AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 11:04 PM

Carol: I see this happening just as a consequence of the attack. The discussions here are being mirrored in virtually every forum I have looked at.

Regarding the coalition - is France merely being represented as a member of G 7? I have not heard of any special meetings with the French Government as I have regarding Germany and UK. France certainly has had their share of terrorism.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Sep 01 - 11:24 PM

GUEST, Just a nobody, I think there are more people who think the way I do than maybe you realize. I don't think there is anything unique about my thought processes, as Donuel has just demonstrated.

As far as dissidents are concerned, I guess a system for airing and addressing grievances would need to be set up by whatever body was acting as the representatives of all of the members/nations who were participating in the coalition.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 12:38 AM

We have not, in modern times, intentionally slaughtered innocents, non-combatants. We have done so accidentally. There have been awful incidents like Mylai, where some of our people under extreme conditions behaved like animals.

The gruesomeness of the experience of the six thousand who were lost in New York, Pennsylvania and the Pentagon is magnified by the fact that it was a sneak arttack, and that regardless of rhetoric in his Fatwahs. neither Ben Laden nor the Taliban had made an official declaration of war -- or if he did, it was ignored because we believed that only governments could declare war.

Bin Laden is a government, of a shadow state or cult among fellow shadow states. He's like the New York State of Islamic radical terrorism. He's not the whole ball of wax. But he is a good starting place.

No one in our government with any influence of magnitude has talked about wholesale slaughter of innocents; the rationale since Bush's speech has all been toward (a) LEARNING who the enemy is and (b) dissolving their power base, if possible through diplomatic and economic means, but if necessary through intimidation and force.

Given that relative to our group, this shadow state is in the role of an actively destructive psychotic, I seriously doubt any scheme about getting into an understanding relationship with him is going to be worth a plugged riyadhi. (sp?). Teach a pig to sing with more chance of success. Or more like whistling to a rabid dog.

Getting into better communication with his recruitment pool, definitely might make sense. Or getting in communication with the mothers of Afghanisatn, for example -- a focused campaign just to reach mothers in Afghanistan. If we mobilized them, their husbands and sons would quickly fall in line, I reckon. But they may be too intimidated to mobilize. I think it would be a good thing to try.

If we could stir up a grass-roots demand from growing sectors of the Afghanian, Syrian, and other populations for the simple basic native rights of fellow humans -- tolerance and suffrage and equal basic rights for women, for example -- it could drain the gas right out of the cultists machinery.

Inspired as this sounds, I have to confess that I still from time to time am swept with burning perceptions of the inccredible terror and pain of those who leapt from the Towers, burned in them, were crushed under them, and their loved ones who were forced to live on without them. And occasionally I wish I could place a few smart bombs in carefully defined locations just to reflect my anger at this outrageous suffering imposed on those who never bargained for it.

A

A.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 01:09 AM

Amos, I remember sometime back in the 1980s when we were providing financial and other kinds of support to some of the unrest in Central America (I believe it was El Salvadore, but I wouldn't swear to it), I wrote a poem called "Blood trickles down, not money".

I wrote it in response to something I heard on the radio. It was a news correspondent from the US who was living with a village of peasants who were under attack. The forces who were attacking them were the ones who were acting with our assistance. The reporter was talking into a tape recorder as he and the peasants were fleeing into the jungle.

I could hear the peasants running. I could hear the reporter's heavy breathing as he ran. I could hear gunfire. Then I could hear the astonished voice of the reporter saying, "Oh my god! They're shooting at the sound of the crying babies!"

Those peasants didn't deserve to be killed in that way either. And you bet I was pissed. At my own government. We've got as much blood on our hands as anyone else. We just use other people to do our dirtywork.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 01:53 AM

No, Carol, we do not have as much blood on our hands as anyone else.

The involvement of the US Government in South American affairs was a crying crime. And I was pissed too. And it was not even "our" dirty work. But it was hateful that we had anything to do with it, i concur.

But I think on reflection the indirect support -- which we also gave the Taliban on its path of murder and power when the USSR was the "enemy" -- should be differentiated from the unilateral origination of violence with intent.

A fatalistic mind might reach the conclusion that we "must have deserved it or it would not have happened". But I cannot, myself, reach that far into resignation. I am not espousing violence beyond the amount needed to render the actual sources of this offense powerless. I am completely in agreement that the cults of terrorism must be eliminated -- and after watching those hard-working early morning employees at the WTC leap to their deaths, I am sorry to say I do not much mind whether they are eliminated through diplomatic means, financial means, or military means.

