Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Brian D Williams wrote:
> > >From: Samantha Atkins <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > >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?
We already know what the solution is: a full metal jacket.
> > 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?
You, in your inimitable leftie way, seem to be conflating 'independent'
with 'unbiased'. Al Jazeera's idea of a good 'Crossfire' type panel
would be the muslim equivalent of having David Duke on the right and
Jerry Fallwell on the left, with Pat Buchanan and Ralph Reed as the
Al Jazeera broadcasts from Qatar with a western appearance but an
editorial agenda more like that of the Taliban than not. Qatar is
nominally a Wahhabi state, and Al Jazeera is hated most in the muslim
world for skewering most other muslim governments EXCEPT for that of
Qatar. They get 'jew lover' hate mail if any commentator even mentions
the possibility that Israel's right to exist might be necessary to solve
the Palestine problem.
> > >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
> > >everywhere.
> > 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.
On the contrary, it worked quite well on the native Americans. It also
worked quite well on my scottish ancestors. The Turks also succeeded
with it against Vlad Tepes (Vlad the Impaler), who had terrorized the
Ottomans against further incursions into europe to such a degree he is
now known as Dracula. General Pershing used it quite well against the
muslim terrorists in the Phillipines in 1901. I generally like his
solution: shooting them with bullets dipped in pigfat, and burying them
in pigskin, defiles them such that they cannot become martyrs, no matter
how much they do to attack us.
> > >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.
I seem to recall that the lefties felt the same way during the Cold War
about such bastions of truth as Tass and Pravda, but didn't exhibit any
problem with the KGB regularly jamming the Voice of America radio
> > >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
> > >yet.
> > You may not have seen anything that convinces you, but I was
> > convinced long ago.
> Then present your evidence if you would.
Roomates of Atta in Germany have been traced to Pakistan, to the Afghan
border near Quetta. Four of his associates escaped from Germany on
forged passports bearing stolen identities on a flight to Karachi, where
they stayed in the Embassy Hotel until they flew to Quetta and went
across the border into Afghanistan a few days prior to Sept 11th.
> > >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.
This is inaccurate. Bush has specifically said that we are not into
nation building. Blair and the european nations of NATO are proposing
that the UN support the new government.
> > >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?
Iraq has been proven to have had multiple intelligence contacts with
Atta and a couple other of the hijackers. I'd send in a team to off
Hussein and send in massive support for the Kurds in the north and
Shiites in the south. Thirdly, I'd pressure governments like Egypt and
Saudi Arabia to pass hate crimes laws and institute democratic reforms.
Thirdly, I'd say that all airlines flying into the US must provide the
FBI with passenger manifests prior to takeoff or else their passengers
will all be strip searched. Currently, countries like Egypt, Saudi
Arabia, and several others who are not on anyone's list of nice people,
refuse to provide passenger manifests.
I'd also ban Wahhabi funded Madrassas in the US on the grounds that they
are terrorist training schools. Until any given sect of islam
specifically states that it is given dogma that terrorism of any kind is
NOT jihad, members of those sects from anywhere in the world should be
denied entry to the US.
> > 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.
I would expect so only if there were a significant class of educated
Afghans. There is not, and the most educated ones are living in other
countries. Unless you have a significant influx of western trained
afghans into the country to reestablish its leadership class, I think
you will simply get a more mellow flavored version of the same old
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:17 MDT