AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: kendall
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 06:24 PM

El Al has sturdy doors. As far as a self destruct program goes. what makes the difference if the pilot blows it up or the terrorist does it? Also, if they say they will blow it up, what would be gained by opening the door?

---

These are the threads in the series on the World Trade Center Tragedy. Please post only to the most recent thread in the series. The others are closed because they are too long for some browsers to open. There is no need to "refresh" old threads in this series. These links should be sufficient.
Thanks
-Joe Offer-

---

• World Trade Center-Unreal Disaster
• AMERICAN ATTACKS--PART TWO
• AMERICAN ATTACKS---PART THREE
• AMERICAN ATTACKS- - -PART FOUR
• AMERICAN ATTACKS- - - PART FIVE
• AMERICAN ATTACKS**SIX -about enough huh?
• AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART SEVEN..thoughts
• AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
• AMERICAN ATTACKS**Part 9,one week later
• AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
• AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
• American Attacks**Part Fifty - Got him!
• American Attacks**Part Twelve: Steady On
• American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?

---

This thread is closed. Please do not post any more messages in this thread. Additional messages will be deleted.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 04:18 PM

Troll, I'm in Seattle. I posted that at 9:56 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: heric
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 02:39 PM

AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is

so bright I gotta wear leaded shades.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 02:38 PM

If they'd blown up the planes on September 11th we'd be mourning the terrible deaths of 200 people or so instead of 6000 plus.

I suppose sealed-off compartments would mean that, if something happened to disable the flight crew, the geek in tourist class who knows how to fly wouldn't be abe to go up front and heroically save everyone. And if the captain has a heart attack, there won't be a chance for a doctor from among the passengers to come to the rescue. And you won't have the scenario where the pilot nonchalently strolls down the pkane so as not to worry bthe passengers, and has a look at what has gone wrong in teh tail section.

But I doubt if these things happen too often in real life.

But I'd still sooner go by airship, if there isn't a way you can get there by train.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Justa Picker
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 02:26 PM

The cockpit doors can be ten inches thick and made of solid lead. If a terrorist demands "open the cockpit door now or we blow up the plane", doesn't matter how secure the doors are, if they carry through on the threat.

I do however endorse the Sky Marshalls idea but with several not just one on board each flight, and also the flight crew being trained in some method of self defense.

As grotesque as this also might sound, all commercial aircraft should also be equipped with a self destruct mechanism to minimize the chances of what happened on September 11th ever happening again.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: kendall
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 02:19 PM

the cheapest and most effective way to put a stop to this crap is the install cockpit doors that are secure. Second to that Sky Marshals on every flight.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 02:00 PM

I am trying to see any of the senarios when the flight crew would need to come back to the passengers and vice versa?

I am sure there may be some problems involved in doing this, but would these be bigger problems than more future potential suicide bombers hi-jacking planes?

Until the flight crew is completely sealed off from the pasengers, I cannot see the passenger confidence that the industry needs, ever returning.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Troll
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 01:09 PM

Don. 12:56 P.M. is afternoon. Go take a nap. You've been working too hard.

troll***BG***

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 12:56 PM

(Hells Bells! Can't even spell my own name this morning.)

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 12:53 PM

DougR, I think you have me confused with somebody else. Where did I say anything like that?

Don Foirth

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 12:52 PM

That last sentence in that last post I made got garbled - it should have read:

If people put money into a business, such as an airline to keep it going, that means they own part of that business. If it's public money, because the representatives of the community believe it is necessary to keep it going, that means the public own's that part of the business. That's just as much capitalism as it is socialism.

If an airline company goes broke, the aeroplanes are still there, the people who operate them are still there. If it's important to the community that they keep flying, it keeps flying, and the government picks up the bill, if the fares don't cover the cost. That's common sense.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Mrrzy
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 12:50 PM

All "laid-off" airline employees should be immediately hired as consultants by the new office of homeland protection or whatever it was. Don't bail out the airline companies, who cares about their profits. Bail out the people who are about to lose their jobs - and in so doing, get all their expertise in answering the question How would you get past yourself if you were a terrorist? Baggage handlers would then help close the baggage loopholes, pilots the cockpit ones, attendants the passenger ones, and so on. When we get out air traffic back and people are rehired into the industry it will then be a lot safer, at least... and if people don't go back to flying, no need to bail out the companies.