Another reason why the "just as much blood" argument does not hold water is that there is the little matter of purpose. Although we spilled the blood of Iraqis, during the Deseret Storm war, it must also be said that we did so to liberate an invaded nation. I cannot speak for the "purpose" of our involvement in El Salvador, but we have never espoused, as Mister Bin Laden has, the extermination of a whole nation of civilians merely because of their nationality. I think even the most compassionate heart can appreciate that distinction . We have never proposed the extermination of large numbers of people on purely religous grounds. Nor on racial grounds.

Finally, I think it is true that the very non-combatant, working employees of the WTC for the most part had none of the crimes on their hands which Bin Laden accuses "America" of. I think they were served an extreme injustice. And whether we have ever committed injustoce or not, is not a basis for deciding to accept further injustice of such extreme, irreparable, violently final character.

A

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 02:03 AM

Well, Amos, I think you might want to be careful about using the word 'never' when speaking of whether or not this country has ever killed large numbers of people because of their race.

However, having said that, I have never said, or even suggested that our prior misdeeds have meant that we deserved what happened at the WTC. And I would never consider making such an assertion.

But I do think we need to be a bit more circumspect when we try to claim all of the moral high ground for ourselves. Because I don't think we're entitled to it.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: kendall
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:21 AM

No body, these threads are full of incidents of terror that WE have committed. I'm not about to tell anyone WHAT to think, just to THINK!

To quote Jean Harris, author of STRANGER IN TWO WORLDS, stereotypes afford us the luxury of not thinking, but, eventually, they will extract the price of not thinking.

What would I recommend you say? 1. Recognize that this is a powerful enemy with great resources. Not just a bunch of nuts. 2 Admit that (in their minds) they were justified in killing innocent civilians.We must get inside their heads to lick them. 3. Do whatever we can to turn the rest of the world against them. This is already happening.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:33 AM

What in the hell did we do that we should understand that justifies the death of 7000 people?

I have not been able to see anyone here on the Mudcat who has said that. (Leaving aside the occasional sick GUEST with his or her own sick agenda.)

Trying to understand is not the same as trying to justify or excuse. I've said that time and time, and so have other people. It's not a very difficult idea, but some people seem to enormous difficulty in accepting it.

If you don't understand people you have no way of knowing what they are going to do, and how they are going to react to things that you do.

And it's not only a question of trying to understand the dead terrorists and the ones who aren't dead. It's all those other people around the world who for a variety of reasons are less than wholly supportive of the USA - a whole range of people ranging from those who rejoiced at the atrocity to those who were sickened at it but who do not trust America and her allies.

Arguing about where America stands in the atrocity league doesn't really get anywhere. It always seems to end up with people in opposite corners, one saying "You think that this justifies murdering innocent people in New York!", and the other saying "You think that the lives of children in Central America/Iraq/Iran/Vietnam/Afghanistan are less important than the lives of New Yorkers!" And the truth is, nobody here anyway seems to say either things.

Though out on the streets there seem to be people saying that latter thing - what else do T-shirts with maps of "Lake America" where Afghanistan mean but genocide?

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: 53
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:52 AM

Amos, you say it well.

Carol, PM me later. I will bring home something I have at work that I want to share with you about another way. Neat Idea too for those who want to help but do not support violence.

And about these words from your post: "As far as dissidents are concerned, I guess a system for airing and addressing grievances would need to be set up by whatever body was acting as the representatives of all of the members/nations who were participating in the coalition."

I wish the dissidents were willing to "air" their grievances. They don't want to talk. They aren't wanting to get to the truth, just blindly believe what they believe. At least our nation's leaders are trying to be sure to understand who attacked. And we didn't go raging into a retaliation just to hit the bully back! There were a lot of our citizens who wanted that done, and quickly.

Later, Glenda

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 07:13 AM

Glenda, I think there are a few people who may be beyond communication, but I think that most of the people who are angry with the US actually have what they consider to be legitimate grievances that, were they to be heard and addressed by a neutral body, would not build up to the point where the people felt that terrorism was their only alternative.

I agree with you that our government deserves credit for not striking out in retaliation just to hit the bully back. I'm beginning to feel some degree of optimism that our government might deal with this situation in a way that helps more than it hurts in the long run. It's early innings yet, but I'm feeling somewhat encouraged.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 07:18 AM

In case you are interested in an outside view:

English translation of a German newspaper commentary

The linked commentary will be available for about two to four weeks. The newspaer is the Frankfurter Rundschau, a slightly left of the middle nationally available newspaper, the commentary is from yesterday.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 07:46 AM

Thanks for that, Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: 53
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 07:50 AM

Wolfgang I have read the commentary from the German newspaper. Ok it is the view of another who thinks war is the wrong move.

