AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: DougR
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 05:19 PM

Don Firth: you're recollection coincides with mine of the dropping of the Atom bombs. I was 15 at the time.

However, I guess no one can say with complete accuracy that NO ONE danced in the streets when the event was announced on radio. It's even concievable that someone in Great Britain, McGrath, danced in the streets. After all, the armed forces of GB were no more anxious to be a party to the invasion of Japan than were those in the U.S.A.

DougR

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 05:39 PM

Yes indeed - as I've already indicated, I think it's extremely likely that some people in Great Britain and other parts of Europe may indeed have celebrated when they heard about the bomb, and I couldn't blame them. Insofar as this doesn't seem to have been a widespread reaction, that is very impressive indeed, given the circumstances.

And I still think what I said up the thread was true and relevant, and might help us understand why we saw those horrible scenes of a few people celebrating the destruction of the Twin Towers:

People who have been hurt are likely to feel vengeful. When people have lost their loved ones, and had their lives destroyed, noone can blame them if sometimes their anger expressed itself in jubilation when a mortal blow was inflicted on the people they saw as their enemies, while their imaginations failed to appreciate the appalling nature of what had been done.

And that last paragraph could have been about people in August 1945 in Europe or America, or about people in Palestine this week.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: GUEST,emily b
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 05:56 PM

Peter T., what a beautiful posting. Your words never cease to amaze and move me. I've missed your Thought of the Day. I can't get over how eloquent so many mudcatters are. Emily

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 06:01 PM

Gareth - of course the thing that is implied by Kipling there is that the British did none of those things. Which sadly is not true.

Kiping wrote about some of that too:

Now remember when you're 'acking round a gilded Burma god
That 'is eyes is very often precious stones;
An' if you treat a nigger to a dose o' cleanin'-rod
'E's like to show you everything 'e owns.
When 'e won't prodooce no more, pour some water on the floor
Where you 'ear it answer 'ollow to the boot
(~Cornet~: Toot! toot!) --
When the ground begins to sink, shove your baynick down the chink,
An' you're sure to touch the --
(~Chorus~) Loo! loo! Lulu! Loot! loot! loot!
Ow the loot! . . .

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 09:42 PM

I've decided that these lyrics best represent how I feel -

It's a lesson too late for the learnin'
Made of sand, made of sand
In the wink of an eye my soul is turning
In your hand, in your hand

Are you going away with no words of farewell?
Will there be not a trace left behind?
I could have loved you better
Didn't mean to be unkind
You know, that was the last thing on my mind

As I lie in my bed in the morning
Without you, without you
Each song in my breast dies a-bornin'
Without you, without you

Are you going away with no words of farewell?
Will there be not a trace left behind?
I could have loved you better
Didn't mean to be unkind
You know, that was the last thing on my mind...

Also, here is my response to those who want to bomb them back into the Stone Age, not that there are any here but I'm offering you fodder: They ARE in the Stone Age, and look at what they've done.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Charley Noble
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 09:47 PM

Nice when I'm too tired to think straight that there are others willing to continue posting.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 11:07 PM

Ooh, a new word, yes; what IS this kind of conflict called, a war against an idea rather than a nation? It really ISN'T a war, not against Afghanistan at least... Terr? Short for Terror but shows the Terran involvement?

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 11:17 PM

I think it's a time to choose. Do we stand against the principle? If we do, are we prepared to hold ourselves to the same standard? If so, we need to work very hard to find another way. Otherwise we have chosen to keep terrorism alive and well in the world.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Sep 01 - 11:20 PM

Worse than that, CarolC, we will have either surrendered to it, or joined it.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: GUEST, I, hurricane
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 12:31 AM

>>>>>Insurers in Britain and America were yesterday forming a consensus that last Tuesday's attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon constituted an act of terrorism – an eventuality which is much more widely insured for than an outbreak of war.

