|
24 Sep 01 - 05:17 PM (#557923) Subject: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Amos The prior segment is over 110 posts and can be found here. Regards, Amos |
|
24 Sep 01 - 05:18 PM (#557924) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Amos The following is from a professional soldier and officer, and a former teacher of military history. While not typical of the kinds of communications found on this forum I believe that it offers some insight into another point of view: ==================================================== Recently, I was asked to look at the recent events through the lens of military history. I have joined the cast of thousands who have written an "open letter to Americans." Please share it if you feel so moved. Tony Dear friends and fellow Americans 14 September, 2001 Like everyone else in this great country, I am reeling from last week's attack on our sovereignty. But unlike some, I am not reeling from surprise. As a career soldier and a student and teacher of military history, I have a different perspective and I think you should hear it. This war will be won or lost by the American citizens, not diplomats, politicians or soldiers. Let me briefly explain. In spite of what the media, and even our own government is telling us, this act was not committed by a group of mentally deranged fanatics. To dismiss them as such would be among the gravest of mistakes. This attack was committed by a ferocious, intelligent and dedicated adversary. Don't take this the wrong way. I don't admire these men and I deplore their tactics, but I respect their capabilities. The many parallels that have been made with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are apropos. Not only because it was a brilliant sneak attack against a complacent America, but also because we may well be pulling our new adversaries out of caves 30 years after we think this war is over, just like my father's generation had to do with the formidable Japanese in the years following WW II. These men hate the United States with all of their being, and we must not underestimate the power of their moral commitment. Napoleon, perhaps the world's greatest combination of soldier and statesman, stated "the moral is to the physical as three is to one." Patton thought the Frenchman underestimated its importance and said moral conviction was five times more important in battle than physical strength. Our enemies are willing better said anxious -- to give their lives for their cause. How committed are we America? And for how long? In addition to demonstrating great moral conviction, the recent attack demonstrated a mastery of some of the basic fundamentals of warfare taught to most military officers worldwide, namely simplicity, security and surprise. When I first heard rumors that some of these men may have been trained at our own Air War College, it made perfect sense to me. This was not a random act of violence, and we can expect the same sort of military competence to be displayed in the battle to come. This war will escalate, with a good portion of it happening right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. These men will not go easily into the night. They do not fear us. We must not fear them. In spite of our overwhelming conventional strength as the world's only "superpower" (a truly silly term), we are the underdog in this fight. As you listen to the carefully scripted rhetoric designed to prepare us for the march for war, please realize that America is not equipped or seriously trained for the battle ahead. To be certain, our soldiers are much better than the enemy, and we have some excellent "counter-terrorist" organizations, but they are mostly trained for hostage rescues, airfield seizures, or the occasional "body snatch," (which may come in handy). We will be fighting a war of annihilation, because if their early efforts are any indication, our enemy is ready and willing to die to the last man. Eradicating the enemy will be costly and time consuming. They have already deployed their forces in as many as 20 countries, and are likely living the lives of everyday citizens. Simply put, our soldiers will be tasked with a ! search and destroy mission on multiple foreign landscapes, and the public must be patient and supportive until the strategy and tactics can be worked out. For the most part, our military is still in the process of redefining itself and presided over by men and women who grew up with - and were promoted because they excelled in - Cold War doctrine, strategy and tactics. This will not be linear warfare, there will be no clear "centers of gravity" to strike with high technology weapons. Our vast technological edge will certainly be helpful, but it will not be decisive. Perhaps the perfect metaphor for the coming battle was introduced by the terrorists themselves aboard the hijacked aircraft -- this will be a knife fight, and it will be won or lost by the ingenuity and will of citizens and soldiers, not by software or smart bombs. We must also be patient with our military leaders. Unlike Americans who are eager to put this messy time behind us, our adversaries have time on their side, and they will use it. They plan to fight a battle of attrition, hoping to drag the battle out until the American public loses its will to fight. This might be difficult to believe in this euphoric time of flag waving and patriotism, but it is generally acknowledged that America lacks the stomach for a long fight. We need only look as far back as Vietnam, when North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap (also a military history teacher) defeated the United States of America without ever winning a major tactical battle. American soldiers who marched to war cheered on by flag waving Americans in 1965 were reviled and spat upon less than three years later when they returned. Although we hope that Usama Bin Laden is no Giap, he is certain to understand and employ the concept. We can expect not only large doses of pain like the recent attacks, but! also less audacious "sand in the gears" tactics, ranging from livestock infestations to attacks at water supplies and power distribution facilities. These attacks are designed to hit us in our "comfort zone" forcing the average American to "pay more and play less" and eventually eroding our resolve. But it can only work if we let it. It is clear to me that the will of the American citizenry - you and I -is the center of gravity the enemy has targeted. It will be the fulcrum upon which victory or defeat will turn. He believes us to be soft, impatient, and self-centered. He may be right, but if so, we must change. The Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted and least read military theorist in history), says that there is a "remarkable trinity of war" that is composed of the (1) will of the people, (2) the political leadership of the government, and (3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order. Every American citizen was in the crosshairs of last Tuesday's attack, not just those that were unfortunate enough to be in the World Trade Center or Pentagon. The will of the American people will decide this war. If we are to win, it will be because we have what it takes to persevere through a few more hits, learn from our! mistakes, improvise, and adapt. If we can do that, we will eventually prevail. Everyone I've talked to In the past few days has shared a common frustration, saying in one form or another "I just wish I could do something!" You are already doing it. Just keep faith in America, and continue to support your President and military, and the outcome is certain. If we fail to do so, the outcome is equally certain. God Bless America Dr. Tony Kern, Lt Col, USAF (Ret) Former Director of Military History, USAF Academy |