This applies to travel of humans, of course. Cargo would still need to go, but not ever on a plane with passengers. What we'll do about crop dusting, or rich folks with personal planes, I haven't thought of yet.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 12:35 PM

Anybody watch "60 Minutes" last night?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 12:13 PM

Note he said someone was playing politics "trying" to "twist" his words.

I have a hard enough time trying to straighten out he says into some coherent sentences.

Sometimes it is like trying to straighten out a pretzel.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: kendall
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 10:03 AM

W is on right now, stumbling all over himself, stuttering, misspronouncing words, ending every sentence on the upswing like it was a question. Still insisting that "They" hate freedom. I just find it very difficult to take this guy seriously.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 09:22 AM

That would put a crimp in transportation, wouldn't it? After last week would that be such a bad thing? We managed before aeroplanes came along, and that was even without all the things we have now like computers and mobile phones.

If people to be put into keeeping airlines going, that means they own part of the airlines. If it's public money, that means the public own them. That's as much capitalism as it is socialism.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 08:12 AM

Perhaps it's too early on a Monday, but the idea of increasing security to the cockpit/flight cabin seems rather futile, short of hermetically sealing the pilots in for the duration of the flight. Certainly there are scenarios in which one could think it necessary for the pilots/crew to have access to the passengers, and vice versa, and such contingencies provide enterprising terrorists the opportunity to exploit those weaknesses, which they seem very adept at doing.

Then it becomes a game of one-upmanship, sort of like the current state of affairs with computer viruses/hackers, and the network security guys who go around "putting out fires."

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: GUEST,Greg F.
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 07:41 AM

Precedent, yes. Agreed.

We also bailed out Bush & the Savings and Loans. And bailed out the Aerospace industry with the B-1 Bomber. And bailed out Trent Lott with a ship no-one wanted or needed. And we funded the Contras. And trained and funded Bin Laden!

Existence of precedent doesn't necessarily mean its the 'right' or logical thing to do.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: The Shambles
Date: 24 Sep 01 - 02:00 AM

The answer to the hi-jackings and this terrible flying bomb, if not just blowing up the plane by plcing bombs aboard, would appear to be a plane designed with no access to the flight cabin?

The security should be then easier to handle, as you would just have to ensue that only the intended flight crew were on board.

They would be no point in anyone in the plane threatening other passengers or staff, as they could not then control the plane.

Is this just too obvious or just too expensive? Do we now have any choice?

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Troll
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 10:47 PM

We bailed out Chrysler, New York City, and who knows what else, so why not bail out the airlines? There is ample precident.

troll

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 10:24 PM

I hate myself already, but I'll rise to the bait:

Gee, Doug, I thought you were a champion of allowing The Market to operate freely without unnecessary Government intervention? Shouldn't market forces & competition sort out the airline companies? Or are you turning into a liberal?

Put your glasses back on & try again - where did I say what you allege?

Greg

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: DougR
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 09:27 PM

Uh, you rather not have any airline companies, Greg F.? That would put a crimp in transportation, wouldn't it? Best, DougR

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 08:18 PM

Worthwhile keeping in mind, too, that every attempt at increasing & improving U. S. airline security for the last 20 years was fought tooth and nail by the Airline Industry & their lobbyists, effectively blocking most of it, with the result we saw on the 11th.

These same Airline companies are now being rewarded for this deep concern about passenger and employee safety with a 15 billion dollar gift from Uncle Dubya.

Ain't that America- somethin' to see.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 08:10 PM

Where are the air Marshalls? Where are the double walled luggage containers?

Small planes have been grounded but that may lift soon.??

Skeptic, Perhaps.......-this has been censored for Osama internet operatives- ..........and worship blatant mockery otherwise you are just a chip off the big green rock.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: GUEST,guest, Deda at home
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 07:37 PM

My huband has an old friend who has worked for a US airline for at least a couple of decades -- as has his wife. He sends the following email:

Subject: Email from a US Pilot Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 11:52:09 -0700 (PDT)

Removed by request of the poster

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Skeptic
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 07:36 PM

Doneul,

You can stand down from full alert. Word has just arrived that the Big Green Rock was green becasue it was spray painted by a bunch of radical-liberal folk singers as some sort of incomprehensible protest having to do with the Doritos War. As they used environmentally friendly vegetable based paint, it washed off after the first hard rain.

