Re: Anthrax addendum

From: Brian D Williams (
Date: Tue Oct 16 2001 - 08:19:06 MDT

>From: Samantha Atkins <>

>When dismantling anything, it is useful to look for contributing
>causes of what one would like to see go away or at least be
>rendered powerless. Yet I have seen almost no signs that the US
>is willing to admit to the abuses that have led in part to the
>atmosphere under which various forms of extremism flourish in
>the Middle East.

Because we didn't cause this Samantha, and we most certainly didn't
invent Islamic extremism.

We happen to be a handy target, and considerably too soft for our
own good. This is going to change.

>Assuming for a moment that the above figures are true (which I
>have not seen the evidence for), is it the plan to pressure and if
>necessary attack up to 60 countries looking for this network
>that is supposedly (for the sake of argument) the source of all
>ills? If so then this cure seems to me at least as dangerous
>and costly in lives as the disease.

We are going to attack the base of operations of this terrorist
network, and then isolate (politically, economically) any remaining
countries that support these people.

And yes, militarily if we have to.

>We could not even defeat the Vietcong and yet we plan to find
>and remove such a supposed widespread and in places popular
>network in 60 countries? This seems a highly dubious and
>dangerous proposal. We want to dismantle all terror networks?
>Good. Be sure to insure our own terror network, the CIA. Do
>you think I have no justification for that statement? I suggest
>you take a trip down memory lane of some of the publicized
>things the CIA has done supposedly in our name.

The situations are not analogous, Vietnam was a civil war backed by
communist countries. In this case we have attacked those who
attacked us with the express intent of preventing any future

Yes, the intent is to dismantle all terrorist networks.

Yes, the CIA has done questionable things in the past and should be
prevented from doing so in the future.

>Do you think we are on the right track to give effectively carte
>blanche to the government to rifle through all of our lives at
>will and to fight an indeterminately long and hazardous ware
>against an indeterminate number of targets regardless of any and
>all costs?

They do not have such rights, nor will they get them.

The war aspect of this will most likely not be long.

>I don't - not for a second.

>I also think we are lying in that we are not admitting where we
>contribute to terror directly and indirectly. As long as we
>don't address the problems with our own foreign policy then
>claims that we are doing everything necessary for the safety and
>well-being of ourselves and reasonable people everywhere are
>rather empty. I think we are being extremely two-faced when we
>let Israel get away with literal murder and assassinations in
>broad daylight, even using weapons we gave them, and say almost
>nothing. Yet let any Palestinian hit back in any form and we
>are all over the PLO. I think we are dishonest and/or heartless
>when we say that the 600,000 children that have died in Iraq as
>the result of our bombing and blockades are reasonable
>collateral damage. If I was Arab, even a very secular Arab, I
>would be extremely unhappy with the US on many counts. Yet we
>often act as if only a bunch of crazed fanatics really are upset
>with us and that no reasonable persons in the region have any
>real complain. Our President has the nerve to claim as much on
>national TV.

It's funny how some people are always blaming Israel, and
completely ignore the long history of terrorism committed by the
PLO, an organization run by a terrorist. An organization that sided
with Sadam Hussein during the gulf war, danced in the streets when
the Israelis were unprovokedly attacked with Scuds, and continued
their dancing when the World trade center was destroyed. An
organization that continues to harbour an organization (Hamas)
who's expressed intent is to destroy Israel.

The Palestinians are not our friends.

You're right, we never should have blockaded Iraq, we should have
continued the war till we had Sadam's head on a stick. Funny how
you blame Iraq's troubles on us instead of Sadam for refusing to
comply with the U.N. sanctions and terms of surrender.

>I love this country with all my heart. But it sickens me to
>watch some of what we are doing now and some of the postures we
>are assuming.

I love this country too, in fact I put four of the best years of my
life in her service, and would do so again.

It sickens me to see people jumping to bad, unfounded conclusions
against it.

>And we or rather some of our agencies that have run amok and now
>are being handed even greater powers over both ourselves and the
>rest of the world with even less oversight, are much more in the
>wrong ourselves than I see most people in the US admitting to.
>I don't know all sophisticated Al Qaeda is or is not and I
>suspect, neither does anyone here. But our know our own CIA has
>been active for good and often ill all over the globe for many
>decades and has sources of funding that are nearly untraceable.
>And I know it is ultra-sophisticated.
And routinely trips over its own two feet, the CIA more closely
resembles a badly run circus to me than anything else.

The CIA will probably get extensive new powers after this by the

>> I'm gratified to see that some of the new emergency laws being
>> passed have sunset provisions.

>I would be more gratified if we spent as long considering the
>implications and dangerous of these new laws and the
>cost-benefit ratio of them as we spent pouring over the sex life
>of Clinton. Personally I think our civil liberties and
>guarantees of freedom at home are worth at least that much. I
>don't see that very much gain in detecting and stopping
>terrorist actions will be achieved as against the very real and
>deep eroding of our liberty and safety from tyranny.

Good, it's very important to fight against tyranny, of course if
that means depriving millions of law abiding american gun owners of
their constitutional rights it's completely different.

>I don't expect the sunset provisions to ever be agreed to by
>Bush. If they are I don't expect him to be through with this
>indeterminate holy war when the sunset clause is up.

This too will pass, and any politician not savvy enough to realize
this will be replaced.


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 - 17:44:13 MDT