|
24 Sep 01 - 05:24 PM (#557927) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: catspaw49 Thank you Amos...after the first ten threads, my dick went limp on keeping the thing going. Spaw |
|
24 Sep 01 - 06:19 PM (#557955) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Troll Thanks Amos. Everyone should read and heed this letter. He's telling it like it is. troll |
|
24 Sep 01 - 06:27 PM (#557962) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: kendall Guest nobody, what say you now? |
|
25 Sep 01 - 12:49 AM (#557987) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: DougR Amos: Thank you for posting this. I wish every Mudcatter would read it, but I'm not really very hopeful that they will. Why? Because the Col. says things they don't want to hear! They don't want to believe that there are people in the world who are as dedicated to eliminating the U.S. it's citizens, and other free countries, as Nazi Germany was to impose it's will on the rest of the world. If the majority of my fellow Mudcatters do read it, they will probably pooh pooh it. What the heck does this guy know? Doesn't he realize that it is the United States that's to blame for all of this? We (read U.S.) have been supportive of regimes that were not worthy of our support, just because it best served our best interests to do so! We should never put the interests of the United States ahead of others, they will say. And, they will lament that the United States is rich, while many other countries are poor. That's the fault of the U.S. too, of course, even though our foreign aid may be all that's keeping them afloat. Some Americans just love to hate America, unfortunately. DougR |
|
25 Sep 01 - 01:01 AM (#557994) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: DougR Don Firth: I was referring to your post of September 21st (previous thread) where you said you were not "confident" of the evidence that Bin Laden might be guilty. My point is, I doubt that the government is going to share all of the evidence it has with the general public, and I don't think it should, in the event that there is a military trial at some point. DougR |
|
25 Sep 01 - 01:15 AM (#558001) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: CarolC I can't speak for anyone else, DougR, but for my part, admitting our contribution to the state of affairs that confronts us now has nothing whatever to do with hating the US.
It has everything to do with seeing ourselves within the continuum of events that have led to how things are now so we can learn which of the methods we have used in the past have not served us very well in the long run. We need to do this or we will keep making the same mistakes over and over.
Of course, we can choose to deny our culpability and keep making the same mistakes over and over, but I will do whatever I can to try to help us choose something different. The idea is to do what will work in the long run, not what will make us feel better in the sort run. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 01:48 AM (#558023) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Don Firth No, DougR, I don't expect the government to reveal everything they know (I certainly hope not!), but at the time I made the statement, most of what I'd heard about the government's reaction smacked of knee-jerk, including the fact that the best they could say was that bin Laden was a "confirmed suspect." There was (and for that matter, still is) reason to believe that Saddam Hussein and/or any of a number of others might have been behind it, or were at least involved. The instantaneous naming of bin Laden sounded a lot like "culprit of the day" to me. My confidence that the government knows what it's doing is gradually increasing, but time will tell. Don Firth |
|
25 Sep 01 - 01:51 AM (#558024) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Skeptic DougR, I think the problem may be just which "interests' of the US we are putting ahead of others. And how we go about pushing them. We need to accept that we do have interests and have every right to push for them, just as any country has the right to refuse. But we need to look closely at what those interests are. Clearly we can?t roll over and play dead. What we can do is demand more for our money, power and presence than a military base and trade concessions. When we tell a country that we support freedom, democracy and individual rights and then prop up a petty dictator because it is in our "strategic best interests" (and sometimes in the best interests of big business), then we have a short term gain and a long term loss. We are the biggest, strongest guy on the street. What kind of message do we send when we act erratically or hypocritically? We may not care today but probably will tomorrow. After Desert Storm we (and UN or not it was our show) allowed the Kuwait Royal Family back into power with vague promises from them to give more power to the parliament (to date I don?t think they have). How is that in our ?best interest? It?s certainly seem to be convenient and easy but is it much more than a quick fix? What message have we sent to the citizens of Kuwait? We seem to have myopia when it comes to looking at the consequences of our actions. And a very bad habit of assuming that the rest of the world thinks, acts and responds like we do. McArthur understood the nature of the Japanese when he took over as military governor and managed to transform as fairly feudal society into a parliamentary democracy. Lots of bumps along the way but seems to have worked. I think we need to decide what our core values are and promote them, not play the ?practical, expedient? game or get lost in endless arguments over the relative merits of value systems. There needs to be a set of core values that we build on. Determining them will be difficult and contentious. My suggestion is for individual rights, individual moral autonomy, and strong democratic values affecting all aspects of society. Granted, we need to work on those in this country but the essential questions seems to be to find a place to start from that is inclusive and not limited to practicality or convenience. Regards and good night. John
|
|
25 Sep 01 - 02:49 AM (#558041) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: The Shambles 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?
Sealing the flight crew (no 'bloody' doors at all) will not prevent self destruction (bombs) as I said in my first post on the subject, but it would have and will prevent passengers with basic weapons from making threats, from controlling the aircraft and where the bomb explodes.
What are the good and pressing reasons for not taking this action, in addition to the other increased sucurity measures? |
|
25 Sep 01 - 05:54 AM (#558087) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: McGrath of Harlow The most encouraging thing about that piece by Dr Kern is that it suggests that maybe the stupid rhetoric about cowards and madmen is just that - rhetoric.
If the people making the decisions really believed that all they might be up against is a few crazy cowards and fool who got lucky this one time, the world is in even more serious trouble than it looks like being in.
Dr Kern's piece suggests that behind the hot air and the public posturing there are in fact people who are using their heads to try to understand what has happened and why it happened, and what might be done to stop it happening again.
