9/11: Revenge as a weapon

Subject: Revenge as a weapon
From: GUEST,divilthebit
Date: 11 Sep 02 - 11:10 AM

I have read in my local paper that approx 3000 innocent Americans and numerous other nationalities died this day a year ago. A world outrage and tragedy. However, the lowest estimation for innocent civilian casualties in the Allied bombing of Afghanistan is approx 3000. Have we not moved one inch from an eye for an eye. The western press can dress it up how they like but revenge is revenge and all the more sickening when you consider the outpouring of emotion displayed on CNN etc at human loss. Do they think that the Afghan people love their children less than we do? Why do CNN etc not mention the thousands of children dying day and daily as a result of western imbargos on Iraq?

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Jim Krause
Date: 11 Sep 02 - 11:20 AM

Div,
Sad to say, but that's what war is, that's what war does. Realizing this, all the post mortem hand wringing has always mystified me. One would think that when a country such as ours relies upon warfare as a means of statecraft and diplomacy that other people, civilians, women, and children will die.

The alternative is to abandon warfare as a means of statecraft and diplomacy. But I don't suppose anyone would have the nerve to propose that as a serious measure, outside of a few idealistic Quakers and Mennonites. Everybody knows that war is good business, right??????
Jim

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Leo Condie
Date: 11 Sep 02 - 11:51 AM

I think we're all aware that that's what happens in war. that doesn't mean it should be dismissed and go unmentioned in the countless tiresome speeches we're having hurled at us on this day, whilst the americans who "died for human liberty" (thanks donald rumsfeld) are commemorated and even have all their names read out live on television. what this seems to amount to, to me, is people valuing one race over another, namely americans and afghanis. that fits my definition of racism, how about you?

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 02 - 04:09 PM

I hate to mention this with all the foofara of the day in full swing, but the victims of 9-11-01 did not "die for liberty". They were trying to read e-mail, make coffee, answer phone messages and deal with spreadsheets or customers or important Powerpoint presentations, or just taking off their coats preparatory to a day at the office.

Let's just try to stay real about things in the midst of a sea of second-rate rhetoric. To do so is worth the effort -- it is good for the heart.

A

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Leo Condie
Date: 11 Sep 02 - 05:24 PM

I agree entirely, Amos.

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Mr Red
Date: 11 Sep 02 - 06:20 PM

As distasteful as war is, to do nothing in response is to invite more of the same.
In my dealings with individuals who are driving their own agenda tactically, the tactic they guard against is the tactic they use themselves. They think it is fearful and fear it too.
The tactic they don't find quite so amenable is open handed tactics. Tell them what they are doing and why. They deny it so you explain what they are doing in that respect.
I'm not sure that it has the same efficacy on large groups so the fall-back position is the obvious one. Eye for an eye. As an defensive gambit. Revenge is incedental.

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: InOBU
Date: 11 Sep 02 - 07:17 PM

Well, as one Quaker said...

Scales of Revenge

Words Lorcan Otway, Tune Traditional, Willy Of Windsburry from the singing of the great Anne Briggs. (all rights reserved)

Oh America's fired a cruse missile, and it's killed my brother's son
Now I must put my hopes aside and learn the way of the gun
Oh why and how can they do such things, why bring such grief to me
Now I will go and seek revenge for my faith and my dignity

Oh some men from Saudi Arabia, have killed my old school friend
He was never a part of any war, why bring him this awful end?
Oh why and how can they do such things, why bring this grief to me,
Now I will go and seek revenge for my friend and for my country

Oh the helicopters came last night, and we fled into the dark
But American bullets flew from above, killing my wife, my love,
Oh why and how can they do these things, why bring this grief to me,
As generations of Afghans before, I'll defend this poor country

My son, my son, he will never return, in a foreign war he lies slain
He was fighting for his home and hearth, on some barren Afghani plain
Oh why and how can they do these things, why bring such grief to me
Send troops send troops, to far Iraq, to stop this insanity

And here I sit and I watch the world, as blood is shed for blood
And I can only wonder why and how can we stem this flood
Oh why oh how can they do such things, on justice's bloody path,
And who will be left to say in the end, we've balanced the scales at last

Don't stop, don't stop for our martyred dead, or one inch of blood soaked soil,
But stop oh stop for the love of your child, in fields of hope now toil
Oh how oh why can't we begin, by putting grief behind
We can not ever pay for the dead, by paying another in kind.