Currently a debate is raging as to whether the folk singers were divinely inspired by the Big Green Rock from the future or whether it's greenness was really spiritual rather than literal allalong.

Then there are the revisionist's who insist that it was always supposed to be the Big Grey Rock and that the Green was a typo. They view the folk-singer types as the vilist of blasphemers and are demanding that they be forced to sing songs from the Barney the Dinosaur Show before an audience of punk rockers as penance. Regards

John

NOTE: It is just this sort of blatant mockery of religion that is going to get folks like bin Laden pissed at us so it had better stop.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 07:14 PM

Decisions based on what God says or decisions by a corporate memo , governmental decree etc. are all prone to the same collective human failings.

However the next time god speaks to someone I want to review the tape recording.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 07:11 PM

A suicide bomber or hijacker wants to 'get away with it' by taking out his target. But the one who sends him, briefs him, recruits him, trains him...that guy does it because he thinks he can pull it off and still get laid the next Saturday.(Amos)

Well, it may be true of course that the people behind the people who flew the planes are a totally different sort of people, who don't have the same degree of commitment, including a willingness to die. But I certainly wouldn't bet on it.

It'd be nice to believe it, because it would reduce the danger we are in. Somebody who is willing to die is the most potent weapon that there is. I suppose that is one reason why politicians and media people love to throw out the word "coward" whenever this kind of thing happens. It is reassuring.

The English media and politicians regular have done it in relation to the IRA, and it is nonsense. If they listened to the songs they'd know it was nonsense.

Whether on the scaffold high
Or the battlefield we die,
No matter if for Ireland dear we fall...

There are important differences here - I'm not saying that the IRA is identical with whatever we are up against here. One important difference is that the IRA have never come close to the scale of instant mass slaughter of civilians involved here. (To find anyone who has done that you have to turn to the nation states.) Which is not to say that the IRA have not killed enough non-combatants, God knows.

On top of that there is the almost unimaginable horror of the hijack process here - the idea of looking in the eyes of scores of innocent travelers as you fly them to their death.

That is indeed hard to imagine - but what is familiar enough is an army made up of people who are willing to die, and aware that their death, no matter how it come about, can in itself be a weapon against the enemy - that is familiar enough.

And this means that the kind of deterrent effect that Amos talked about just cannot be relied upon. The only gain from killing people in the Hindu Kush, from Bin Ladin down, is that they as individuals will not be able to play any further part in this strange conflict.

But if their deaths serve to recruit replacements who outnumber them...We could see something equivalent to a human chain reaction.

It would be great if we could believe that the people who are in control could be relied upon to keep their eye on what might actually serve to reduce danger, and to weaken the opponents, whoever they are. If instead they go in for grandstanding, and in the process do things that actually make things worse, the world is in very serious trouble.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 07:08 PM

FATWA ON BIG GREEN ROCK DEFILERS IS DECLARED

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 06:59 PM

quote From: Skeptic Date: 23-Sep-01 - 04:16 PM

Amos,

I agree that religions seem to thrive on obliteration of self. The idea of what is right and wrong is based on God, Allah or the Big Green Rock on the Hill Behind the Village.

It would seem that in purely secular ethics, the individual is the vital and validating element of right and wrong. The ethic grows out of and is intrinsic to the individual, making it more difficult to justify harm to another person. With any degree of honestly and integrity, very difficult.

Religions based on some force outside the individual don't suffer from the same constraint as right and wrong exist independently of the individual..............

from donuel : This is very close to the truth from a Hobbsian nihilist point of view. I would go on to say that any group be it religious, corporate OR governmental will create its own "ethics" to get an upper hand on their neighbor. The rare individuals like Ghandi ,Dali Lama ,Pete Seager or Big Bird do not have different constraints of ethics than the collective that they lead , they simply may be more in control of themselves.

However I wish to strongly condemn your SACRELIGIOUS , BLASPHEMOUS , DEFILING OF THE BIG GREEN ROCK ON THE HILL BEHIND MY VILLAGE !!!!!!!!!!!!!iiyyiyiyiyi AVENGE THE BIG GREEN ROCK

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: kendall
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 06:23 PM

Those whackos who flew the planes into the buildings didnt expect to get away with it. We are dealing with people who dont think like we do, and our track record in this area sucks.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: CarolC
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 06:11 PM

The reason terrorists do what they do is they believe they can get away with it. That's fundamental. If the consequences of terrorism are themselves terrifying, a deterrent has occurred.

