Re: TERRORISM: The Grim Prospects.

From: Brian D Williams (
Date: Mon Nov 05 2001 - 08:54:32 MST

>From: Samantha Atkins <>

>>Brian D Williams wrote:
>> I think we've given the matter considerable thought, and I think
>> our current action is correct. Destroy those who perpetrated
>>this atrocity.

>I have taken some trouble to dialog with you about why that
>isn't precisely what is being done and about why the way we are
>running this campaign is a human rights disaster in the making.
>So I am surprised to see such a categorical statement at this

Your dialogue has been completely unpersuasive. We are most
certainly engaged in seeking out and destroying those responsible
for 9/11, while at the same time taking considerable pains to
minimize civilian casualties.

The human rights disaster took place on 9/11 and the one you are
trying to foretell will not occur.

>I don't know if it does or did come mainly from the US or not.
>But I know it is not happending now and hasn't been since
>mid-September when the truck convoys were stopped. What was
>left has all but dried up due to the bombing.
Actually it is the actions of the Taliban which have played a large
part in curtailing the food shipments. This has been widely
reported in the International press.

As soon as we can provide some stability, these shipments will

>We should not stop if 3-4 million people will die of starvation
>if we don't restart the food transport and distributing very
>very soon now? How on earth do you figure that sort of
>callousness is justified?

As I've already pointed out despite your dire warnings to the
contrary such a disaster will not occur.

>Keeping 3-4 million civilians from starving this winder is
>"placating terrorists"?

Clearly if such a thing was to occur (it won't) it would be
disastrous for U.S. policy. It will not be allowed to occur.

>I am concerned with their correct perception of the atrocious
>things we have done in the region and around the world. If you
>cannot admit we have done such things then I guess there is no
>point in continuing down that line with you.
"I" have not committed any atrocities so I'm not sure of the "we"
you are speaking about. Agencies of the U.S. government has clearly
been involved in things they should not have been.

I notice you continue to ignore the atrocity committed against us.

>The world does not revovle around the US. It is about time we
>learned that.
Nor does it revolve around any other country with perhaps the
exception of Antarctica.

What's your point?

>Does that somehow make more measures OK?

Again you wish to ignore what has already occurred under previous
administrations you support.
>> Anybody who wants to be next to die is welcome to try.

>I see. Anyone who is upset enough to attack, even if they have
>good reason to be upset, will be destroyed and their country
>laid waste possibly including a lot of their civilians. So we
>don't need to examine our policies and change those are wrong.
>After all we are the baddest muther on the block. Excuse me if
>that sickens me.
They do not have good reasons, and yes to keep it simple, anyone
who attacks us is going to get a visit from the U.S. military.

What happened on 9/11 sickens me.
>> I am completely confident in our ability to both punish the
>> attackers and help the people of Afghanistan.

>On what basis are you confident? We have made no plans or
>promises to avoid the impending famine.

As a former member of the military and someone who keeps up on such
things I am intimately aware of our real abilities.

>> Yes, we do know who did the attack and we do know who they work
>> for.

>Then prove it. Oh, I forgot, of course you can't prove it which
>only proves that a smart deranged fellow like bin Laden must be

As I've pointed out before, we know the people involved, we know
who their associates are, we know where they've been, we know where
the money came from and who controls it.

Bin Laden.

>Well, we have ignored know incidents of these kinds for the last
>40+ years or given those involved a slap on the wrist. I am
>glad you would like to see justice there.

I want to see justice everywhere.

>Actually we did not OK these actions or present evidence. We
>claimed we did not need too. We claimed we did not need to show
>the Taliban our evidence when we "requested" the extradition of
>bin Laden. We have basically told the world they are "either
>with US or with the terrorists".

As I pointed out international law recognizes that a country that
has been attacked has the right to retaliate.

The Taliban are not the recognized government of Afghanistan.

>If you think their is no righetous anger fueling terrorists acts
>against the US then you are ill-informed, dishonest or both.

I am not ill-informed, nor dishonest.

Try presenting evidence here as to what "we" have done wrong.

Limit it to the Taliban, and Ossama Bin Laden.

>Criminals are not empowered to commit an "act of war".
>Criminals should be hauled before a suitable court and if
>convicted, suitably punished. We should not collaterally cause
>the deaths of 3-4 million in the process of bringing them to
These people are not criminals, but terrorists. There is no
suitable court, and when we tried hauling the last bunch before a
court it had absolutely no effect. 5000 people died horrible deaths
because of this stupid liberal idea.

>The price is too high.
They should have thought of that before murdering our people.

>I hope for the sake of most of the world that you will not have
>that much to say about it as the US is currently threatening to
>run amok wherever it things anyone that might be interested in
>threatening it is to be found.

I don't think you know enough about me to make this claim.
The U.S. has not threatened to run amok, but it has made it clear
it will continue to pursue terrorists worldwide.

>So, you would rather have 4 million dead and the region even
>more inflamed than it was to produce the Sept 11 atrocity? Does
>this make sense to you?
There will be no 4 million dead, and the people of Afghanistan will
be better off than before we started.

>> Muslim countries have always fought through Ramadan and so
>>should we.

>We are not Muslim. In my opinion it is an insult added to a
>huge potential human rights injury that will not be forgotten or
>forgiven for a long time.
Your right most of the U.S. is not Muslim. Muslim states have
always fought during Ramadan and they attacked Israel on it's
holiest day.

So in other words there is no precedent to honor such a time and
there is a precedent to ignore it.

The only people who want us to stop during Ramadan don't want us
bombing at all, and are looking for any excuse.

>> As to our next step. How do you think there can ever be peace in
>> the middle east as long as groups like Hamas and Hezbollah,
>> who's sole reason of existence is to destroy Israel, are
>> permitted to exist?

>That is a canard. The Hezbollah came into power when it turned
>back the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. At least give some
>balance and acknowldge that the Palestinians have cause for
>unrest and that in all justice there should be a real (versus
>the planned toy) Palestinian state and that Israel has acted
>quite badly and even employed more than a little terrorism
>itself over the last 35 years.

I noticed you chose the easiest one to defend, and conveniently
ignored the rest.

What about Hamas? Islamic Jihad? The (DFLP) democratic front for
the liberation of Palestine? All of these groups enjoy
support/refuge from neighboring Arab states, and all will have to
be eliminated in order for there to be peace in the middle east.

The president of Palestine is a terrorist. Terrorism must end for
there to be peace.


Extropy Institute,
National Rifle Association,, 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