Larry

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Leo Condie
Date: 11 Sep 02 - 07:21 PM

Mr Red, I appreciate that the US couldn't have possibly done nothing, but revenge is most definitely not the only answer. The US could have made a lasting change to their foreign policies, they could have appointed people to figure out why someone would want to attack them in the first place, and then they could have changed their ways accordingly. the fact that there is still not even conclusive proof that it was osama bin laden who was behind the attacks strengthens the case against revenge even more.

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Kelticgrasshopper
Date: 11 Sep 02 - 07:58 PM

The terrorists who flew the planes, made the plans, and carried them out are dead! Osama Bin Laden may also be dead, we hear what "they" want us to hear and see what "they" want us to see. War is revenge, our president is setting out to avenge his fathers mistakes and strike out at Sadam, what did he or his country really have to do with the acts of 9/11? We are dealing with insane, fanatics 10's of thousands of Osama's waiting to die for Allah, and a cowboy president that wants to avenge his daddy. What a country,what a world.

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Sep 02 - 08:20 PM

The tune InOBU used for that song was used by Richard Thompson for a song on Liege and Leaf called Farewell, Farewell.

For a lot of people that might be an easier record to hunt down than Anne Briggs'. Cracking tune. Not easy to sing, but worth singing. And that goes for Larry's song.

I was watching this docummentary they had today about the firemen, and they had this bit where a young firefighter was talking about how the only other thing he could imagine doing now was being a soldier. And then he said how he didn't want to kill people, he wanted to save them, tha was why whe was a firefighter. And then he said in a sad voice that if they drafted him he would indeed go and kill people.

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 11 Sep 02 - 08:29 PM

'conclusive proof? re OBL , I think you would be hard pressed to find any Moslems who seriously refuse to believe that OBL and Al Qaeda were behind the sept 11 terror attacks (of course those videos of him gloating over the towers collapsing were digitally faked. sure. Hollywood can do anything). (and of course Ahmed Ressam and Ramzi Yousef were just tourists vacationing in the US.)

it isnt about revenge anyway, its about eliminating extremists and their safe havens. While Im sure there is plenty of reason to criticize US foreign policy, both political and economic, a lot of the so called 'causes' stem from the Islamic world itself. Some of these guys actually believe they caused the USSR to collapse, and want Islam to spread across the world. Some of BIn Ladens rhetoric 'references to Andalusia etc' puzzled a lot of people in the west. (he was talking about the loss of Islamic Spain back in the 15th century) these guys talk about a 14 hundred year struggle. theyre nuts!

the fact is that it wasnt just the US that was attacked, it was the West. (they needed a target, regardless of all the talk about US policy.

why didnt they attack the house of Saud, (after all they complain about undemocratic regimes) Because the US is a better target propaganda wise. Of course they didnt have a problem with the Taliban regime.

heres a couple interesting viewpoints.

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jdw/jdw020911_1_n.shtml

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: mack/misophist
Date: 11 Sep 02 - 09:33 PM

The US foreign is, without a doubt, inadequate. On the other hand, if you have been keeping track (as much as possible) of the analyses following 9/11, it's very hard to see how a change in foreign policy could have prevented anything. The terrorists are most angry at their own governments and they blame us for supporting them. As bad as the status quo might seem, there are things which are worse.

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Sep 02 - 10:21 PM

First and formost:

"you can bomb the world to pieces... but you can't bomb the worlf to peace"

Thanks, Leo, for bringing up a lost point that instead of business as usual, the US could have fought terrorism by lookig for the source rather than the delivery boys. Yesm at some point in time we are going to have to confront the fact that fundementalists on both sides are the reason for the conflict, meanwhile, the moderates in the middle are gonna take 99% of the bullets.

And thanks, McGrath for pointing out that those fireman who's deaths are now being ysed oin the druming up of sypport for an evil attack on innocent prople, would be chompin at the but to go kill some innocent people... No, they wouldn't!

We need a change. We need to shake off the Jerry Falwell's who have not hold our churches but now our government. We need to get our heads out of the Old Testament long enought to at least take a glimpse of what Jesue said and taught. We gottasay no to extremeists, be they Islamist or Christain, for extremust are nither. They are nothing more than angry folks who wany to control you.