Opinions are opinions and I think that is the opinion of an individual. Do you think it represents his country?

Have to go to work. If not too busy, I'll be looking in for your answer.

Glenda

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 07:56 AM

No, the article doesn't represent the country. Yes, it represents more than just a single opinion. I'd say at this moment the opinion (not in all details) are shared by a minority between 30 and 40%.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Troll
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 08:01 AM

Interesting Wolfgang, but how long should we wait to stop bin Laden through diplomatic means? How many more must die? Remember how long it took your own Govt. to catch the Baader-Meinhof (?) Gang? And they were only in Germany!
Besides, how do you negotiate with a fanatic? And if you are only out to catch him so he can stand trial, how do you do it quickly, before his henchmen strike again.
Carol, I cannot believe that you have read nothing of the writings of bin Laden. In them he spells out what his grievances are against us. Because of those grievances, he has decided that we are "enemies of Islam" and so must die. Even if we stoped doing the things he finds so odious, we would still be enemies in his eyes.
He does not think the way we do. He comes from a totally different cultural and religious background. There was a post on an earlier thread (maybe this one) from someone who had lived and worked for years in Saudi Arabia and spoke fluent Arabic. He said that with all that experience he still did not understand the Arabic mind.
I don't think bin Kaden can be reasoned with but I know he must be stopped. If it takes military action to do it and that turns out to be the quickest way to do it, then we must use whatever means are at our disposal.

troll

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 08:11 AM

Carol, I cannot believe that you have read nothing of the writings of bin Laden.

--troll

What makes you think I haven't read anything of his writings? In fact, I read some of his writings in a link you posted. And I even posted a response to it. Did you not see it?

In my response to Glenda, I said, "I think there are a few people who may be beyond communication". I think Bin Laden may be one such person. But I don't think things will work out in the best way possible for us if we try to administer justice against him by ourselves. I think we will experience the least amount of repercussions in the long run if we allow the justice to be administered by a neutral body.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 09:27 AM

Troll,
there are more means than either diplomacy or outright war. Bribe the accomplices, undermine the financial basis of the organisation, promise economic help to states for turning against terrorists, support the internal enemies of the Taleban, of Saddam,...), economic blockade of states harbouring terrorists, single below war level surprise military operations against top level terrorists including Bin Laden, clandestine operations including murder in single cases without doubt,...

My personal position is not that war is always bad (I think it nearly always is, but:) for I still see no alternative to war e.g. against the Nazis then. I'm an opportunist, for I do not think in terms of 'is war justified', but in terms of 'what will be the consequences of war or nonwar'.

Will Bin Laden be caught (dead or alive) after a war? Most probably yes (and quicker than without). Will his organisation be unable to repeat the New York atrocities. Probably yes, for a few years. Will there be new Bin Laden's if he is dead or in jail? Probably more so after a war. Will blind but determined hatred agaisnt the USA, Israel and The WEST as amply documented in Bin Laden's writings persist or increase after a war. I fear, there'll be much more of this state of mind after a lost (from their perspective) war against The WEST. In the worst case, a war will multiply the number of men that have nothing to lose but their lifes that are filled with utmost hatred and that are glad to sacrifice themselves in suicide attacks.

The worst single consequence from a war will be the destabilisation of Pakistan (look at the violent anti-American demonstrations there these days; about one third of the officers in their army are said to sypathise with the Taleban; some Mullahs have openly preached for the overthrow of the government). Then a country with nuclear weapons might turn fundamentalist and the 'Islamic' bomb might (not openly, but) in silent collusion come into the hands of a new terrorist organisation. The number of deaths in New York will pale in comparison to that.

I see only Powell (of the top names) thinking in these terms and I am always glad when he tries to dampen a bit the war mongering faction. When Bush says things like 'dead or alive' and 'who is not with us is against us' that might sound good at home, but the impact of such phrases abroad is very counterproductive.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 09:31 AM

Several new statements from the US government, e.g. Rumsfield today, seem to indicate that the Powell faction prevails and we'll see a lot of below war level actions but no real war. Some people in the USA might be a bit disappointed, but the world as a whole and the USA themselves will profit from that.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 09:49 AM

Sorry about misspelling Rumsfeld's name. Wolfgang

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 09:56 AM

"Real war", presumably, implies armored forces grinding the terrain into dust and people throwing hand grenades and digging foxholes?

War is war whether it is fought with checks, information, smart bombs or bayonets. It is a massive organized effort to reform the thinking of an enemy.

People reform their thinking for various reasons, both positive and negative. Mostly, they reform their thinking to find better ways for themselves, their families, their groups and nations and organizations and ideas to have a better future.

