Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Emlyn O'regan wrote:
> > I can see two options for the US at the moment. Either go
> off to war (with
> > somebody???), or don't. If the US goes to war, we are in
> for dark times
> > indeed, because it is a war waged for the sake of vengence,
> which will be
> > answered with equal measure of the self same hatred. It is a war
> Wrong. It will be a war to end the threat of such terrorism,
> not for simply vengeance. It does not even require any
> particular hatred. Just a firm determination to wipeout the
And the method? How would one nation propose to wipe out "the threat of
terrorism" by declaring war on another?
> That may or may not be doable but I am pretty tired it is only
> about "vengeance" and that we would be fueled by the same sort
> of hate and all the rest of the shallow bs.
It seems pretty obvious that any kind of conventional war could not touch
"the threat of terrorism". A silly idea. If the war effort is fueled by
anything, it is certainly not rationality.
> > Or, the US can go find the guilty parties now, and bring
> them to justice, by
> > the book. Try them, before the eyes of the entire world.
> Show that the moral
> > highground isn't just something used to control the weaker
> countries, but in
> > fact is a standard to which everyone must hold themselves
> accountable, even
> > those few countries that need not. I can only imagine what such an
> > impressive action would do to unite the peoples of this
> world in proceeding
> > into what could become humanity's first century of civilisation.
> There is no international justice sufficient to the task and it
> is doubtful that you could get the real powers behind these
> events and all those capable of and desirious of similar and
> worse atrocities in a peaceable, non-military manner.
That perpetrators may not be easy to bring to justice legally may be so. If
nothing else, it would be an excellent opportunity to bring to light the
problems with the existing system, so that it could be fixed in this current
A couple of points to add, though:
- The true perpetrators are dead, for the most part.
- "...and all those capable of and desirious of similar and worse
atrocities..." . Hmm, good old though crime. Are you seriously suggesting
killing people just because they might in the future decide to be
terrorists? According to whose judgement?
> > But there is still bloodlust to satisfy, and a question of jingoism
> > answerable only in the basest terms. There is nothing I can
> say to modify
> > any of that.
> I am tired of the accusation, as I've set. Do a bit deeper
> analysis and you will see that the threat of the next level or
> two of escalated terrorism would destroy a lot of freedom and
> slow down everything a lot, perhaps catastrophically so. That
> is a huge sword hanging over the heads of us all. We do need to
> do something to deal with this threat. That goes far beyond
> simply bloodlust.
> - samantha
Killing people and breaking stuff, until you can figure out something
intelligent to do, doesn't jump out as the best course of action to me. I
would expect more sensible suggestions from extropians.
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If the reader of this e-mail is not
the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction,
disclosure or distribution of the information contained in the e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us
immediately and delete the document.
Viruses: Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's
responsibility. Our entire liability will be limited to resupplying the
material. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus
or other defect.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:49 MDT