And of course that includes looking critically at things which America and its allies has done, with a view to trying to identify where these have been contributory factors.
How many times is it necessary to say that to try to understand and explain something is not the same thing as justifying or excusing it? It doesn't matter whether it's crime or violence in the family, or vandalism or terrorism, someone always seems to come up with the accusation that trying to look at the causes is some kind of treachery.
It's as if scientists who tried to understand the factors which led to disease were accused of somehow siding with the disease. "You and your talk about diets and cholesterol - these bugs are killing people, and you go around making excuses for them, and blaming the victims." |
|
25 Sep 01 - 06:27 AM (#558100) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST,Steve Parkes Col Kern says 'These men hate the United States with all of their being'. I'm not for a moment suggesting that what they did was justified--the end doesn't justfy the means. But one of the things you (and we) should do is try and understand why they hate the US so much; maybe there is something that can be done about it. Steve |
|
25 Sep 01 - 08:40 AM (#558157) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Troll Steve, bin Laden has issued two statements on this matter; one in 1996 ( The Ladenist Epistle) and one in 1998 (the Fatwa). They pretty much explain his position. I have a real problem with Blue Clickeys but I'll try to get the sites for you. troll |
|
25 Sep 01 - 08:51 AM (#558162) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: McGrath of Harlow His position, but that's not exactly the same as the people who might see him as on their side. He's a millionaire from a very luxurious background, for example. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 08:53 AM (#558165) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Troll Go to Click here Scroll down to the side-bar with the picture of bin Laden. His writings can be accessed from there. troll |
|
25 Sep 01 - 09:33 AM (#558200) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Donuel For 4 years on the Maestronet forum I posted my concern and outrage regarding bio war research , strategy and vulnerability. I suffered the paranoid accusations but persisted despite the antagonism. Now it is on TV every 10 minutes somewhere. This is not an "I told you so" , but just an explaination . I was motivated in part by the death of my sister in a government radiation experiment in the early sixties. It took her 30 years to die. In part by a nearby bio war lab in VA that lost all containment and nearly caused an ebola epidemic. It was all well covered in the Washington post. Civilians worldwide watched the bio war movies and was entertained but not mobilized against bio war. I am sadly reminded of a quote of a Roman emperor resigned to his deathbed "let all the evil in the mud hatch out" I. Claudus. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 10:20 AM (#558223) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Kim C The thing is, not everybody worldwide hates the U.S. The events of the last two weeks shoudl be evidence of that. We have a lot of people all over the world supporting us. Anyone with the slightest shred of human decency is horrifed at what has happened, no matter where they're from. Now... that being said... there are a few who don't like us and will try to harm us, for whatever reason. They may have good reasons. They may have deluded reasons. The hijackers are all dead now so we don't really know what their actual reasons were, and they're not going to tell us. When I was a freshman in high school, I was mercilessly bullied by an older girl named Connie, who used to be my friend. I said, why are you doing this to me? She said, somebody told me you called me a bitch. Well, I never said any such thing, but she was convinced I had, and would not listen to me no matter what. Connie was sure she had a good reason for wanting to kick my ass. But I never said an unkind word about her. I didn't deserve it. I didn't ask for it. But she thought I had. I'm not sure where I'm trying to go here... I have already said that I have trouble understanding why people feel the need to be ugly to one another... I guess what I mean to say is, those who hate us believe they have a good reason for doing so, and we are urged to see their side of the story. All right then. Did it ever occur to them that maybe we have a good reason for doing the things we do? Does no one urge them to see OUR side of the story? Anyway, I am just rambling, don't anyone take me serious here. These are just some of the things I have been turning over in my head, trying to make sense of it all... |
|
25 Sep 01 - 10:33 AM (#558237) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Troll Kim C, unfortunately, to fanatics there is only one side of the story; theirs. They have absolutely NO interest in knowing our reasons for anything. To them what we have done is wrong and inexcusable and thats all they need to know. And WE don't really need to know why they are mad at us as far as they are concerned. Their reasons are sound by their way of thinking and thats all they care about. troll |
|
25 Sep 01 - 10:53 AM (#558251) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: kendall Doug, I wish I could forgive what we have done to people around the world as easily as you do. Troll, it IS important why they hate us.We will never lick an enemy whom we dont understand. Proof? VIET NAM. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 11:01 AM (#558254) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Mrrzy Yes, it's important why they hate us, but we aren't going to change, are we? |
|
25 Sep 01 - 11:10 AM (#558261) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Troll Sorry Kendall. Poor communication. What I meant was they don't care if we know and/or understand why they hate us. Mrrzy, from your comment I take it that you feel we brought it on ourselves because of some policy that you don't agree with. Is this correct? troll |
|
25 Sep 01 - 11:10 AM (#558263) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: McGrath of Harlow "there is only one side of the story; theirs. They have absolutely NO interest in knowing our reasons for anything. To them what we have done is wrong and inexcusable and that's all they need to know."