Chubb, one of America's largest insurers, and Swiss Re, the global reinsurer, became the first insurance companies to confirm that they did not view the disaster as an act of war. <<<<<<< http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/story.jsp?story=94621

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Clifton53
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 12:38 AM

Troll, thank you for the explanation. Anything that helps me understand the situation makes it easier for me to face the future, which right now is fraught with peril, for all concerned.

Clifton

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: gus C
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 01:01 AM

Something to think about. They could have stolen a cargo plane and taken down the Statue of Liberty. Loss of innocent life would have been NIL, beyond the terrorist themselves. The message would have been loud and clear, but, then they wouldn't be TERRORISTS, would they?.
I said it before, Bin Ladden Must Die.
This time don't no psuedo-intellectual pious idiots say- attack who? BIN LADEN, the symbol of an act that is pure and undefendable EVIL. Don't ask how either , I aint Colin Powell. I pray he is handed over so the loss of innocent life is minimal and we can go about HUMANELY defeating his kind with political diplomatic strong arm techniques, and small Navy seal/green beray strikes.
the blood will not stop flowing without it draining from Bin Ladden's Body. It is that simple, if you care about innocent life , hope he dies and his death will come soon.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 01:15 AM

I understand your anger, DJH, but we must be careful not to convert it to a flame-thrower that burns the innocent as well as the guilty. Better we use it to generate white-hot flame to temper our will and our resolution. This war will not end even with Bin Laden's arrest or death. I think we are in the early days of a very long and painful process. Thorough planning, careful targetting, and a devastating strike must be the tools of our anger. And even further losses must not damage our resolve.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 01:19 AM

I don't understand why this should be handled any differently than the situation with Milosevic. He's not dead. He is being dealt with in a manner that is consistant with the rule of law.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: DougR
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 01:35 AM

Because, Carol, Milosevic is alleged to have committed a crime against humanity; racial clensing.

The Terriorists committed an act of war against the United States. Osma bin Laden declared war against the United States years ago, and blew up American Embassies and military personnel, killing hundreds of Americans and local employees at the Embassies. They must answer to the American People, not to the World Court.

I Don't understand why that's so hard to grasp other than the fact that it is not the way you wish it were.

The latest Washington Post poll indicates that 87% of the American People approve of Bush's handling of the situation. That's a pretty good approval rating.

DougR

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 01:52 AM

The popularity of a particular approach is no indication of whether or not it will be effective.

The reason I see it differently than you do is that I see the kneejerk approach being advocated by some people as being more likely to cause greater problems for us in the long run. As opposed to an approach that is more concerned with giving us the best results in the long run, but may be less satisfying to those who are looking an outlet for their anger in the short term.

And just because it is me who sees it in this way, doesn't mean that this view lacks validity.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: gus C
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:32 AM

I fear it will be hard to be effective.
I fear the angry flag waving Mob.
I fear that the goverment has it's hands tied by a 90% blood lust.
I fear that the one man , who's blood will be satisfying will elude capture.
I fear for the people of Afganistan.
I fear for the people of the world.
I want the gun's back on the shelves FAR more than I want revenge
Bin Laden Must Die.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:33 AM

The painful fact is the 87% is not 87% of the world opinion.

The days when American policy could affect the lives of the rest of the world, without the rest of the world touching or affecting the American people are now over.

This has been clearly demonstrated by a few fanatics with a view held by a lot less than 87% of anything.

If Mr Bush's 'dead or alive' statement is indication of his fairly recent awakening to the world outside, I fear that when the effects of this approach are again felt by the American people, this 87% will reduce rapidly.

To take Bill Sable's quote about the young trooper.

I hope by then that it is not too late. We can only trust that Mr Bush is riding a more experienced horse, who knows how long these trails can be and will keep him to the safer ones.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: gus C
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:39 AM

I can't understand what fairy tale some folks are living in. WAKE UP. Smell the smoke.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:39 AM

I think what I was trying to say was that, it is the percentage of people who share the crazed view that results in these attacks, that really matters.

What ever this figure may be, it has to be kept the same or reduced if this is possible.

