Re: TERRORISM: The Grim Prospects

From: Brian D Williams (
Date: Fri Nov 02 2001 - 09:31:31 MST

>From: Samantha Atkins <>

>Certainly don't ignore them. But it would be good to also not
>accept the first proposed action that comes along without due
>considerations of its consequences, costs (in all measures),
>whether it is is just response and whether it is likely to have
>the desired effects.

I think we've given the matter considerable thought, and I think
our current action is correct. Deatroy those who perpetrated this

>These people were dependent on foreign aid for food before
>9/11. What food they were getting has largely been disrupted.
>We orderd the ending of the truck caravans from Pakistan that
>brought in most of the food by 9/16. Most of rest is now
>impossible to deliver while the bombardment continues. In a
>week or two at most (and perhaps already for some areas) it will
>be too late for many. Is this actually a goal that any of us
>support or desire? Do we believe that continuing the
>bombardment is worth this consequence. I don't. We can't speak
>of the good of the people as justification for our actions at
>this time if our actions are directly threatening the deaths of
>millions of innocent civilians.

I know where they get their food, and in fact the vast majority of
it comes from the U.S.

I've already said I thought we should have done things differently.
we should have seized a major airbase like the one at Mazer-l-
Sharif and begun re-establishing food distribution.

No, we should not stop, not for Ramadan, not for anything at this

>That will be utterly insufficient to eliminate terrorism.

Your right, a great deal more will need to be done, but placating
terrorists will not be part of it.

>Then you are not familiar with history.
On the contrary history is one of my favorite subjects, especially
the history of conflict.

>I did not say it justifies it. I said that speaking as if it
>was only lies and fundamentalism that give rise to the anger is
>speaking falsely and simplistically. There is a big difference.
Their anger is a combination of things including their incorrect
perception of us, and the way the world works. I have no intention
of changing to please them.

I do not care if they don't like us, but they will care if they
attack us.

>I don't parse that sentence. We say we stand for certain things
>in the world and I propose that we actually act as if we do and
>that we correct ourselves where we act as if we do not. If you
>are counting people then their are over 6 billion reather than
>250 million.

No the U.S, is some 265 million, the rest of the world was not
attacked, we were. We do stand for many things, one of them is you
can count on retaliation if you attack us.

>That will be insufficient. Especially as we have already passed
>significant measures greatly dangerous to our domestic freedom
>and well-being.

We passed a bunch of such measures over the last 8 years and I
barely heard a peep, except from the NRA.

>Then why concentrate your contempt only on their media?

I was making a point about the falsehoods they spread affecting the
beliefs of the people of the region.

>You do not think that others will also gain money and have
>sanctuary and support? There is a lot of wealth in the MidEast
>and a lot of anger.
Anybody who wants to be next to die is welcome to try.

>Are you ignorning the point that you may be missing something?
>Or that we are being told ourselves in part lies and
>half-truths? How will you find out? Do you care to or are you
>comfortable with the current assumption that the current means,
>horrendous as they may be in consequences of famine in
>Afghanistan, are sufficient and the "right thing"?

I am completely confident in our ability to both punish the
attackers and help the people of Afghanistan.

>No. We don't know precisely who did the attack. We do know who
>bin Laden is and that he is a sworn enemy but that is not the
>same thing as knowing he is guilty of this.

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

>Do you know where the CIAs money had come from, btw, for many of
>its black ops over the years? Largely from drugs. Follow the
>source and flow of drugs and you will find the hands and
>lifeblood of some of our own cladestine activities.

I'd be happy to see the people in the CIA who engaged in any such
activity serve time for such acts.

>Actually, no they don't when it comes to international law. But
>perhaps you would say that isn't civilized.
Actually yes they do, even the U.N. recognizes our right to attack
those who attacked us as valid.
>>>I see. So much for yuur early seeming claim we were only
>>>involved in Afghanistan and then would go home. Will you then
>>>go after Hammas and other groups? Do you think you can end or
>>>eviscerate so much anger by militarily finding the most actively
>>>angry and killing them and inflicting whatever "collateral
>>>damage" it takes? To me this is a very very dangerous and
>>>twisted fallacy that can do nothing but much more seriously
>>>inflame the world and endanger all of us (all of humanity not
>>>just us) and what we hold most dear.

>> Do you think you can placate these groups and they will all go
>> away? And at what price?

>I think if we do not address the causes of what righteous anger
>toward us may be in the region that all the bombs and guns in
>the world will not be enough to keep us safe. We should bring
>international criminals to justice certainly. But I don't think
>what we are doing now is a step toward justice. I think it is a
>step toward further hatred and terror and millions of deaths.

I don't think their anger is "righteous" at all.

These people are more than international criminals, they are
terrorists, and they have comitted an act of war against a
sovereign nation.

It's time to pay the price.

>I think we should have presented our evidence before world
>courts and the Taliban and then demanded bin Laden be turned
>over. I think we must stop the bombing now while there is a
>ghost of a chance to save millions of Afghani lives this
>winter. I think continuing the bombing through the holy month
>of Ramadan would be a seen as extremely callous and will be a
>political and cultural disaster. And most of all I think we
>would be fools to extend this campaign into other countries in
>the region.

The world court doesn't have the authority and if I have anything
to say about it, it never will.

Maybe you missed my last post, as I pointed out we already tried
the weak liberal "take them to court" bit. We have 5000 people dead
because of it. We won't be making that mistake again.

Muslim countries have always fought through Ramadan and so should

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


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