99% of the problems in the world tofay are caused by extremist. Most of them are in total agreement that their way is the *only* way. Their truths are the *only* truths. Osoma, Falwell, Bush. Twiddle-dee-twiddle-dum/

There has to be a return to reason, to hearing, to feeling or you can pretty much hang up God's little experiement here on this planet...

Bobert

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Leo Condie
Date: 11 Sep 02 - 10:36 PM

thanks for the support Bobert...and misophist, a change in policy may not have prevented this attack but that doesn't mean changing it now wouldn't prevent an attack in the future. unfortunately it seems this has provoked the US to poke their noses into other countries affairs more than ever.

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 11 Sep 02 - 11:09 PM

Ya know GUEST - I like this new approach

Wear the plebians out on fluff stuff -

you are good,,,,,,,,,, very very good.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Amos
Date: 11 Sep 02 - 11:19 PM

Garg --

Time to check the meds, laddie!!

Say, whyncha come down to Balboa Park for our next jam session?


A

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Hrothgar
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 07:52 AM

If the USA had bombed Afghanistan with dollar bills instead of explosives, they would have caused the collapse of the Taliban - regimes like that don't survive too well with material prosperity. The war would have been cheaper, too.

The Taliban would have been replaced by another bunch of thugs - probably the same ones there now. That's the way Afghanistan has been for x centuries. At least, though, they'd have more assets, and they would have fewer dead to bury.

Having failed dismally to catch Osama by bombing the daylights out of the Afghans, the USA must now consider alternatives. It's just too horrible to contemplate attacking Saudi Arabia (where I'll bet Osama is right now) because they have too many oil wells with American connections. The alternative is to create a diversion with good old Saddam.

Note that Saddam isn't really doing anything now that he hasn't been doing for the last ten years - he just happens to be convenient.

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: GUEST,Kenyon
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 07:59 AM

did they really say "Oh" that much?

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Midchuck
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 08:10 AM

The best, and most nearly humane, revenge, would be for the US to cut its energy use down to sane levels, and increase the amount of what is still used that's produced domesticly (or is it domestically? Who gives a s***...?)

We could hit the towel heads in their pocket books and hurt the rich ones more than killing them would. Of course, the majority that don't ever see any of the oil money would probably be no more or less miserable than they are now, but what can you do?

Problem is, the car manufacturers will claim that if they stop building Lincoln Navigators and the like, and start building soap boxes on roller skate wheels like I saw all over the place in the UK, their profit margin will fall and we'll have a depression. Well, Microsoft and Intel's profit margins fell, and the country hasn't gone under yet. We'd manage.

Peter.

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: harpgirl
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 08:13 AM

...ohmigod...I agree with Peter! (maybe I'm ready for a shoulder holster)*wink* hg

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 10:40 AM

Good points, Midchuck. If we could cut our oil consumption by 15%, which is roughly how much oil we used that is pumped out of Iraq for our consumption now, then we wouldn't need one drop of their oil. But we have a lot of folks in this administration who are oilmen and an energy policy that was written exclusively by oilmen, so that is not likely to happen.

But in Bobert's WHAT IF WORLD, Ford retooled their Navigator plants to produce more wind turbines to capture evn greater amounts of renewable energy, or turbines that harness the energy created by the big bright thing in the sky. This is the challenge to those who pretty much own the means of production. They, at some point, are going to have to get off their butts, roll up their sleeves and invest their time and resources in making the planet safer and people friendly.

Yes, the ball is very much in Corporate America's hands to get with the program and quit thinking like crooks and start thinking pro-human. And *they* can do it and eventually will have to. America, these days, reminds me of a person who's real sick but won't go to the doctor, for fear of finding out just how sick.

Bobert

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: John Hardly
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 11:03 AM

I wouldn't be supporting our military action if it was led by Clinton and I won't be supporting it under Bush -- it's not the leadership that hasn't the moral authority to "police the world"...

...it's We, the people...

We have wasted whatever world credibility we might have had. If we want(?) to begin military action somewhere, I think it's become important for us to actually be victims of the "weapons of mass destruction" that some of us fear. It is only then that we will 1. unite as a nation in our own defense, and 2. gain the right in the eyes of the world to again use our strength.

God, I hope I go out by nuke -- I'd hate to die slowly by chem or bio.

