloid. They feed the population
exactly what they want to hear.
They are part of the problem, I don't care if they exist or not.
> 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.
No terrorist who has been destroyed has ever committed another act
of terrorism.
>> 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.
They broadcast numerous lies concerning the Israelis and the World
Trade Center. They are an Islamic tabloid, nothing else.
You refuse to consider the fact that those who spread outright
falsehoods or half-truths are part of the problem.
I don't care if they exist or not, I just know better than to
consider them anything other than a source of propaganda.
>> You may not have seen anything that convinces you, but I was
>> convinced long ago.
>Then present your evidence if you would.
I've already explained I'm not interested in making a legal case,
I'm interested in finishing these people off.
If your interested in pursuing a legal angle you might want to
start with those who tried the first time destroying the World
Trade Center. They we're scheduled to be sentenced the day after
the attack occurred.
They are known Bin Laden associates. Enough for me.
>> 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?
Of course not, But I could stand there and say "prove it" and you
never would be able to.
Sound familiar?
>>>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
>destroying them.
The Taliban allowed Bin Laden to have his terrorist bases there,
they are in complicity with Al-Quaeda, and will now share their
fate.
Surrendering is their only hope.
>>>Why is crushing Kandahar a big objective?
>> Taliban stronghold, see above.
>OK. But I don't understand your above goal.
The Taliban are in cahoots with Al-Quaeda, they are equally guilty
in our eyes for the attack on New York.
>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?
You'll have to explain to me how destroying the Taliban would cause
innocent suffering.
We will pursue Al-Qaeda wherever they exist, countries that have
terrorist bases (Sudan) may face military action. But I think the
current plan is to use agents in other places.
>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.
I'm mostly just interested in all the people of Afghanistan having
a say in their own lives. I want them to have everything we have,
and I think that democracy and a free market system are the best
answer.
The Taliban are entropic.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:17 MDT