True. And that unfortunately is just the way a lot of people seem to see it from this side as well. (What are we supposed to call it? The Allies? The terminology hasn't been worked out yet, has it.) Saying the enemy is evil may be true, it may help morale or something as well even. But it is no help whatsoever in anticipating what they might try to do next. Understanding them can help you do that. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 11:33 AM (#558283) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Kim C It's absolutely true that one must know their adversary in order to achieve victory, whether it's war or chess or poker. I won't argue that a-tall. Sigh. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 02:46 PM (#558471) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: blt Trying to understand this mess is a necessity. As I cruise through websites from The Nation, BBC, the Quakers, CNN, and my local papers, I am overwhelmed by the information. Digesting all of it is a constant and not so appetizing task. I am also overwhelmed by the scale of things, and of being one human being, still alive, in the midst of it. It is as if I see myself as standing in the debris field, constantly. I believe that the ability of the US military to conceive of an effective response to terrorism is severely limited by the scope of current tactics. I have no personal experience of the military, I just see that the rhetoric points one way and the reality of the situation another. It is as if the government believes that sounding resolute and simply being the United States is enough; as if just being angry is enough; as if the military cannot imagine any other role than that of ground troops, specialized forces, and smart bombs. It really shouldn't be surprising that a small group of individuals could successfully attack the US by using tactics that, even to my very un-militaristic mind, seem remarkably simple. I don't think the US is to blame so much as I think the US is accountable for pursuing and supporting policies that disenfranchise people, both inside and outside the US. This is not to say that extremist and repressive governments such as the Taliban are on the same footing as the US government--the playing field is hardly level--but that it's clear that Western ideologies are not sacrosanct. Understanding this mess first of all means understanding ourselves. It's a first lesson in most anger management programs, to take a step back, breathe, and think. Of all the polls I've read, the most positive results were that 78% believe it is more important to wait to take military action (NY Times poll on 9/20). blt |
|
25 Sep 01 - 03:03 PM (#558493) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST,just a nobody Kendall, Not sure what you want to hear. What say I now, I read the post. I agree with it. We have never fought a war like this... it will be prolonged. It will be bloody. What's your point? Does it lesson my backing of the president? Does it lesson my resolve to support the government and it's use of the military? No.... And before anyone starts talking about how different I would feel if I had to be the one to fight. This fight, will be fought here. Not by armies, but by a handful of people that will kill citizens. On my way to work I pass by many 'targets' 2 Airports, One shipping port, one major hospital, McDill airforce base, and two power plants. Am I worried? Yes. Does that fear errode my confidence in our government and our military? No. I will fear, but I will not change my resolve. Sorry if you think that it would Kendall. I'm no war monger, I am very afraid. But I will not let fear win out in the end. I just hope, I pray, that if this turns into a war. America's resolve will remain strong. That we will not betray those soldiers that fight for us. And they do fight for all of us, even those that don't want to fight. That is why I respect thier job, and hope we never see the citizens of this country ever turn thier back on them like they have in the past. And if that makes me a War Monger, then I suppose that is what I am. But I will be a man proud of the soldiers, a warmonger that will gladly applaud them for the sacrifices they are willing to make, that so many of us (Including myself) can't and won't make. I owe them that much. Love, hugs and kisses.... Just a War Monger. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 03:05 PM (#558497) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST,just another dumb-assed guest Amen, blt, to paragraphs 1 and 3 (so long as paragraph 3 is seen as appropriately limited in its impact. Plaxcing it as third of three was a good choice, IMO.) On paragraph 2, however, I think the administration is carefully and appropriately treading a difficult path in maintaining public confidence and resolve. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 03:30 PM (#558524) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Charley Noble Another one of my friends had forwarded Col. Kern's thoughtful letter to me the other day. As with the "Afgan letter" I sincerely hope there is a "real" person behind it. And I do hope there are some similar military and international policy people working on our response to these terrorist acts. Aside from George W.'s foolish statements, I'm generally impressed with what the Bush Adminstration is saying. I'll probably be less impressed with the civil rights that will be abused in the process of investigating the terrorist acts, but then I can always join those who are concerned by funding law suits to punish the abusers. I also hope that our long term relationships with our new "allies" in this fight to root out terrorism, do not end up inflicting more terrorism on us in the years to come, but I suppose that's being too thoughtful. I wonder where I filed that old protest song I wrote back in 1990 just before we began the ground war in the Persian Gulf? Sigh, it was obsolete within a week. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 04:03 PM (#558547) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST,glenda (53) at work Applause! Applause! - to the one who signed in as 'just a nobody' "Just" an American - One who also wants to see us, as a country, maintain resolve and support for our military who have gone to fight for us. Let's not let our fear or doubts prevent us from standing for what we believe in. Even if we would not have chosen to go to war, let's be sure to offer the support those who serve need. None of us would have chosen war. But we HAVE been attacked! glenda |
|
25 Sep 01 - 04:25 PM (#558561) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: DougR Glenda: One thing there is little of on the Mudcat, is doubt. I'm with you and "Just" though and believe the best thing Americans can do at this time is to support the President, his advisers and the Congress. Kim C.: I agree with you 100%! I hope someone among Bush's influential advisers is someone who THINKS like a terriorist. Kendall: I think were you to take a legal size lined tablet (you know the yellow colored ones) and make two columns, one of them things we (the U.S.) have done to harm the world, and the other, things we have done to help the world, you would find the second column so much longer than the first one, you'd have to get another tablet to list them all. DougR |
|
25 Sep 01 - 04:45 PM (#558590) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Steve in Idaho I've noticed a few notes in reference to the troops that go in our stead. I'm a pacifist - to a degree. Having fought in Viet Nam and "experienced" the homecoming so common back then. I'm near tears when I see these references to support for the troops - whether we agree with the cause or not. "When Johnny comes marchin home again, Hurrah - Hurrah . . . . . I don't know if this is thread creep or not (actually do not know what that means) but a Veteran of Korea died yesterday. A Shoshone Warrior who joined as a SeaBee but ended up behind a machinegun on the Pusan Perimeter in Korea. Always a happy person to be around, gave me a key to his home, where I lived for two years, said what he meant and meant what he said. I will miss him dearly - He would have loved to hear the words about supporting the troops. Ask some of the Indian Veterans about their home coming - I am proud to have known him - be proud of those who serve you - Peace - Steve |
|
25 Sep 01 - 04:52 PM (#558598) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: CarolC Let's not let our fear or doubts prevent us from standing for what we believe in.