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 11:15 AM

Jesus, John, you sure sound grumpy this morning!! :>)

Seems to me 3,000 people snuffed in a single very fell swoop is enough mass destruction to learn the lesson from, woudln't you say? I mean, just because it wasn't built by Lockheed Martin or bred in a lab somewhere shouldn't matter that much, huh?

But under all that you put your finger on something very important; moral authority comes from having a genuinely ethical involvement in something, and if possible a genuinely better Idea about right action.

Right now it is problematical whether the Bush clan has either.

A

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 11:59 AM

Whatever America would bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the hearts of America

Dwight David Eisenhower

(Don't show this to Spaw!)

A

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 11:59 AM

"Towel heads" is as racist a term as "nigger".

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Bagpuss
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:04 PM

I was wondering whether I was the only person to take offence at that term.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: John Hardly
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:05 PM

Oh god, amos, only always (grumpy in the morining that is) :^)

...but it's not about the Bush clan. All the same arguements would occur if it were any Republican (and maybe rightfully so). Again, there is no moral code over which we unite as a nation that we collectively perceive as greater than that of any potential invade-ee (country to invade).

Ironically, though the more pacifist element among us might accept a Democrat president -- that's only because a they "trust" the morality of a Democrat president. Then the "right" would not trust his ability to prosecute a military action. Catch 22 huh?

The 3,000 dead seemed to be enough to somewhat unite us around an invasion of Afganistan (though most here would not agree). Iraq will take more -- much more -- to unite us in the concept.

If it is our goal to pursue military action -- and we want a united USA behind the idea -- we will have to accept as the price at least one major attack on us with weapons of mass destruction. I think that may be why so many of our populace would rather gamble that that kind of attack seems unlikely.

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:28 PM

Well the record seems to show that it generally tends to be Democrat presidents in charge when the USA gets into wars.

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Midchuck
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 12:58 PM

"Towel heads" is as racist a term as "nigger".

Hey, they killed 3,000 of us who weren't hurting them.

I concede that that indiscriminate nuclear bombardment of the entire middle east, although vastly emotionally satisfying, would be essentially unfair.

But I'll be DAMNED if I worry about hurting their feelings.

Peter.

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 01:15 PM

Peter:

I appreciate your feelings, deeply.

But I submit for reflection that a more precise definition of "they" might serve you well.

A

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Midchuck
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 02:43 PM

"They" = The Towel Heads. It's simple.

(Oh, I know damn well that it isn't simple at all. But I like to pretend that it is. It makes the whole thing easier to deal with.) (And keep in mind that a great deal of the rest of the U. S. - possibly including the Administration - isn't pretending.)

Peter.

P. S. Has anybody figured out yet why we attacked Afganistan and are about to attack Iraq, when most of the suicide group was from Saudi Arabia - but we're claiming the Saudis are good guys? I know there's a good reason, because I have Faith in Our Leaders. But I wish someone would tell me what it is.

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 03:14 PM

You're sure not alone in that respect. I think it is because the Saudi Gummint knows how to say all the right things to stay out of trouble, and let's us keep airplanes there...maybe.

A

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 03:32 PM

the original question was about revenge, an eye for an eye Clearly the US didnt go into Afghanistan for revenge - even the most surgical airstrikes will kill innocent people. (you hardly hear about the 4 Canadian soldiers killed and several maimed as a result of US 'friendly fire') but vastly more Afghans died during the war with Russia and vastly more died between wars among the warlords. How many were executed in the soccer stadium? They went in to eliminate the Al Qaeda bases, and the Taliban leadership (that were essentially co-opted by AlQaeda). THe biggest mistake in the campaign was personalizing the war. (its virtually impossible to go into war with an individual, which feeds into the terrorists propaganda war anyway) The second mistake was the AXis of Evil crap.

re: US policy, under BUSH jr. they were becoming isolationist, the attacks on Sept 11 forced the US out of its isolation. (at the time, one of my friends said we (Canada and the US) should isolate ourselves even more, which is totally unrealistic, as its not possible to do that in this day and age. 911 was a wake up call to the US, to let them know that they are part of the world, and its a dangerous place.

the question to ask is: which is more dangerous? a world with a tinpot dictators, or tinpot dictators with nukes. (nukes that can be handed over to some terrorist group with grudge and let them do the dirty work)

and one that may end up controlling the majority of the worlds oil supply. Because Saddam with nukes can go back into Kuwait and theres nothing anybody can do about it.

despite all the talk about alternate & clean energy sources,( I for one am all for them) most of us still drive cars and use electricity without thinking about it.

