From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 09:59:10 MDT
On Monday 04 August 2003 16:11, Lee Corbin wrote:
> By the way, speaking of terrorism, let's all practice
> what we will say the day that the first terrorist nuke
> goes off in the U.S., probably in 2005:
>
> Samantha: Morals around the world are in an incredibly
> sad state and we simply must do better to
> raise everyone's understanding, consciousness,
> compassion, and acceptance of each other.
While I agree with all of those things I doubt I would say most of them the
same day. I might more likely say (after expressing horror, disgust, anger,
fear, condolences and so on):
"Lets find who was responsible and bring them to justice. But we should not
lose our own freedoms in the process or pick entire countries to war with
preemptively. Doing so leads to nothing but more of the same for us and hell
for however many of them we choose."
>
> Mike Lorrey writes
> > That was not my conclusion. My conclusion was that the very REAL
> > threats and risks of terrorism (and the damage it does, counting in the
> > thousands of lives and many hundreds of billions of dollars) are a
> > better insurance for the ruling parties to retain leadership than the
> > Soviet Union ever was. Who wants to risk voting in some unknown freaky
> > third party candidate when we have a 'war' to run?
> >
> > So there is a vested interest in maintaining the sort of conditions
> > that give rise to anti-US organizations of militant or non-militant
> > bent,
>
> So you are implying that the Bush administration (and other
> administrations) have an incentive to make progress in the
> war against terrorism---so that they'll be re-elected---
> but not *too* much progress, or else the "ruling leadership"
> won't be able to retain power?
>
Dunno if he was implying that but I believe that is certainly true. It is a
historical fact that the use of terrorism on American soil to promote
policies of the day has been considered during at least some administrations.
> But what if a chance to pass up capturing Osama Bin Laden
> eventuated in a traceable terrorist attack the A-bombing
> of Philadelphia? Unless the "ruling leadership" was absolutely
> certain that their easing up on terrorists was untraceable,
> then they'd be taking a terrible risk.
>
If someone gets to close to the truth then their career is ruined and the
evidence is ruled critical to "national security" and never sees enough
daylight to bring the guilty to justice. The machinery to protect those in
power is in place and well maintained.
> Oh, now I recall. President Clinton *did* pass up a chance
> to get Osama, and no one is complaining too much. But what
> would happen if a Republican were to miss a chance to corral
> a well known terrorist? If it were at all traceable, all
> hell would break loose!
>
Are you kidding? Clinton was grilled publicly for years over a sexual
indiscretion. Bush and company shut down investigations, refuse
Congressional subpoenas, lie to the people to justify a war, rewrite or
throw out treaties, eviscerate FOIA, ask for and receive powers to gut
whatever freedoms they want including revoking citizenship and the sheeple
say almost nothing at all. Now which side is benefitting from a double
standard?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 10:05:44 MDT