--glenda
Those of us who are advocating for things like not striking back in anger, and trying to understand how the actions of the US in the past have contributed to the world situation, and who would like to see us correct these things are standing for what we believe in. We are not letting our fear or doubts prevent us from doing it. And DougR, it is not doubt that drives our resolve to do what we can to try to help create a better outcome. It is our conviction that there can be a better way that drives us to do it. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 05:02 PM (#558608) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Donuel The threat we face is great and serious. Rumsfeld repeated this many times today. To guard against a demoralized public we are being preped for the possibility of losing several cities to weapons of mass destruction. More anger and recriminations will result but our resolve to persevere as a nation will remain regardless of leadership. The sacrifice is to be made by civilians and military alike as demonstrated by our enemy. This modification of war has always been around but WWII made it the norm. Anyone that says that America has contributed to the attack is not attacking our morale to fight back but asking the necessary questions to strengthen morale. Having the answers to how not to repeat mistakes of the past is merely common sense. To equate asking the hard questions with the degree of ones patriotism is wrong. The quality of being an American is distinctly different than the quality of accepting American government as infallable. Anyone here recall the Paul Robeson song 'You know who I am' ? |
|
25 Sep 01 - 05:38 PM (#558639) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Kim C I wish my daddy were here to tell me what he thinks. He was pretty much always right. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 06:00 PM (#558662) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: McGrath of Harlow So, on the one hand it's important to try to understand the mind of the terrorists, but on the other hand it is wrong to look at what things America has done which may have helped shape that mind.
I don't find easy to reconcile those two positions. Clearly some people seem to have managed to do so.
Whether the stack of things a country has done that's benefited people is higher than the stacks which have hurt people is an interesting mind experiment, though I can't really imagine how you could calibrate that kind of thing. But I can't see that it is too relevant anyway.
What I mean is this. If the people who are closest to you have been hurt by somebody, I doubt if you'd be too interested in good deeds done by that somebody to third parties elsewhere.
A thought experiment. Imagine that evidence were produced that showed conclusively that Bin Laden's organisation had been responsible for the attacks on September 11th - and also that, through various charitable works the same organisation had saved tens of thousands of people from dying from famine and disease.
It just wouldn't be relevant, would it? It wouldn't be something to set in the balance against September 11th - "Six thousand dead in the attack - twenty thousand saved in the famine. That's a credit balance of fourteen thousand. So thank you, on balance you're a good fellow."
|
|
25 Sep 01 - 06:05 PM (#558668) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: McGrath of Harlow A trivial point maybe. I've notice people keep referring to 9/11 - well in many parts of the world, for all I know most parts of the world, 9/11 mean the Ninth of November. And that includes the parts of the world that hundreds of those people came from.
I think it'd be less confusing to refer to the Eleventh of September as the date of the tragedy. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 06:05 PM (#558669) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: kendall Doug and Troll are always "right" Doug, you are right on the money with your column thing. However, We didn't get attacked for what we did right. You must come to grips with the fact that we have done things that pissed them off! That's what we are dealing with, and, looking the other way is not going to help us. Stop squirming and face the facts! Nobody, I got the idea from past posts that you favor a military response, and that letter from one who has been there tells it like it is. We may be forced to go to war, but, let's exhaust all other reasonable options first. If they use germ warfare, will we be justified in "dropping the big one" |
|
25 Sep 01 - 06:19 PM (#558675) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: CarolC kendall, if terrorists use germ warfare against us, who would we be justified in nuking? |
|
25 Sep 01 - 08:22 PM (#558768) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: kendall Thats my point Carol C. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 08:31 PM (#558779) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST,just a nobody What did we do to piss them off, Kendall? We exist.... There is no distiction between citizen and soldier, sex, color, age, nationality, or religion. American is the only qualification they have. Yes, they spout off how we have supported Israel, turned our back on the Palastinians. Are you asking if we have done horrible things. Most certainly we have Kendall. But, lets paint a hypothetical picture. Assume this country was isolated. We kept our military only for self defence and maintained a humanitarian outlook for the rest of the world. As we supplied food to the hungry, supplies to build, and aid in time of disaster... lets say across the board, we did not care about politics, faith, military... only the suffering of others that we could help. Would that keep us from making enemies? Provide food to those suffering in Iran and they will hate you in Iraq. So we do side, with what is in our best interest. Sometimes we do not see the long term consequences, but we try to balance it out. They hate us because we do not believe as they do, that the Jews should be irradicated. They wish control over the super powers to thier own ends, not for the betterment of people as a whole. The best line I heard was a documentary about Bin Ladin... "After bringing one super power to its military knees (the soviets) Bin Ladin turned his eyes to the next superpower." *rough quote* I do support a military stance, it does not mean supporting war. But, we were attacked... is that thought so elusive? We are not walking in with guns blazing, there is alot of thought on what needs to be done to prepare *IF* we need to use the forces we have gathered. I challange any of the people that think that we are so hasty to tell me what they know that the government does not know. I hate to think that someone has special information that they do not know... But the assumption that I am hearing is that WAR mean droping nukes and killing babies. I think the administration will avoid these things at all costs, short of sacrificing our country. Could there be a nuclear exchange, let us pray not, but there is a slim margin of probability, very slim. Chemical and biological, possible, much more likely than nukes... Carol, I do respect your view. I wish more people saw the world as you do... or actually followed it. But in this world it is rare that the fist is second. The WTC should show you that. I am not trolling, but what is the point where you say, no more, it's time to fight. The next attack, the next threat? I am not flaming you, but I honestly would like to know. And I agree completely, who would we nuke? Good question, and when you have to ask that, then it is a good idea not to consider it an option. Kendall to answer that question, I think you need to take a good look at what our military is willing to do to protect it's people from such attacks. A bio attack could result in us using ordinance against ourselves. To prevent the spread. Horrible but a grim reality. But to a country that did that to our men and women... there would be no mercy. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 08:45 PM (#558788) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: McGrath of Harlow "But to a country that did that" - but this one isn't about countries doing things is it? If that kind of thing were to happen the overwhelming likelihood would be that the operation was carried out and organised in the countrty that was being targetted. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 08:57 PM (#558800) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: DougR If EVERYBODY in the world thought the way CarolC thinks, it would, in my opinion, be a perfect world. The trouble is, also in my opinion, a minority of the people in the world think as she does. Kendall: of course we (the U.S.) has done stupid things. That's why there are two columns on your pads. I don't believe, however, that the government, regardless of who is at the helm (Democratic or Republican or Green Party, or whatever) is ever going to establish U. S. policy by POPULAR vote! That's where I think you, CarolC and the majority of the posters here will continue to be frustrated. I can see it now: some future president, before he decides to recognize and assist a government in some country somewhere in the world sends ballots to the whole population and asks for a vote as whether or not we should do it. Even if this unlikely event were to occur, one could never be certain that they would be on the winning side. What does one do then? Carp, carp, carp. Second guess, second guess, second guess! :>) DougR |