There is no hope if this figure is increased.......

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 06:01 AM

The idea that a single man, or even a small army, up in the mountains of Afghanistan, with no communication with the outside world other than courier could be in control of whatever organisation of people who carried out those attacks is fantasy.

It may be extremely likely that he might support or encourage what happened, or perhaps have sent word to his admirers that it should be done. It may well be that he is guilty of crimes against humanity, including that part of humanity that lives in the United States, and of the murder of those people on Tuesday.

Capturing him or killing him will not however be likely to do anything to reduce the ability and motivation of the people who organised the attacks of last week to carry on. It might make some people feel better, but it is essentially a side show.

Eliminating Bin Laden, or annihilating the Taliban regime is not likely to do anything significant to end the risk of further terrorist attacks. And the primary objective has to be to achieve that. (And it isn't helped by having George Bush describing it as a "crusade" - a word guaranteed to alienate the very people he needs to keep on side, and one which is deeply offensive to any Muslim, for very good reasons.)

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 06:22 AM

This is not in response to any previous posts.

The Taliban has listed some conditions under which they would consider handing Bin Laden over. One of the conditions is that he would stand trial in a neutral country. If he is innocent, he shouldn't have anything to worry about. If he is found guilty, he can be brought to justice. That is what we are after, right? Justice?

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: GUEST,justice?
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 07:29 AM

CarolC,

Look around on the streets. You really think 'Justice' is the issue? People want Bin Ladin gone. The Taliban knows that an Islamic court may not do anything to him. They know that if they turn him over to us, he will die. Before anyone says, "That's not how it should be" of course that is not how things 'should be' but they are the way things are.

People that lead these courts, that they want Bin Ladin tried in, live in countries where there are fringe groups that would kill them for finding him guilty. So would there be justice done then?

What about the other attacks Bin Ladin has commited? Do we let those go? Can we put him on trial for those crimes? Will those courts allow it? These are all questions that would have to be answered. The Taliban want Bin Ladin around. He is a good tool for them. They will not hand over him any sooner than most Americans would hand over thier guns.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 08:16 AM

GUEST, justice, I don't have the answers to all of your questions. But they are questions that should be a part of the decision making process. I'm not saying that things will necessarily work out for justice to be done in in the way I mentioned in my last post. But I am saying that we need to be willing to look at it as one of the possibilities.

Every choice we have available to us is fraught with danger. My opinion is that we need to examine all of the possible choices very carefully, along with the potential consequences for each of them, both long term as well as short term (to the extent that we can identify them). To do anything less is, in my opinion, extreme folly.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: sophocleese
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 08:23 AM

Bin Ladin might get handed over to a court somewhere outside of the USA. Given the large number of non Americans killed in the WTC, and given the current rhetoric that this was not an attack against the US only but an attack against the whole western world. Working to have a trial in neutral territory might be the most workable compromise.

Two aspects of the discussion surrounding this interest me. 1) We get the usual assumption of sanity as being held only by those who would retaliate, but more people are questioning that assumption. 2) When the planes hit last week the reaction that I heard from many outside the US was a combination of heartfelt sympathy "Oh God! How awful!" and nervous advice "Now, don't do anything rash in return, please." I think this is an indication of how many outside the US see the US.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 08:35 AM

I need to correct something I put in my second to last post. I said 'neutral country'. I should have said an Islamic country, not the US. I didn't hear anything about the Taliban stipulating which Islamic country.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Fiolar
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 09:00 AM

Apologies for posting the following as I know that so many people have lost loved ones and my prayers and sympathies are but a drop in the ocean of their terrible grief. However I thought folks might be interested in the following notice from the Irish Examiner. It deals with the death of the little four year old and her mother whose photograph in the world's press and television brought home to many outside the US the full horror of the dreadful carnage on that terrible day.