I remember a goofy scat song that some guy did 10 years ago.... Saddam is at 'em again,, uncle Sam thought he had em, but Saddam is at em again..

skiddly Dubai, skiddly Dubai Abyssinia, Abyssinia. (thats all I can remember, great tune though)

petr

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: GUEST,emily b
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 03:37 PM

I heard this morning on Pacifica Radio which (I think) was still airing BBC news that (I will paraphrase) "now that President Bush has convinced the American public to go to war with Iraq, he now needs to convince the General Assembly." Sorry I don't have quite the same words I don't think but the key words are "convinced the American public." Just when did that happen?

I don't know one person who is in favor of attacking Iraq.

It's quite appalling.

Emily

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:09 PM

Where was we when this convincing went down?

A

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 04:11 PM

Like I have pointed out in the past, the Christain fundamentalists have a lot of dough and over the last 20 years or so have played some real smart PR games and gotten a lot of folks into office, Bush being one of there big success stories.

Problem with Christain fundamentalists is that they, by in large, are control freeks with agendas taken almost completely from the Old Testament. They don't seem to have too much tolerance for the Gospels or the teachings of Jesus which to me is the cornerstone of Christianity. Jesus, and I hope I am not over simplyfying this too much taught that God is a loving God and not a God to be feared. He also taught forgiveness. These are the two most important lessons and lessons that the fundamentalists can't quite square with the bits and ieces they have taken from the Old Testament to justify their political thinking.

Yes, they take the "eye for an eye" portion but leave alone the "vengence is mine".

Now on the other hand we have Islamic fundamentalists who do the same thing. They interpret jahad to mean war when jahad literally means struggle and most people of Islamic Faith believe that this is the same "struggle" that their conterparts in Christianity go thru as they "struggle" to live good lives and serve their fellow man.

Now mix in a long failed foriegn policy on the US that is not inclusive and at it's very backbone you'll find this inherent "we-them" philosophy and out Arab neighbors feel left out. Sure, they trade with the US but there has been an undercurrent of mistrust. Why? Like I said, exclusionary foriegn policy. Further mix in the obvious "Inclusionary" foriegn policy the Arab country's neihbor, Isreal and now you've got some amjor hurdles to clear in making a strong case to thge Islamic world that we are indeed their friends.

And then you have fundamentalist, just like over here, taking center stage and the bottome line. 95% of both populations get caught up in the crossfire, when the vengence is actually between two extremist camps. But then a few of the 95% get there butts blown up by someone else in the same 95% but of the other religion and the folks on the extremes are absolutely delighted.

Heck of a plan they have and it's *almost* a non-stoppable cycle. But it can be stopped and must be, or the joint is gonna implode. It's gonna take the moderates to stand up to the bully extremeists and say "no". You want revenge, go get it. But leave me and my family out of it. When that occurs, then the 95% will take back the control of the 5%...

Bobert

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: John Hardly
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 05:12 PM

Bobert, your characterizatioon of Christian fundamentalists and what we believe is AT LEAST as inaccurate, distasteful and insensitive as the "towel head" comment...

....just thought a sensitive guy like yerownself might like to know that.

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 05:56 PM

Maybe you're just a good Christain, John. There are millions. Do you think it's okay for someone to shoot a doctor coming out of an abortion clinic? No, well you might not be a fundamantalist Christain. Do you believe in a loving God, you might noe be a fundamentalist. Do you find yourself nodding with approval when listening to Dr Charles Stanley? Do you believe that it's wrong for people to be harassed because of sexual orientation? Do you believe that "forgiveness" is the cornerstone of your Fauth?

Yeah, I would hope that you are a good Christain and not an extremeist who uses "Christianity" as both a sword and a shield.

If you will think about the Islamic extremist I am suggesting that there is a mirror group here. Andm yes, lots of good Christains get caught up in followubng these false phrophets.

I think if we, as Christains, apply the old litmus test of "What would Jesus do?" in situtaions we can see the wolves in sheep clothing for what they are. I think that was what Jesus was talkign about when he told Mathew (also in Mark) that there us nothing hidden that one day won't be found nor an secret that won't one day be known. He's saying that these false phophets will be found for what they are.

I'm sorry if I offended you, John, but I would hope that I was not referring to you but you and the Lord are the only ones who really know the answer to that question...