|
25 Sep 01 - 09:09 PM (#558805) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: CarolC Sorry kendall. For some reason, my brain has been transposing some of the words I've been reading today. I read your words as "we will be justified" rather than "will we be justified". I need to get my brain working better before I can read or respond to any of the other questons or remarks directed to me. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 09:27 PM (#558815) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: kendall GAWD!! This is SO damned frustrating!! Listen to what I'm saying you two! We pissed them off, they attacked us. They did not attack us because of what WE think, they attacked us because of what THEY think! What is so hard to understand about that? While you are busy justifying what we have done to them, and condemning what they did to us, consider this, It is always easier to lay blame than to solve the problem! According to the latest news, we are gathering a lot of support, even from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab emerates. We are supplying the Northern Alliance with weapons. GOOD, let them settle his hash. It would be more satisfying to hit them hard, but, it would be more sensible to let the allies do it. Finally, I'm not argueing with you Doug, and justa nobody, I'm simply pointing out some facts that you dont seem to want to see. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 09:59 PM (#558836) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Donuel I did a WTC disaster painting 5 years ago and forgot all about it until the person who bought it emailed me today. A 16 sq.ft painting of exploding skyscrapers with an F16 and hands reaching toward heaven has caused the buyer to email me after all these years. I put it on ebay 5 years ago entitled 'Horrendous Horrible Awful Horrific Painting'. Here is here email from today:,,,,,,,,, Well, well, well! Who would have thought that your "Tidal Wave" painting, complete with airplane, would providentially capture what has transpired??? I just realized this AM while passing it, that the upreaching hands, the towers (imagine!), the entire maelstrom of it all not only illustrates, but eerily mirrors all the horrific images shown on the news channels. WOW! When the timeliness of the painting slapped me with the "AHA!" Syndrome, I got goosepimples. Anyway, I've upgraded (retitled) the work from "Tidal Wave" to "Whirl Trade." Got to go--can't write because my goosepimples are getting in the way. Best regards, Jonie
here it is: |
|
25 Sep 01 - 10:05 PM (#558838) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Lepus Rex Damn, Donuel. That's eerie... ---Lepus Rex |
|
25 Sep 01 - 10:17 PM (#558847) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST,just a nobody Sorry you are so frustrated.... so ok... from what Bin Ladin has said, we need to arm the palistinians, lay sanctions against Israel, and remove our troops from 'muslim' soil... ok... that will solve everything. Kendall, What is your solution to solving this global popularity contest? You assist one group another WILL be upset. If you feed one group of people, there will be another group pissed because you have done that. You assist one country that was invaded, you piss off another group of people. What is it you think we should do? Isolationism is no answer, we would have enemies because we would be uncaring to those that asked for aid. How long would we last trying that? Ok... I also want to know... what did we do to "Them"? What attack, what assault, what butchery did we commit to Bin Ladin? What in the hell did we do that we should understand that justifies the death of 7000 people? Jesus man... does this mean we should stop and try to understand 'why' a man walks into an abortion clinic with a bomb? Because he feels that he was wronged and had no other way of lashing out? Don't give the murdering bastard the excuse. Do I believe the US is flawless, no. We have done boneheaded things in the past. It just seems that you want us to understand, then what? I do understand why.... so now that I do... what? What should I think Kendall? Please tell me how I should think so you are not so frustrated. Since I understand, should I believe that we do not need to respond? Should I think that because to Bin Ladin *HE* was justified that I should have any mercy? I think what frustrates you more Kendall, is that you have made your mind up one way. You simply pointing out what we refuse to see? Don't flatter yourself that much. Just because we do not come to the same conclusion as you does not mean we have not accepted our own failings. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 10:32 PM (#558862) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Donuel Thank you Guest just. You do have understanding of the balancing act of war we are in and clearly have compassion for the victims as we all do. There are people who do not understand. There in lies a danger of unbridled patriotism that can lead to vigilantes and extremes that will not serve our country well. Hope your baby is better. We had to put ours on antibiotics and he is feeling better . The rest of us are just plain run down. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 10:32 PM (#558863) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: CarolC I think what is needed, and I think this may actually happening, is a shift of focus. From a mentality in which we think of ourselves as separate from the rest of the world, and only cooperating when it serves our interests, to a mentality in which we see ourselves as a part of a larger whole, and we act in whatever way is in the best interest of this larger whole. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 10:57 PM (#558880) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST,just a nobody Don, Baby is fine, we refuse antibiotics for a while. His pediatrition gave him too many for too damn long. Found out when nothing was helping us with a strep infection he had. Thank you for seeing that just because we do not agree on the specifics means that one of us can't see what has happened. I do appologize for the gruffness of my previous post. But being told I refuse to see the reasons simply because I do not come to the same conclusions as others is rather insulting. Carol, I'll vote for ya.... In order though for your ideas to fully be implemented, it seems to me that most of the world would have to think as you do. I wish it did. But even if most of the world did, you would still have dissidents... how would you handle that? I mean if you ruled the world? *not a flame I do respect your view and you have always obliged answers... even when I rant a bit harshly* I am curious, knowing what a delicate balance you would have... what would you do with the Bin Ladin's if your plans could be implemented. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 11:04 PM (#558886) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Donuel 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. |
|
25 Sep 01 - 11:24 PM (#558898) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: CarolC 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 12:38 AM (#558939) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Amos 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 01:09 AM (#558955) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: CarolC 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.