--Amos

If that were true, Israel's problem with terrorists would have been solved a long time ago. It hasn't. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: DougR
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 05:57 PM

Don Firth: you're not on the governments "Need to know" list?" I think it's totally illogical that the government doesn't show all their cards to anyone who asks to see them, don't you? Do you really think, were our government present evidence to the Taliban that Osama Bin Laden was involved, that they would accept the evidence?

Justa Picker: thanks for posting that editorial from the Canadian newspaper. Don't understand what kat doesn't agree with, but whatever.

I have a suggestion for all of you "second guessers." Write a letter to your Congressman, your Senator and send a copy to the President. You may be able to make a meaningful contribution to the effort!

Kendall: I ain't baring my ass for any purpose. Not that it's not a nice one. It has served me well for 71 years, but it's not designed for mooning, or kissing.

DougR

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 05:42 PM

Has anyone seen yet in the news media which areas of the U.S. Dubya has decided to bomb if we don't agree to: disband the School of the Americas, turn over the Americans responsible for the deaths of Allende and Letelier, those that supported the Nicaraguan 'Contras', the American associates of Manuel Noriega, deliver Henry Kissinger and the others responsible for the bombing of Cambodian civilians (way more than 6,000 of them) to the World Court for crimes against humanity, prosecute all those who collected and delivered (& still do so) money and arms to the IRA and..... well, you get the idea.

I'd heard Wolfowitz had targeted South Boston due to IRA support, but I can't confirm this.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 05:35 PM

Darn betcha.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 05:19 PM

The lifting of the sanctions on India and Pakistan imposed for their nuclear testing, are no small thing in themselves. I wonder what is to be expected in return?

A little more than we have seen thus far, I suspect?

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 04:46 PM

Troll, when I advocate diplomacy and persuasion, I am not suggesting that we try to negotiate with bin Laben and his bunch. I'm not that naïve. Nor am I naïve enough to believe that overt military action is going to be of much use. Quite the contrary. It will cause little but "collateral damage," turn potential allies against us, and "prove" bin Laden's contention that we are the Bad Guys. It will play right into his hands.

The only things that are going to pull us through in this are restraint (have enough self-control to keep from screwing things up entirely by going off half-cocked), intelligence (of all kinds) and subtilty. He and those like him can be rendered ineffective and ineffectual in ways other than killing or capturing them. But taking military action at this point would make that impossible.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: heric
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 04:32 PM

>>>I think you misheard. I'm sure God said "Doritos". Ranch flavored. <<<<<

Henceforth the two factions did declare war on the faith of each the other, and one thousand posts did reek of venom and bile, and the two peoples gathered their adherents. . .

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 04:28 PM

It isn't the pilots who thought they could "get away with it." I was unclear. A suicide bomber or hijacker wants to 'get away with it' by taking out his target. But the one who sends him, briefs him, recruits him, trains him...that guy does it because he thinks he can pull it off and still get laid the next Saturday. If any of these yahoos had the clear and unshakeable impression that one peep of terrorist blather from them and their whole cell would wake up in Allah's arms with no coup counted, they would back off and plan something else. There'd be no gain for the cost, even in their wacky method of accounting.

Regards,

A.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Skeptic
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 04:16 PM

Amos,

I agree that religions seem to thrive on obliteration of self. The idea of what is right and wrong is based on God, Allah or the Big Green Rock on the Hill Behind the Village.

It would seem that in purely secular ethics, the individual is the vital and validating element of right and wrong. The ethic grows out of and is intrinsic to the individual, making it more difficult to justify harm to another person. With any degree of honestly and integrity, very difficult.

Religions based on some force outside the individual don't suffer from the same constraint as right and wrong exist independently of the individual.