Economic war, and diplomatic campaigns, and PR war are a lot more cost effective than steel-to-blood war IF they can accomplish the goal. Threatening full-scale retaliation can be a statement of fact or it can be a sort of "PR terrorism" designed to bring fear into the hearts of the enemy so he will reform his thinking.

IF you want examples of reformed thinking, the current lives of Vietnam, Japan and Germany come to mind.

A

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 01:56 PM

I would love to see a World Womanhood PR campaign designed to communicate to the mothers and wives of Islam that their sons and husbands do not have to die, they do not have to be beaten, and with some real courage and persistance they could band together and reform the world.

Starting wide-spread dissatisfaction with the lot of women would be a reasonable starting point for the wedge that separates the secular from the religous; and I think that wedge MUST occur in the forthcoming war or it will end up being a waste.

Free perfume samples, too!! :>)

A

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Troll
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 02:16 PM

Thanks for the clarification, Carol.
Wolfgang, the scenario that you paint suggests that the best thing we could do would be nothing so the terrorists won't get even madder at us. "I fear, there'll be much more of this state of mind after a lost (from their perspective) war against The WEST. In the worst case, a war will multiply the number of men that have nothing to lose but their lifes that are filled with utmost hatred and that are glad to sacrifice themselves in suicide attacks." Not a very pleasant prospect to say the least.
This has all the makings of an "us or them" situation since I doubt that negotiations would do much good and cuting off their funds would be a stop-gap measure at best until they found new sources of finance.
Amos, the major problem that I see with your "World Womanhood PR campaign" is that the Taliban, et.al. would simply kill anyone who started such a thing and the rest would be too cowed to continue it.
Face it; these people are >I?NOT like you and me. Their system of values is different and they don't respond to things the same way we do. And vice versa.

troll

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 02:29 PM

News: U.S. rejects NATO joint command

http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?ptitle=Top%20World%20News&s1=blk&tp=ad_topright_topworld&refer=topworld&T=markets_bfgcgi_content99.ht&s2=blk&bt=ad_position1_topfin&middle=ad_frame2_topfin&s=AO7IcxBUGVS5TLiBL

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: GUEST,Pettyjohn
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 02:31 PM

(Sorry if I have entered into the wrong forum, I'm here looking for a place where folk music is the topic, or at least the lens through which the topic is viewed.)

In response to the outrage of 9/11, I have have made the modest contribution of a new verse and chorus to be added to Stan Rogers' magnificent song, The Mary Ellen Carter.

I haven't performed anywhere in many years, but if anyone out there is currently performing this song, you are welcome to these lyrics with my compliments.

The Mary Ellen Carter By: Stan Rogers

Added verse & chorus By Jim Pettyjohn

A coward in Afghanistan, Out hiding in the sand Sent rats to knock our towers down, he swore they mustn't stand. He thinks he'll break our courage, thinks he'll snuff our spirit out He doesn't understand what we're about.

For we're rolling up our sleeves and digging down into the mud We'll clean up all the rubble, all the ashes and the blood. We'll build them high, to scrape the sky and stir the hearts of men We'll make the World Trade Center towers RISE AGAIN.

Chorus

RISE AGAIN, RISE AGAIN Though our hearts may be broken, our spirit will not bend. No matter what the cost, be it in time or gold or men We'll make the World Trade Center towers RISE AGAIN.

Thanky

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 02:45 PM

Greetings, John Petty. You've picked the right forum but the wrong thread. You'll probably get commentary on your lyric, if that is what you seek, by posting it in the threads entitled 9/11: Responding through Music or New Songs for 9-11-01

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 03:28 PM

I>Bribe the accomplices, undermine the financial basis of the organisation, promise economic help to states for turning against terrorists, support the internal enemies of the Taleban, of Saddam,...), economic blockade of states harbouring terrorists, single below war level surprise military operations against top level terrorists including Bin Laden, clandestine operations including murder in single cases without doubt,...

And that is what Troll calls "nothing"...

Look, if you aren't dealing with enemy states, or even an organised guerrilla army, the traditional concepts of what you do in war and how you win just don't apply. Even calling it "war" strikes me as a bit of misplaced public relations for internal purposes.

One of the most thought provoking items I've seen in the media was the story about a war games scenario which the high-ups in the US military had, a little time ago. It was supposed to be about much the thing we are up against now - a situation where the enemy wasn't armies and states, it was cells of terrorists using modern technology and imagination. Before it was through the military insisted on having part of their army mutiny and go over to the other side, so that they could have someone to fight whom they knew how to fight.