"McCOURT (nee Clifford) (Cork and New London, Conn.): On September 11 2001,tragically, in New York, RUTH and her darling daughter JULIANA, dearly loved wife and daughter of David McCourt, beloved daughter and granddaughter of Paula and the late Val and dearest sister and niece of John, Ronnie, Mark,Spencer and the late Gordon. Very deeply regretted and sadly missed by David and Paula, stepmother Raymonde, brothers, sisters- in-law Mary and Brigid,uncles, aunts, adoring nephews, nieces, extended family, relatives and close friends. Memorial Mass on today (Tuesday) at 7.30pm in St. Michael's Church,Blackrock. No flowers please. Donations, in lieu, to COPE Foundation."
"Requiescat in pace."

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Kim C
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 10:00 AM

I may have said this elsewhere... I wish I could remember who said it first, but I don't...

The best way for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

So now is the time for all good people to stand up to this evil, and it seems as though a lot of them are willing, albeit cautiously, and rightfully so.

Several of the Muslim countries have expressed outrage about last Tuesday's events. These are people who have lived with random acts of terrorism for some time, and I believe that they, as much as anyone else, would like for it to stop. Anyone with any iota of decency does not want to see innocent people die at the hands of a madman.

I want to see something done but first I think we need to avoid war at every turn, until there are no turns left to make. If it becomes our last resort, so be it, but I think we need to give diplomacy a great big try first.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Troll
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 10:10 AM

RE: The use of the word "crusade" and its affect of the Islamic world.
Does anyone have a ststement from an Islamic source condeming or even commenting on the use of the word?
If so, please cits the source. If not, then it is an unfounded opinion.
The same applies to the phrase, "dead or alive."

troll

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Big Mick
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 10:12 AM

I have been away for four days, playing in a festival. I returned to find that a number of you had sent me PM's asking for my views on all of this a week later. I read through these threads and don't know what I can offer. There is diversity, wisdom, lunacy, sadness........it is all here already. I am glad we played the festival this weekend. Gaelic Storm, Lawrence "Larry" Nugent, The Brothers, my own Conklin Céilí Band, Fonnmhor, Brian Mason and the Shelmaliers..........we all determined that we were going to give the folks a breath of fresh air....a chance for some relief. And yet every one of us did some sort of tribute. The gigs were exhausting for the effort in them. And yet, at the end of the night, Twigg and Stevie Wehmeyer from Gaelic Storm, Larry Nugent, Brian Mason, Jon Koeze (from my band), and meself sat down with a table full of the dark stuff and played until 4:00 AM. We found relief, as we always do, in the music.

I believe that is the best rebuke to the animals in this world. They are lost in their fantasy. They believe that they can, in these senseless acts, change the world into what they want it to be, instead of learning to live in it the way it is. My whole life has been devoted to being an agent for change. But I have always known that to do so, I must act, and testify, and make my case in a way that brings people to me. I have always known that I must speak in a language that people understood. These fucking animals were faced with a world that doesn't see it the way they do. They couldn't make their point................so they lashed out thinking they could force us to their way of it. And so the best response is to give them the opposite. To stand up, brush ourselves off, rebuild, and go on.

Their has been much talk of war here. I agree that we must strike out, and bring these people out. But I object to the term. War is a process. It is filthy. And it has a beginning and an end. It is true that we must root these bastards out. It is true that we must destroy, utterly, their ability to do this again. We must bankrupt them. But more importantly, we must cause the nations of the world to reject this as an alternative entirely. And that means it isn't a war, but rather it is molding the moral base that we all operate under. It is the process of alienating in every way possible, those who participate or support it. Which means that it has no end. It must, from September 11, 2001, be forevermore a sin of the highest order, to take terrorist actions against non combatants. And we Yanks must understand that the sin didn't begin here. We are not the only victims. If it is wrong in Manhattan, then it is wrong in Belfast, Omagh, and Derry, it is wrong in Jerusalem, it is wrong in Bagdad, .............. it is just wrong.