|
|
26 Sep 01 - 01:53 AM (#559003) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Amos 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
|
|
26 Sep 01 - 02:03 AM (#559010) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: CarolC 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 06:21 AM (#559087) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: kendall 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 06:33 AM (#559093) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: McGrath of Harlow 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? |
|
26 Sep 01 - 06:52 AM (#559102) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: 53 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 |
|
26 Sep 01 - 07:13 AM (#559109) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: CarolC 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 07:18 AM (#559113) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Wolfgang 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 |
|
26 Sep 01 - 07:46 AM (#559122) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: CarolC Thanks for that, Wolfgang. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 07:50 AM (#559125) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: 53 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 |
|
26 Sep 01 - 07:56 AM (#559128) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Wolfgang 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 |
|
26 Sep 01 - 08:01 AM (#559132) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Troll 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 |
|
26 Sep 01 - 08:11 AM (#559136) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: CarolC 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.
|
|
26 Sep 01 - 09:27 AM (#559166) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Wolfgang 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 |
|
26 Sep 01 - 09:31 AM (#559168) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Wolfgang 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 |
|
26 Sep 01 - 09:49 AM (#559178) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Wolfgang Sorry about misspelling Rumsfeld's name. Wolfgang |
|
26 Sep 01 - 09:56 AM (#559181) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Amos "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 |
|
26 Sep 01 - 01:56 PM (#559189) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Amos 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
|
|
26 Sep 01 - 02:16 PM (#559207) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Troll 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 |
|
26 Sep 01 - 02:29 PM (#559220) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST 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 |
|
26 Sep 01 - 02:31 PM (#559222) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST,Pettyjohn (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 |
|
26 Sep 01 - 02:45 PM (#559242) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST 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 |
|
26 Sep 01 - 03:28 PM (#559263) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 03:52 PM (#559283) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: kendall 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 04:36 PM (#559305) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 04:38 PM (#559307) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST Sorry, I meant to sign the above post. I am not a guest, I am a MEMBER!! I,hurricane |
|
26 Sep 01 - 04:47 PM (#559314) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST,just a nobody 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.....
|
|
26 Sep 01 - 04:54 PM (#559320) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Donuel 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 04:54 PM (#559321) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Troll 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 |
|
26 Sep 01 - 04:58 PM (#559326) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Don Firth 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 |
|
26 Sep 01 - 05:56 PM (#559368) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Donuel 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..." |
|
26 Sep 01 - 06:02 PM (#559374) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST, I, hurricane 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 |
|
26 Sep 01 - 06:05 PM (#559378) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Amos Donuel: It looks like we will??? Why??? Who mentioned this brilliant idea??