Now, if we still have probelmsm then please PM me rather than the two of us monopolizing this thread as we discuss theology... and Faith.

May God Bless you,

Bobert

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 06:03 PM

I think you are decent human beings who know that religious tolerance is vital to the well-being of our coutnry, and that difficulties begin with the desire to make a "reigious state" rather than a "state that allows the free exercise of religion"..

ANyway, I won't extend this dialogue furthe ront he forum, just as Bobert said. I am open to PMs on it if soemone thinks I need one.


A

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: DougR
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 06:59 PM

I get so tired of hearing statements such as those written in this thread by Leo where the U. S. is blamed for what happened on 9/11. That is pure horse puckey! We deserved it right? Would you be willing, Leo, to look those who lost loved ones in the eye and make that statement? If so, God help you.

Any nation that has been attacked has every right to retaliate, and that's exactly what the U. S. did. We are going to continue doing it too, until those vermin are eradicated. No smiley face.

DougR

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 07:08 PM

Doug:

With all due respect, they should not be dismissed too lightly. It was easy to call the Germans vermin, too, and the Japanese. But it was a damn sight harder to eradicate them.

I think, in all honesty, that the question being raised is whether the attack itself was seen by its perpetrators as a retaliation, and if so, whether rightly or wrongly -- and for what -- not because we should not retaliate, but because the more we understand the whole situation, the more effective we can be in dealing with it.

A

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Leo Condie
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 07:34 PM

I never said the US deserved it. Reread what i've written. I do not believe that the murder of 3000 innocent Americans is in any way justified. But I also do not believe the murder of 3000+ innocent Afghanis is justified by the fact that the murder of 3000 innocent Americans occured.

I'd like you to look the families of the inhabitants of Afghanistan who died, and were dismissed as "collatoral damage" by the Bush administration, in the eye and tell them the US had every right to bomb their country.

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 07:44 PM

Yo Doug:

First: I do not condone violence as a means of solving problems between nations of people. What those mostly Sauid people did to the US a year ago was wrong, wrong, wrong.

Second: I am a realist and understand there are times when one must defend one's self. But defense should involve only the minimum force to complete the task at hand and nothing more. That becomes revenge.

Third: It takes two to tango and I think that is what Leo was saying. For every action there is an equal countercation, and unfortunately, I think a short-sighted foriegn policy that has been handed down from one presidency to the next, may be catching up with us. We are the world last reamining Super Power and, as such, the expectations on the US to be involved and inclusionary have not been met. We are very selective in that some dictators with WMD's are fine, while others aren't. By our lack of paying attention we allowed some real nasty stuff to fester. We arew going to have to start paying more attention to our responsibilities to be the role model, to be attentive, to be involved and to be inclusionary. If we hold the course in doing those things, we can nip a lot of these potential problems in the bud...

BTW, how many counties posess WMD's? Hmmmmmmmm? More than one can name? Just something to think about as we think about the US's role in a changing world...

Bobert

Subject: RE: Revenge as a weapon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 08:05 PM

"Any nation that has been attacked has every right to retaliate, and that's exactly what the U. S. did. We are going to continue doing it too, until those vermin are eradicated".

But you don't retaliate by attacking a third party that wasn't involved. If America attacks Iraq it will not in any sense be retaliation for what happened on September 11th.

The only thing such an attack would have to do with September 11 would be that it would be taking advantage of the national mood that was created in the USA by those events. But the actual grounds for an attack on Iraq can have nothing to do with them.

These grounds have been variously defined. The official line is that there is reason for thinking that at some time in the future the Iraqi government will be in a position to launch a suicidal attack against the USA using weapons of mass destruction such as are possessed by the former Soviet Union, China, Israel, Pakistan, India and other countries, and can be anticipated to be motivated to carry out such a suicidal attack, unlike the other countries who have got on relatively badly with the USA over the last fifty or so years.

Other possible reasons are that it is a uniquely repressive regime (very open to question when you look around the world), that the overthrow of Saddam is unfinished business by Daddy Bush; and of course that the presence of Saddam limits access to Iraqi oil.

Subject: RE: 9/11: Revenge as a weapon
From: Mr Happy
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 08:26 PM

towel heads?

i thought all the shr...bushwar things was about control of OIL!!