Pray, in whatever way you do, for wisdom as we pursue this. Pray that the outcome is a better world. Pray that we pursue not only the purveyors of this terror, but that we also pursue understanding of what we have done that spawned such hate. And then, when the hunt is done, that we will use the same might that we will use in that hunt, to pursue and put an end to hunger and hatred.

The rest of my views can be found HERE.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Fiolar
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 10:22 AM

Kim C: The quotation you mention was made by Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797) Irish born statesman and philosopher and a fervent supporter of the fledgling United States following the declaration of Indpendence. The full version is "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing." It has been altered and shortened over the years like so many others but basically many people remember the main body of it. He also said and this could apply to the U.S. today, "He that wrestles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." and "Our patience will achieve more than our force." Very appropriate.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 10:30 AM

troll,

There are some Muslim countries who want very much to be able to help us. But the governments of these countries who are sympathetic to us still have to contend with different factions within their own countries. They have said that Bush's use of terms such as 'dead or alive' has the potential to cause instability in their countries, making it more difficult for them to be able to help us.

We need all the help we can get right now. I think it is those of us in the US who would most benefit from choosing our words carefully.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Clifton53
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 11:57 AM

I saw the smoke and I can smell it as well. Just killing Bin Laden is not going to solve the terrorist threats around the globe. He is only one man, and make no mistake, I would love to see him strapped onto the gurney,but the situation will not end there. There will be no end to it, ever.

I'm in favor of retaliation. I don't wish to see this happen again anywhere in the world. But we all know it will. And I do not wish to see World War III either, which this could easily become.

Clifton

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: DougR
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 12:12 PM

CarolC. We obviously are so far apart in our views on this situation little is to be accomplished by our discussing it further. I just have one more question and would be most interested in your reply.

If Osma bin Laden were to be tried outside the United States by an Islamic Court, and the prosecutors presented evidence that showed irrefutably that he is guilty; would you be satisfied if the Court found him NOT guilty?

Since the crime was committed in the United States I realize it is mute point. If he is brought to trial I cannot imagine it would be anywhere other than here.

I think your answer might help me better understand your point of view though. Conversely, if you have a question for me, I'll be happy to reply.

DougR

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 12:13 PM

McGrath, I agree with you about the "Crusade" statement...a very unfortunate choice of phrase.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Kim C
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 12:55 PM

I think there are a lot of words being tossed carelessly about. I know the news tells me only enough to make me nervous. I have been so hysterical, I have harped to my dear friend the Sergeant until I am probably past his last nerve. Just relax, he said.

Just relax. Easy for him to say. In the Army 15 years and got to miss Desert Storm by virtue of being in Germany at the time.

I don't want you to be so far away from home, I said. You're supposed to be able to get old and fat and bald and play with your grandkids.

I have turned off the news for now because everytime there's a news report about the 82nd or the 101st being on alert, I can't stop crying.

Oddly enough, the Sergeant was in the 101st until two months ago. At this point you know I am glad he relocated. He says he doesn't know any more than I do and I believe him.

(sigh) I don't know what the answer is. It's not as simple as a Country saying, Tag! You're It! It's not Afghanistan. It's people who happen to be there, and heaven knows where else. How many of them are in the States? How many of them are in Europe somewheres? Which one of them is going to blow up my car? Or yours?

My head hurts and I am tired.

(thanks Fiolar, by the way)

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: DougR
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 01:11 PM

Fiolar: maybe a nice stiff hot toddy would help! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 01:14 PM

I just spoke with a friend of mine who happens to be a Turkish-born Muslim, now an American citizen. I asked if he had experienced any hostility, and he answered no. But he then said "you know the Turkish people are very strong allies of the US, but when Bush says he's launching a 'Crusade' it makes it very difficult for Muslim countries to support him. It's hard to believe that his speechwriters would slip up like that... he must have been improvising. That word is taboo in the Mid-east."

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: DougR
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 01:33 PM

Lonesome EJ, please check out the "Fly the Flag" to read my response to your statement. Just posted.