And I can envisage that happening here - a fightable enemy either being created or identified to provide the military and the politicos with something to show for it. But that is not where the danger lies. And going down blind alleys like that will almost certainly end up with creating more of the ultimate weapon - suiciders.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: kendall
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 03:52 PM

OK all you folks who favor military action, who would you hit, and where? And, do you really think that would stop these fanatics?

McGrath of Harlow, I'm glad to see that someone understands what I've been trying to say. I was beginning to question my command of the language.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 04:36 PM

I'm surprised you see such discord. I was under the impression that after 11 parts to this thread, everyone had reached an ambiguous, but still amazing consensus, differing only on matters of degree. It's my understanding that no one favors military action yet.

CarolC's list is a good starting place for both the peacemakers and the warmongers. I, and others, simply think that her items are stated with too much absolutism. The principles, however, are sound.

Do we not all agree that 1. Force is a disfavored action to be used only where other methods prove inadequate to achieve "victory?" 2. Victory should be carefully defined, and appropriately limited, so that it is achievable. 3. All efforts, forceful or otherwise, should show the minimum action necessary to prevent significant future recurrences of mass murder. 4. Victory should entail taking Bin Laden (subject to proof of a certain degree) out of action, at the barest minimum, and taking out the majority of his lieutenants as the realistic minimum. 5. Death to anyone is disfavored, but ethically permissible to prevent recurrences of mass murder. 6. Justice would be most desirably handed out by a Muslim court, or at least by an Arab court, and then, by a world court, but if necessary, by a U.S. or other Western court. 7. Force would be preferably carried out in the following descending order of preference: by as many Muslim nations as possible, then by the U.N, then by NATO, then by a coalition including as many Muslim nations as possible, then by as many Western nations as possible, then by the U.S. alone 8. Force will be used with as little civilian deaths as possible. 9. Force will be used as a last REASONABLE alternative, with preference given to economic pressure. Each should be exerted in as focused a fashion as is reasonably possible (upon Bib Laden operatives first, supporters second, innocent bystanders (Afghani civilians; larger regions) last. 10. Humanitarian and political cooperation, in a respectful fashion, should be given as feasible both for support and for rectification of underlying tensions. This to support intra and international harmony. This should be done regardless of any events occurring above.

Am I wrong that no one disagrees with anything above? The only differences of opinion here now are on the definition of "reasonable, " such as how much time, effort, or other resources must be spent on less drastic efforts before proceeding to an escalation of intensity. Even Bush now states that overthrowing the Taliban or placing a new government in Afghanistan is not an objective, (right?) I would LOVE to drop CARE packages in Afghanistan, but I do not believe that we should wait for six months to judge the result before moving on to the next step. The Bush administration has to play an extremely complicated balancing act to define and achieve desired objectives. Time factors, cultural factors, known but unavoidable risks, unknown risks. . . It's an extraordinary complicated tapestry. But the U.S. public opinion has shown overwhelmingly that they do not want fireworks just for a show, and the Bush administration has shown no inclination to give them such.

Aren't we all fearful but resolved to the fundamentally correct course of action? Or have I missed it? No one here wants to see bombs go off. No one here believes in peace at all costs.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 04:38 PM

Sorry, I meant to sign the above post. I am not a guest, I am a MEMBER!!

I,hurricane

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 04:47 PM

Kendall, Why is it that because I have not come to the same conclusions as yourself, that I do not think? It seems that your argument is that I do not think about why they have attacked. That I do not think about our own faults. You say to think about the power of the enemy. When did I suggest otherwise? As I said, it seems that you feel that those that do not agree with your conclusions must not be thinking.

I do think about what we have done, I can name many atrocities that we felt 'justified' in commiting. Dropping atomic bombs, wiping out 90% (I believe) of the Native Americans, experimenting on our own troops, slavery, even such horrible acts as rebelling against the crown. Does that mean that I should not support our troops, does that mean that I should not say, "We have been wronged? We have been attacked?"

I can mention many other things our country has done wrong. But, what is the point? I suppose because I accept that our country has commited crimes, and I still support it, I am not thinking. I love this country, for all the wrongs and for all the rights... Just as I love my children, no matter how many times they make me cry. No matter how angry I get at them, I will always defend them when they have been wronged. I only hope that this country can now guide themselves a little better to avoid such altercations in the future. There will always be little 'Bin Ladins' in the world. And I pray there will always be a government strong enough to stand up to them. Right now it is us.....

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 04:54 PM

Should there be a hundred innocent casualities and bin Laden is captured there will be nary an outcry. If however there are 100 killings and bin Laden is not captured it will be a disaster.

quote from the former Afgan ambassador to the US.

