>From: Samantha Atkins <email@example.com>
>What is "supposed to be about terrorism"?
>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.
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.
>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....
>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
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."
>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.
>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
You may not have seen anything that convinces you, but I was
convinced long ago.
If I was to become a terrorist you would never find sufficient
evidence to convict me in any court.
>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.
>Why is crushing Kandahar a big objective?
Taliban stronghold, see above.
>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.
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.
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 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 - 17:44:16 MDT