I think you misheard. I'm sure God said "Doritos". Ranch flavored.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Troll
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 04:05 PM

Ok, lets negotiate with them and find out what them want.
Well, bin Laden has already stated what he wants: nothing less than the death of every American -man, woman, and child- and their allies.
And why does he want that? Because we have more than his people do? Because we are the worlds major consumers?
Nope.
It's because we have a military base in Saudi Arabia and we support the existance of Israel. He has said this in his fatwa. He wishes to free the sacred soil of the Arabian pennisula of the pollution of our presence and free the Dome of the Rock and the El Aqsa Mosque from the Jews. Then he wants to go on and spread Islam by the sword throughout the world until all infidels are dead.
So. What should we do. Negotiate? How about this. We'll leave Saudi Arabia and abandon Israel and then we'll all be given the chance to convert to Islam. Those who don't, well, they are on their own.
Think that would satisfy him?
Understand, people. This is not political. It's not about our support of any opressive govt. or our lack of sharing what we have or any of the things that you are used to hearing. This is about religious fanaticism and you have as much chance negotiating with them as you do with a rabid rottweiler.
Some of you obviously believe you have the answers.
And you do.
Only they're the answers to the wrong questions. It's not political and the usual solutions won't work.
To forestall any sarcastic posts, I don't have the answers either. I'm not sure there is any answer.

troll

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: heric
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 03:46 PM

Yesterday I was rambling and writing to myself as I pondered the question of whether any specific population in the Middle East had affirmative duties in regard to quelling the Al Quead (sp?) monster, and came to a vague conclusion in the negative.

Today I will try not to ramble, but the questions I'm absorbed with are those concerning the objectively rational guidelines for use of military force, the extent thereof, and the threats thereof ("coercive diplomacy.")

There is an excellent short essay on this topic as it applies to recent history to be found at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/force/article.html

This essay will not give anyone much comfort. There ain't no easy way out.

I am reminded of a fungus identified a few years back which is a single organism in the subsoil and which can extend over many acres. If this fungus were ecologically damaging, its eradication would require exceptional sophistication. Flamethrowers wouldn't work. Strengthening the affected populations to increase resistance would be a likely partial solution. Oh oh, I'm rambling.

"... when the stakes warrant, where and when force can be effective, where no other policies are likely to be effective, where its application can be limited in scope and time, and where the potential benefits justify the potential costs and sacrifice. There can be no single or simple set of fixed rules for using force .... Each and every case is unique." -- President George Bush, "Remarks at the United States Military Academy," January 5,1993

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Roger in Sheffield
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 03:41 PM

bbc correspondent

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 03:32 PM

Not the eating Fritos (although that's okay too), but what you said about non-secular basis for secular affairs.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 03:30 PM

Amos, now that I agree with.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 03:09 PM

McGrath:

I spoke in haste -- please forgive my anachronism. My point is -- dates aside for the moment -- that the insistence on a non-secular basis for secular affairs has a lethal flaw in it, namely the oblliteration of self. Along with it comes a loss of personal hope, and a loss of responsibility. These things are not peculiar to Islam or any other group. But wherever they oiccur they are debilitating and they reduce the quality of life. Because the quality of life on the secular plane is deemed a distraction to the real goal of pursuing the myth. The snide superiority of cults the world over is based on this notion. Yet those who exercise it are still bound by the fundamental dynamics of human exostence -- they still eat, they still want comfort, they still hunger for admiration, still want to win at something, they would like to raise children. It isn't as though they have actually transcended material existance -- they just suppress it. And if I may say so, it is not as though they are actually following the trail of the Infinite -- they are merely getting spun up over someone else's picture of what that would be, as Kendall points out.

It may be true that actual enlightenment brings with it the transcendence over self. But pretend enlightenment does not. Pursuing such a pretense is certainly an inividual choice -- but forcing a whole society to do so, whether for the good of Allah or the good of Jesus or the good of Goofball the Spirit of Good Humor, is leading others down a very steep and slippery slope.

Kendall: That was then, this is now!! God told me we must drop everything and eat Fritos. Get to it!!

Love,

Amos

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 03:05 PM

Wiping out bin Laden's camps -- assuming that is where the ops are trained and staged possibly -- would certainly deter the next round by a significant amount. The reason terrorists do what they do is they believe they can get away with it. That's fundamental. If the consequences of terrorism are themselves terrifying, a deterrent has occurred.