I wrote some amusing pieces (key to US war strategy) as well as an outline of policy that had consensus for awhile but things turned ugly again including a private message warning I should not post here. Still there are more open minded here than most places.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Troll
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 04:54 PM

Kevin, please go back and read what I posted. From the picture Wolfgang paints, the terrorists will increase not only their angey but also their membership if we do anything.
Perhaps your definition of war and mine differ. To me, if a state of belligerence exists and we (and they) are engaged in any sort of activety that brings fear or discomfort to the enemy, we are at war. So all the things you outlined are acceptable. What I call doing nothing is just that. Doing nothing for fear they will get even angrier. That is not acceptable.
Hurricane, I can buy all but #7. We were the ones who were attacked and we should take the leadership role. The UN has never shown me much as witnessed by that farce that they called a conference on racism.

troll

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 04:58 PM

Busy today, but just a quick question:--

Why is it that so many people seem to be enamored of the word "WAR?" A war (dispite usage such as "war against crime," "war against drugs," "war against cancer," ad nauseum) is a military conflict between nations.

Terrorism is a crime. It's a whole different kind of thing ("Holy War" notwithstanding).

Scenario from the late twenties:-- J. Edgar Hoover says, "I have a great idea for winning the war on crime. We think Capone and most of his mob are in Chicago. Let's bomb Chicago!"

You get the message. Go ahead and nit-pick, anyone who feels so inclined. I'll check back later tonight.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 05:56 PM

It looks like we will be B-52 carpet bombing the poppy fields of Afganistan to eradicate heroin sales (drugs for money for guns). So it will be a two for one "WAR ON..."

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: GUEST, I, hurricane
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:02 PM

oh boy. . .

ROME (AP) - Breaking ranks with allies reaching out to the Muslim world, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi on Wednesday said Western civilization is superior to Islam. He also said he hopes the West conquers Islamic civilization

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAW8COL3SC.html

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Amos
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:05 PM

Donuel:

It looks like we will??? Why??? Who mentioned this brilliant idea??

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: kendall
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:10 PM

Nobody, Maybe I mis read your posts. What I inferred from them is, "My country, right or wrong." as if to say, no matter what we did, we did not deserve this. Of course we didn't! (In OUR minds)But, we sure as hell did in Theirs! All I'm trying to say is (and McGrath had no problem understanding) We MUST understand the enemy. Otherwise, we have no chance of licking them. I've had some training in dealing with mentally unstable people. They dont think like us, and if we dont learn to think like them, we are screwed. actually, I dont think we disagree in what we must do to punish them, and to prevent it happening again. I just got the idea that you dont care how they think, and I believe that can be fatal.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:21 PM

I, hurricane, I think that may be the first time I've been accused of 'absolutism', seeing as how mostly I'm accused of being vague and relativistic. Still deciding if I think it's a refreshing change ;-)

Needless to say, I do have some fundamental disagreements with your position, but for reasons that would be difficult for me to articulate right now. I may make an attempt at it later.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: GUEST, I, hurricane
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:25 PM

kebdall: I was slow to grasp that concept, but I think there's agrement on that now as well. That's an example for "had mudcat changed your thinking." I don't think it changed where I would have gotten to on my own, but it helped the process. My inutitive process was "I don't care why he's doing it, we need to make him stop." We'll get in touch with his feelings later.

To be clear, however, I think the more important point is we need to understand the thinking of his potential recruits and supporters. And that involves understanding what they (not so much the converted maniacs) think of what he says and does. It also involves identifying clearly who such potential recruits and supporters are, exactly. They are not drawn from broad populations of the Muslim world; they are highly specific, even if geographically diverse, peculiar populations.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: kendall
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:30 PM

I see the bastards just trashed the American Embassy in Kabul. Doesn't that constitute an act of war?

Did you see all those Afghanis running from th Taliban? They are being drafted against their will.And they are being threatened with death if they refuse.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: GUEST, I, hurricane
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:37 PM

It was a very good list CarolC. (I wish I could find it.) I did write a response to each item, but deleted it because I was only thinking to myself, not looking for a trivia war. Step back when you go over it, and consider, what result, and what next immediate action, when the goals stated are not met by moderate actions, and what changes will be happening to the ability to implement or follow the other goals/principles on the list over the course of time. The situation will be very dynamic.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:47 PM

I see the bastards just trashed the American Embassy in Kabul. Doesn't that constitute an act of war?

--kendall

I don't think so, kendall. More like an act of vandalism, maybe. We vacated that embassy during the 1980s, so there were no Americans in it.