Subject: RE: 9/11: Revenge as a weapon
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 10:00 PM

No wonder Mr Red, petr and Doug are cross. The people who did for the WTC are dead and gone. The so-called cowards were in fact dedicated and desperate enough that they were willing to die for their cause. It doesn't leave much to lash out at.

Because the FBI were caught flat-footed and because Bush's domestic agenda is going down the tubes, it has been convenient to create a myth that the hijackers were the mere tip of a worldwide mission.

Let's remember that they got their pilot training right there in the states (even being honest enough to explain that they weren't interested in how to land a plane), and they used BOXCUTTERS for Christ's sake. Any 20 of us here could have done the job.

Doug's brainless lust for revenge I find frankly nauseating. Intentionally or otherwise he is giving an impression that any muslim - maybe any foreigner will do. He will be aware that most of the 3,000 Afghani victims, and most of the hundreds now being detained in Cuba, had nothing whatsoever to do with the WTC, yet still he seems to get off on all the human misery being spread in his name.

As Doug seems happy to have yet more collateral blood spilt, it might be good to have his nearest and dearest somehow caught up in it. Not because of any personal grudge on my part, but because his imagination is too limited for him to realise any other way what "collateral" is all about. Anyway, it might as well be his folk as any other innocent civilians.

Incidentally, I thought this was a telling remark: "...most of us still drive cars and use electricity without thinking about it [energy consumption]." Only in America, petr. Only in America!

Subject: RE: 9/11: Revenge as a weapon
From: Amos
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 10:09 PM

Fionn:

I think the facts are established that there is or was a large network of nodes which were used to plan and support and implement the 9-11 strike. It was also used in other strikes. One in Seattle which would have caused hundreds of innocent deaths was barely averted because a U.S. custom officer made a Saudi-born and Afghanistan-trained terrorist open the rear trunk of his car. If you are convinced the 9-11 strike was only perpetrated by the handful physically involved with the planes, I have to say you are entertaining an impossible scenario!

The issue is not the WTC, but the organization behind it, which the French called the Afghanistan network until the term Al-Qaida came into popular circulation.

The big question is what links it has to Saudi Arabia, to other bin Ladens and to iraq. I do not know those answers.

A

Subject: RE: 9/11: Revenge as a weapon
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 12 Sep 02 - 11:35 PM

I don't doubt that the Al Quaida network is, or was, huge, nor that their fingerprints are on various atrocities. But most of the people responsible for 9/11 finished up in the ash. The corollary to this, which should be a cause for concern, is that similarly small cells will be able to wreak such horror again. And as someone said recently (can't remember who), terrorism will exist for as long as people have grievances.

As for A-Q's connections, it's looking a safe bet that they have plenty with Saudi Arabia and none with Iraq.

Subject: RE: 9/11: Revenge as a weapon
From: DougR
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 02:50 AM

Fionn: your nausea doesn't bother me in the least. Take some Tums or something. You are reading into my posts things that are not there. Things that you wish were there perhaps. And there is no guarantee that those nearest and dearest to me WON'T be caught up in it. I have grandsons that could well be caught up in it, and I wouldn't like it one bit, but if necessary, I'm confident they will serve their country, and serve it well. Personalizing posts has never appealed to me, and I rarely do it, but Fionn, you sort of pissed me off. I'm sure that will keep you awake tonight.

And you are the one, my friend, that was making a conscious effort not to do that, right? Or were you just blowing smoke in your recent PM to me?

DougR

Subject: RE: 9/11: Revenge as a weapon
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Sep 02 - 11:40 AM

Still waiting for an answer. How many countries posess WMD? Heck, this is not a loaded question. I'm just wondering. Is it 20, 50 or 150? And what exactly cconstitutes a WMD? Does a scud missle with a conventional warhead? How about conventional bombs? Drop one on the middle of a professional fooball game and you're probably gonna kill a lot of folks. So, do they count? If so, I think we'd have a harder time finding countries *without* WMD... Hmmmmmm?

And how many of these counties that do have WMD ar ourf bussom buddies. You know, like the UK and, ahhhh, I can't think of any others. Oh yeah, Canada. That makes two.

Okay, now of the remaining non bussom buddy counties, how many practice democracy. Hmmmmmm? And how many are ruled by what is being thrown around as "tinhorn" dictators.

Okay, when someone who has the answers to these questions is kind enough to enlighten me I will take my trusty Wes Ginny slide rule and the two of us will go off and contimplate the next question...

Bobert