DougR

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:23 PM

After week of reading (mostly on the Internet), watching a ridiculous amount of television (news programs and discussions), and listening to the radio (news, discussions, and call-ins), a few patterns are beginning to emerge from the conglomeration of information and data. The following represents a few of my thoughts and speculations on this.

Despite the fact that it's almost a dead certainty that Osama bin Laden masterminded the terrorist attacks of last week, we do not yet know this with absolute certainty. Until we do, it behooves us to tread lightly. It also behooves us to remember that Osama bin Laden is not the main issue here. Terrorism is. bin Laden's organization is such that, if the head were to be removed, someone else would move in to take his place. Other than partially satisfying the thoroughly understandable blood-lust of those who demand revenge, it would accomplish nothing. In fact, it could make things worse. It would give the terrorists an excuse to wreak "vengeance for vengeance" and redouble their efforts. What you can expect if Osama bin Laden is captured or killed is another massive terrorist attack, undoubtedly far worse than the one last week. And appalling as the idea is, one must never forget the existence of chemical and biological weapons -- or the nuclear bomb in the suitcase.

A byproduct of American foreign policy, going back as far as the late 1940s and the founding of the state of Israel, and America's subsequent support of Israel, is that we incurred the anger and resentment of a large percentage of the population of the Arab countries, most of whom are Muslims. Our actions within recent decades, especially operation Desert Storm, have further directed anger and resentment in our direction -- forgetting, of course, that Kuwait asked for our aid when they were invaded by Iraq. The hatred and fanaticism of bin Laden and his cohorts has reached the point where there is nothing short of the entire population of America committing suicide that would appease them. The only demand that bin Laden makes is that we all die. At this point, the terrorists attack us not for what we have done, nor for any concessions we could make, but simply for who we are.

On call-in and discussion programs, I have listened especially hard to Muslim speakers. They all assert that Islam is not a religion which advocates violence. Several Muslims have stated that Islam maintains that "to kill one innocent person is as big a sin as killing the whole world." One speaker, on NPR this morning, defined the word "jihad" as meaning "struggle." He described the four jihads. The only definition that could even remotely apply to the actions of the terrorists is the "jihad of the sword." But this, the speaker said, applies only to self-defense. And what the terrorists are doing is attacking; it is not self-defense. The most important jihad of all is the jihad of the soul: the inner struggle. The speaker emphasized that, no matter what they believe, they are not Muslims, they are terrorists.

Another discussion I listened to was between two retired generals. One of the generals was composed entirely of knee-jerks. His whole thesis was, "Reduce them to rubble! Nuke 'em till they glow!" That, the other general asserted, would be totally counterproductive. It would accomplish nothing to destroy a country that has already been destroyed, and it might very well cause the Muslim countries to coalesce against us. And this, he said, is exactly what Osama bin Laden wants: a Great Jihad between Islam and the West.

This general suggested that the best approach is to discredit and humiliated bin Laden and his followers. Don't make martyrs of them, make pariahs of them. Cut off their support and give them no haven. We can't do that. But the Muslim countries can. We must induce the Muslim countries, even those hostile to us, to repudiate bin Laden and his followers. This cannot be accomplished by military action. It requires diplomacy of the highest order.

This is, indeed, an entirely new kind of war. Are we up to the challenge?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Troll
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:27 PM

Good post Don. Theres some real food for thought there.

troll

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Kim C
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:37 PM

I agree Don. My next question is, how do you practice diplomacy on people who only understand violence?

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:38 PM

Don, I like your post and if you check back, I have been making that same point on thread after thread and post after post for the past week.

My best hope is that those advising Bush are understanding of the fact that the body of the beast must be destroyed and not the head, because terrorism is a multi-headed beast. We must work to cutoff the supply of money, the support, the places to train, and the places to hide. We can only accomplish this through worldwide approval and a coalition of governments willing to dry up the terrorist supply lines. None of this necessarily involves any form of all out attacks militarily. This is a "war" of stealth and pressure. It is also a marathon and not a sprint.