Step back when you go over it, and consider, what result, and what next immediate action, when the goals stated are not met by moderate actions, and what changes will be happening to the ability to implement or follow the other goals/principles on the list over the course of time.

--I, hurricane

That's what I'm doing, but I come up with a different set of alternative scenarios than what I think you're getting. As I said, it would be difficult for me to articulate why this is right now, but I may try to elaborate at some later time if I feel that I am able.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 06:48 PM

Well, at least it's Berlusconi who is saying things like that and not Bush. The only reason he's Prime Minister is because he has backing from the neo-fascists anyway (and I'm not using that as a catch all insult, but as an accurate political label), so perhaps it's not so surprising.

I heard the quotes coming over the radio, but without picking up who was supposed to be saying it. I must admit I was very relieved when I heard who it was.

It helps Bin Laden of course, and will be used to try to detach Muslims from any alliance, the same way Bush's gaffe about the Crusades have been and will continue to be used. But maybe it might help make Bush and his advisers a bit more careful themselves in future.

And Troll, it was you who specifically said that what Wolfgang had proposed amounted to "nothing". In fact it seems to be very much in line with what Powell has been proposing, and what appears (touch wood) to be the official line.

One thing that might help is for the USA to change its line of trying to resist the setting up of an effective international War Crimes Tribunal.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 07:39 PM

Today everyone turned up the volume. Bush said "I want bin Ladens BLOOD", Italy didn't help either. Islams believe Isreal put the US up to invasion by attacking the WTC. Reality will play no part to the hearts and minds of racist Islamic extremists.

Once one Islam dies from a US bullet it will be claimed as multitudes, thousands or 100,000.

Fatwa is assured no matter what. Once that happens there will be no end in sight and the consideration of nukes will be considered no more inflamatory than what we are already facing. This may come to be as a US response to another domestic attack. It is a bracing thought but is not intended as a histrionic hysterical prediction. It seems perfectly compatible with the Bush mind set despite cabinet advice. Today he said "make no mistake about it...terrorists have misunderestimateded the United States of America".

I know I don't underestimate the brazeness/foolishness of G.W.Bush.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 08:40 PM

with respect to the opinion that we should examine Americas past actions to understand where these people are coming from - I think there is already an overwhelming number of people who raise this point, that is to say many Americans and westerners are fully aware that Americas policies (necessitated by the Cold war) were often expedient and short sighted but there are and alway have been shades of grey, (while I dont want to get into a debate on Viet Nam in my opinion the US should have allowed free elections in the 50s even though Ho Chi Minh would have won, (if people want a communist govt let them have it) ask all those boat people who fled, and those like one of my customers spent years in a re-education camp. You constantly hear about the contras in Nicaragua but the fact that the Sandinistas nearly wiped out the Miskito Indians is hardly ever mentioned and in the end the Sandinistas were kicked out. The US sided against Britain in the SUez crisis in 56 and for that matter they trained the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in their fight against the Russians. (how quickly that was forgotten) and in recent years they have tried to stay away from conflicts (The US helped overthrow a corrupt regime in Haiti and their (albeit reluctant) action in the Balkans helped get rid of another corrupt genocidal govt) I think its fairly safe to say that we in the West have enjoyed economic prosperity and peace for nearly 50 years mainly due to a strong America and western Europe. Ive watched firsthand as 700,000 Russian and East bloc troops entered my country in 1968 and tanks surrounded my hometown, with barely an outcry from the freedom and peace loving hippy dippies in the west. Thats all in the past now, but 2 whole generations lived their lives in police states in Eastern EUrope and it probably would have been the whole of Europe if it wasnt for the United States. I remember having this discussion with a university friend years ago who brought up the coup in Chile (denouncing quite rightfully AMericas involvement) but at the same time admitting that Russia needed a buffer zone in Eastern EUrope! THe point is that US support of ISrael and its occasional shooting from the hip (like firing the cruise missiles in Afghanistan and Sudan after the East African Embassy bombings are still not the cause although they are grist for the mill for their propaganda machine. The propaganda machine of extreme Islam - comes from their culture not ours. The other part is an uneducated and ill informed population that will believe. The roots of the clash between Islam and the West (which like it or not is the dominant civilization) go back to the crusades and even farther. They are offended by the rise of secularism, which again is a consequence of the scientific tradition of the West. What should America and the west do? Precisely what they are doing - seek a worldwide coalition, including the Muslim countries, tighten up security at home, put out a worldwide criminal hunt for the terrorist organizations and shut off their funds (although experts say the 9/11 terror attacks probably cost no more than $200,000) And finally, most importantly, they should close the havens from where these terrorists operate. And that is the hardest one, as it would mean isolating and overthrowing the regime in Afghanistan (which probably should go anyway) with the help of the Northern ALliance the former ousted Afghani King and covert selective bombings and commando raids on the terrorist camps. we probably wont know too much until later as giving too much information would hamper the operations. (when a British Newspaper published that the CIa was monitoring Bin Ladens satellite phone calls - the next day he stopped using them.) Finally they should shut down the guns and Koran training schools in Pakistan (this is a difficult one but must be done because this is where a lot of them operate) Take a lesson from the MOssad and fight them with terror. but all this talk of trying to understand where they come from is a waste of time in my opinion. ITs like trying to understand why Hitler hated the Jews or Stalin hated the kulaks. I think most people are not for war but when it comes to defending one self or a loved one and ones way of life they will not hesitate. Just like the Stan Rogers song "Harris and the Mare" exemplifies the conflict that a peace loving person has between violence and defending a loved one.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 08:51 PM