Amos, just to weigh in on this, I'm afraid I can't quite agree. The only consequences that the terrorists are interested in this inflicting the maximum possible death and destruction on their targets. Once this is accomplished, "getting away with it" doesn't matter. In the attacks on WTC and the Pentagon and in many other terrorist attacks around the world, the perpetrators have amply demonstrated their willingness, perhaps even eagerness, to die for their cause. I think there is cause to believe that attacks, military or otherwise, on bin Laden or the terrorist training camps will be the trigger to launch a series of massive attacks on a large number of targets within the United States and perhaps other places in the world. That's not the way to handle this situation.

In your next post you say . . . one of the prime motivations in agreeing to die taking out Allah's enemies is the desire for a little glory or recognition for your own actions, even if posthumously. Exactly my point.

I don't know what kind of "expert advisers" George W. Bush and our military leaders have available to them, but recent history seems to demonstrate that the aspects are anything but promising. If I were in charge (which, thank God, I am not), one thing I would do is hire the services of authors such as Tom Clancy, John Grisham, and others like them. Why? Because many of these people have the imagination and the demonstrated ability to create scenarios which our politicians and "experts" so obviously lack. In my own mind, I can conjure up all manner of horrors that I'm afraid we might have to learn to defend against, and Clancy et al are much better at this sort of thing then I am. It may sound like a far-out idea, but I think it should be seriously considered. Something like that, I think, is essential for any kind of realistic defense against terrorist attacks.

Diplomacy, persuasion, and example are going to be our best weapons against our self- proclaimed enemies. I know this idea won't go down well with people who want vengeance, immediate responses, and those who assumed that military action is the only solution. Nevertheless, this is a whole new kind of conflict, and we better learn how to handle it if we're going to have any chance of surviving.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: kendall
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 02:42 PM

I dont understand why any religous fanatic whether it be Bin Ladan or Pat Robertson, and his clone, Falwell, get the idea that they know what God wants, and, that they are doing Gods work and speaking for God. Didn't he/she do pretty well in dealing with Pharos' army? and with Sodom and Gommorah? How can these arsholes top that?

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 01:59 PM

The reason terrorists do what they do is they believe they can get away with it. That's fundamental.

Fundamental - but not true in this case.

The men hijacked those planes didn't think they wer ewgoing to get away with it without being blown to poiueces. No, they thought that their deaths would advance their cause. The same will be likely to apply in the case of zealots who get blown into little pieces by American bombs in the Hindu Kush mountains, including I have no doubt Bin Ladin himself.

Incidentally, there weren't any Jesuits in the Midddle Ages. The order was only founded in the 16th century.

And saying "God willing" or "Please God" when making arrangements is hardly restricted to Islamic societies. Pretty normal among anyone from an Irish Catholic background, just for a start.

You know, the more I hear about how radically different the way Muslims are suppose to think, the more familiar it seems. Even when it turns to fanaticism, it isn't that different from the fanaticism you can get from Christian cultures in certain circumstances. Which is hardly surprising, since Islam is an offshoot of Christianity and of Judaism, like Mormonism in America.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
From: Amos
Date: 23 Sep 01 - 01:28 PM

John:

Any religous belief carried to extremes will appear psychotic. To kill 6000 people is a psychotic act no matter what significance or delusion is used to justify it.

The people who grow up under radical Islamism are taught from birth that as individuals they amount to nothing and that only Allah counts. This is a very difficult belief to build a society on. The only path to acclaim and admiration, which is the most treasured commodity there is among humans, is to become a priest of Allah or sacrifice yourself in His service. Otherwise you're just a dustmote in Allah's scheme.

The language itself reflects this interesting inversion. If you promise to meet someone in two hours, in this country you say, "I'll be there." In Arabic tongues you say, "If God wills it, I will be there.". In Westernlanguages, if someone thanks you, you say "You are welcome", implying that you had some say in whether or not to do or give. In Arabic countries you say, "Laachokrane -- Alla'ouadjib" (phonetically) which means -- "No, don't thank me, thank Allah".

So one of the prime motivations in agreeing to die taking out Allah's enemies is the desire for a little glory or recognition for your own actions, even if posthumously.

In my opinion it is this suppression of self-hood which leads to the dramatization of psychosis. It is a neat trick for channeling the power of society to the mullahs. The Jesuits and others used the same stunt throughout the Middle Ages, causing all kinds of wars and oppression. That's wy we insist on the separation of Church and State, and the freedom to worship as you choose.

A