Spaw

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:49 PM

Don that was more sense than I have been able to make of all the input.

Is it not incumbent on those states that share the religion, to quickly isolate those the 'kill' in the name of that religion.

I keep hearing that there is nothing in the religion that supports these 'forbidden' acts, like suicide.

Peace and tolerence is what is meant by the word 'fundamental', when applied to the religion. How has it come to mean war, hate and vengence?

Do not the vast majority of followers of the faith see that the perverted meanings must be actively distanced, and its fanaticical followers cut off from the support they leach from the main body of the religion?

Why do they appear so reluctant to do this?

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Kim C
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 02:54 PM

Maybe they are afraid too.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: sophocleese
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 03:07 PM

Well in the States they give Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell time to broadcast their rather narrow, pathetic views on the TV. Those of us who know that they don't speak for all Christians don't always stand up and refute them, we know they are ridiculous and ignore them.

Perhaps the few views we get here in the western world of Islam have been very unbalanced. We have been allowing the fanatics to become the main speakers of the group simply because it makes for good dramatic television while many of those of more moderate views shrug their shoulders because they know the fanatics are ridiculous. A lot fo them are also a lot poorer and are spending a lot of time simply working like hell to get food, water and other basics for themselves and their families.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 03:13 PM

If Islam is indeed a religion of peace as many of its leaders keep insisting, they cannot continue to support terrorists who claim to act in the name of Islam without branding themselves as hypocrites or worse. Put as politely as possible for the sake of diplomacy, this should be written in letters of fire for all to see. Many Muslim leaders have already repudiated the terrorists. Now, are they going to walk the walk, or are they just going to talk the talk?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: Kim C
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 03:45 PM

Eureka! I've got it. We'll start a PMS Brigade. We'll get a bunch of women with PMS to go over there (and we'll have to rotate and take turns because everybody don't have it at the same time), and all we'll have to do is Be There, and the terrorists will Flee in horror and never come back. Nobody wants to be around a bunch of extremely hormonal women. We wouldn't even have to load our weapons, they could just be decoys.

(now, before anyone says it's bad manners to pick on women with PMS, let me remind you, I'm one of them, and I know how I get. I become a two-footed Sherman tank with all guns blazing and ask questions later.)

Humor aside... in many Native American cultures, menstruating women were sent away during their moon. Not because they were unclean, but because they were believed to have "strong medicine" at that particular time. Maybe there is something to that.

And Don, again, I agree with you. They are going to have to do more than just talk. Bin Laden's family disowned him, and Saudi Arabia told him to get lost. Who else will?

What sort of person follows someone who was kicked out of their family and their country? Bin Laden seems to me to be not necessarily a Hitler, but more like a Charles Manson - getting other people to do his bidding while he sits back and watches. Do his followers think he has a better way?

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: DougR
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 04:16 PM

"Are they going to walk the walk or talk the talk." I suppose, Don, time will tell.

DougR

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
From: GUEST,Hello
Date: 18 Sep 01 - 04:38 PM

There is a lot of talk about diplomacy which is fine until, as someone pointed out, you are dealing with people whose entire philosophy is opposed to diplomatic solutions. This includes Bin laden, but also the extreme (and not so extreme) elements whose only goal (which is one of Bin Laden's) is the destruction of Israel. I am amazed at how many people seem oblivious to the vast significance of Israel in this matter. Am i the only one who consistently hears Israel and the U.S. used in the same breath by most Middle Eastern Terrorists. Terrorism and anti-U.S. attitudes will never end as long as we support Israel. The U.S. won't abandon Israel. I am sorry to say it, but a lot of these folks are never going to like or respect us. So, sadly, we may be forced into making them fear us as the only course of action. Such fear may not get rid of the Bin Laden's, but it will certainly make others very hesitant to support them or shelter them. I would be happy to hear comments, but please don't waste my time with statements that don't include a clear understanding of the role of Israel in this matter.