There is no such term as "an Islam". Any Muslim hearing it is going to take it as an insult. Not quite raghead, but going on that way. I doubt whether it was intended as that by Donuel, but it's not a term that it is wise to encourage anyone to use.

Bottom line - I think we can be sure that Bin Ladiun would be delighted if it were to become common usage among non-Muslims. That should be a good enough reason to avoid it.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Troll
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 08:57 PM

There seems a strong belief that bin Ladens henchmen come from the poor and disaffected who see terrorism as a chance to better themselves and "be" somebody. In actual fact, most of his men seem to come from the upper-middle and upper class.
Atta's father is an important Cairo lawyer for example. Atta is thought to have been one of the pilots.
The Taliban gets it's recruits from the young and poor, yes. That's all they have to draw upon and by joining them, the young men join a winning side.
It is important that we realize that, while helping the poor may lose bin Laden some grassroots support, it will not affect his recruitment of new adherents.

troll

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 09:02 PM

petr, thank you for your thoughtful in depth expose'. May I humbly suggest I know why Hitler and Stalin hated the Jews. It was fostered in literature , paintings , christian writings (especially Luther) and the Vatican throughout the middle ages up until the time of Hitler. The anti defamation league could do a beter job than I explaining the accusations and eventual christian apologies but there is hope that musslims will get it right in another couple thousand years as well.

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: Troll
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 09:15 PM

Donuel, the Muslims do not hate the Jews per se. Mohammed specifically named both Jews and Christians as "People of the Book" (the Bible)and as such were to be honored. They lived in peace throughout the ancient Muslim world. They paid a smaller tax than other conquered peoples and were able to practice their religion unmolested.
The Christians in the Middle Ages were another matter entirely but I won't go there right now.
It is the State of Israel that the Muslims hate because of its's establishment on what they saw as Muslim land, The treatment of the Palestinian refugees and the Palestinians inside Israel, The West Bank settlements, and -most importantly- the fact that Israel controls Jerusalem and the Muslim holy places.

troll

Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 26 Sep 01 - 09:20 PM

Kendall, Perhaps I am more defensive than I should be. I have heard too many claim we must understand thier motives so that we may empathize. While I understand why they feel the way they do, or at least how they have placed it in the Fatwad decree... Truth is, they are mercs. Pure and simple. They fight any authority, almost always going with the underdog. After all, if they destablize a country and set people in power that support them, how much more power Bin Ladin would have. Perhaps I have seen far too many people say that we need to understand because if we hadn't done certain things this wouldn't have happened. I am man enough to say, if I have misread your posts to be one of those, Kendall, than I appologize. And I wouldn't say "My country, Right or wrong" I would say, "My country, I love it through it's dark times and its shining moments." My belief in what it is to be American is not to be blind, but to accept that we are not always in the right, and try to correct that, but we also must understand that sometimes there is no way to "Win" instead we choose from a list of evils. And in those times, it is important to stand strong.

I do agree, we do need to learn a great deal more about him, we must also make our stance well known.

You posed a question, who would we hit first? I can't think of anything I would have really seen done differently. We have mobilized our forces (So that there is no thought that we are bluffing) We have engaged our allies in such a way as to protect thier interest, and our own soldiers. We are refusing the NATO aid because if not all Nato nations are involved, they do not need to know what we are doing. To me, a very wise move, because it protects the secrecy of our men and women. We still reserve the right to call on NATO, but will instead use NATO backing to bring in non-nato countries in on the coalition. Pisses off the French, but what the hell... :) The financial shut off is a good beginning, and so are the increased vigilance within our boarders. It is amazing how much drug trafficing, illegal immegration, and such has dropped... we are actually ENFORCING all the damn laws. So... I say... so far so good.