|
|
26 Sep 01 - 06:10 PM (#559385) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: kendall 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 06:21 PM (#559395) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: CarolC 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 06:25 PM (#559399) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST, I, hurricane 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 06:30 PM (#559410) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: kendall 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 06:37 PM (#559415) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST, I, hurricane 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 06:47 PM (#559432) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: CarolC 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 06:48 PM (#559433) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 07:39 PM (#559472) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Donuel 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 08:40 PM (#559509) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST,petr 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 08:51 PM (#559519) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 08:57 PM (#559523) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Troll 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 |
|
26 Sep 01 - 09:02 PM (#559525) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Donuel 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 09:15 PM (#559532) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Troll 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 |
|
26 Sep 01 - 09:20 PM (#559536) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST,just a nobody 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. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 10:02 PM (#559558) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: kendall If we're not careful here, we might end up understanding, and, agreeing with each other! The Moslims may not hate Christians, but they sure jumped at the chance to enslave American sailors after the USA lost the protection of the UK. Remember Commodore Preble? (local boy) and Captain Steven Decatur in their battles with the Barbary pirates? It was a Moslim country that was the first to declare war on the infant United States. Preble and Decatur went over there and kicked ass. As Winston Churchill said in response to Hitlers threat to "wring Englands neck like a chicken"..."Some chicken, Some neck" |
|
26 Sep 01 - 10:37 PM (#559579) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST,just a nobody Kendall, I wouldn't worry too much about agreeing ;) You had made the comment about the embassy, to Carol's comment, it is far more than Vandolism. An embassy is considered to be American Soil. Yes, an attack could be considered an act of war, but not officially. I do think it is considered an act of Aggression against a country. The fact that we vacated the embassy does not lesson the act of Aggression, but it is doubtful we would ever pursue that too far. Now... if we had people in the embassy and a government laid seige to it, yes, it is an act of war. When we invaded panama several times did anti-US cries come out that we attacked the catholic church, because we surrounded and laid siege to another Embassy. But again, it depends on how far a country is willing to pursue it. Usually not very far, but they could be used to augment an argument in the UN. There was a comment about what the Talbin are doing, forcing people into the military and such. I don't think we will see much military involvement until the food stores start shrinking a little more... One thing about military involvement. There are alot of countries that are falling in line with the US, simply to see what the US is going to do. They don't want to be considered an enemy, not with Iraq still in recent memory. But, we will make an example of the Talbin (I think). Simply put, they harbored a terrorist and his organization. They said he had no method of communication (cough bullshit cough) and now misplaced him. The US stance is clear, if the government protects the terrorist, they will stand the same fate as the terrorist. This does not mean that we are going to go through raping and pillaging, but it does mean we cannot afford to bluff. The Talbin will test our resolve, but the true test is now comming in Indonesia. Al Quaid groups have threatened to hunt down and kill Americans and jews... the Taliban have threatened to do the same thing on our own soil. Other Middle-East countries have also warned us of this potential. They do know how the Al Quiad (how the hell do you spell that) fights. I just hope the media is doing the standard hype of the situation for ratings. Not like I am not on edge enough as is. Peace love and hugs... and if that fails a pop in the eye Just a nobody |
|
26 Sep 01 - 10:54 PM (#559587) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Donuel WAR at all costs OR Diplomacy at all costs. Neither alone is the best answer. I hope the freedom we exchange for security is temporary. Losing ones life, nation or planet is an eternal voyage. My stepfather , a constitutional law professor, died this week so I will no longer be able to ask his opinion although I never consulted him for any of the posts you will see here. Decisions now , will have a long lasting effect like the slightest angle you impart on a marble will determine its long term roll. At these tender moments before a war a little thing like an idea in the right ear can make a difference. "For lack of a nail a war was lost..." We are not powerless. I repeat we are not powerless. When you hear that little voice in your head that says "be careful what you say , these are troubled times , you don't want to get in trouble," THAT IS WHEN YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS DYING WITHIN YOU. When you feel too powerless to consider an action that could make a difference is when freedom is dying all around you. Don Hakman
|
|
26 Sep 01 - 10:59 PM (#559591) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Troll There is a prohibition in the Koran against making fellow Muslims slaves but everyone else was apparently fair game. You were referring, of course to the Barbary Pirates of North Africa. Thence the slogan "Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute!" I can't remember who said it though. troll |
|
26 Sep 01 - 11:01 PM (#559592) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: CarolC Ok. I'm willing to use the words 'act of agression' in the context of what was done to the US embassy in Afghanistan. However, diplomatically, we don't recognise the Taliban as a government. And we do not occupy that embassy. We severed our diplomatic ties to Afghanistan before the embassy was attacked. So I think we're mostly splitting hairs on terminology. I certainly don't think, in light of what's going on right now, that it's something to get excercised about. Correct me if I'm wrong GUEST, Just a nobody, but it sounds to me like that is what you are saying as well. |
|
26 Sep 01 - 11:26 PM (#559611) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Amos Please continue as needed on Part Twelve which can be found over here. Regards, Amos |
|
27 Sep 01 - 09:01 AM (#559801) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: GUEST,just a nobody Carol, yep... pretty much. We *could* call it an act of war... but I think most of our allies would question that. It is an act of agression, but as we have both said, pursuing that would be a bad plan. Now... if the Talbin had *ordered* the embassy attacked... Well... I'm not so sure. We may not recognize them as the legit government. But diplomatic recognition and what it is in real life are often two different things. I don't think we would have been near as quiet had the government openly said to attack. I think (empty or not) we would have taken it as an open act of agression and probably an act of war, had the Talbin participated with the military. I actually think the Embassy was still in use up until the attacks. We used it for UN stationing. I could be wrong, please correct me if I am wrong. |
|
27 Sep 01 - 09:16 PM (#560362) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: CarolC GUEST, Just a nobody, I hadn't heard anything about UN stationing, so I don't know if that is true or not. The news coverage I've heard has said that we vacated it back in the 1980s. But they could have been only speaking in terms of using it as an embassy. |
|
28 Sep 01 - 04:48 AM (#560553) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Wolfgang Troll, I meant my short list of possible actions as a way that would less Moslems turn into future terrorists than e.g. a big bombing campaign of two or three countries. At the moment there is hope that the actions of the US government make much more sense than some talks of the president. If only someone could tell him that his words are braodcasted and read all over the world and not only locally in the USA. He seems to go for the quick applause of the respective local clientele and forget his position in the world. Wolfgang |
|
28 Sep 01 - 07:36 AM (#560610) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: Troll Wolfgang, at the present time there is not a lot of understanding of the Islamic world in my country at any level both in and out of government. The idea of inter-country loyalty based on religion is a foreign concept in the West and in the USA in particular. We can't seem to understand that, in the Muslim countries, an action which is percieved by them as an insult to Islam, will turn the whole Muslim world against us. And what they feel is an insult might not even be noticed by us. We need to tread very softly. troll |
|
28 Sep 01 - 08:09 AM (#560624) Subject: RE: AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul From: McGrath of Harlow USE THE NEW THREAD PLEASE - otherwise it gets hopelessly confusing. 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-
This thread is closed. Please do not post any more messages in this thread. Additional messages will be deleted. |