You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
**Patriots First...Traders Second**
- Thread starter trader58
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
The Israelis have the right idea. Find out where the families and the relatives of the terrorists live and destroy their homes, businesses, etc..
Next, find out where the families and relatives of the leaders of the harboring countries live and destroy their homes and businesses. These people need to know that they and their families will suffer for their actions. The reason they have been able to continue doing what they do is because they have been able to do it with impunity. That needs to change.
Also government buildings, landmark buildings, fuel storage facilities, power generation facilities, and communications facilities, dams, bridges need to be destroyed. These things can be done without undue risk to U.S. military (innocent)people.
Establish an intelligence network in the harboring countries (this will cost money but it will be well worth it), with the sole purpose of keeping track of the movements and locations of the terrorist leaders for the purpose of bombing them out of existence. These people have murdered thousands of innocent people already and will murder many more if they are not put out of action.
Also, we need to be pro-active. It isn't good enough anymore to wait until the terrorists kill a few hundred innocent people, and then react to it. What we need to do is to put these guys out of action BEFORE they can do any harm. We've seen these people planning their attacks for many years. We've seen their training camps. They've been threatening to attack the U.S. mainland for years. Why did we wait for it to happen?
We also need to strenghten our intelligence gathering efforts and security. In the past eight years security in this country has become a joke. Soviet spys freely wandering the halls of the State Department in Washington planting bugs, the Chineese obtaining the plans to our most effective and highly classified nuclear warhead, the W82, the Chineese obtaining the plans for our most advanced missile guidance systems, the US Department of Energy declassifying, under the Freedom of Information Act, records that tell how much plutonium, uranium, and other strategic materials we have stockpiled over the last 40 years, the lax security at Los Alamos that resulted in missing files and one spy conviction.
We live in a free society but there need to be SOME limitations, especially for guests in this country.
Next, find out where the families and relatives of the leaders of the harboring countries live and destroy their homes and businesses. These people need to know that they and their families will suffer for their actions. The reason they have been able to continue doing what they do is because they have been able to do it with impunity. That needs to change.
Also government buildings, landmark buildings, fuel storage facilities, power generation facilities, and communications facilities, dams, bridges need to be destroyed. These things can be done without undue risk to U.S. military (innocent)people.
Establish an intelligence network in the harboring countries (this will cost money but it will be well worth it), with the sole purpose of keeping track of the movements and locations of the terrorist leaders for the purpose of bombing them out of existence. These people have murdered thousands of innocent people already and will murder many more if they are not put out of action.
Also, we need to be pro-active. It isn't good enough anymore to wait until the terrorists kill a few hundred innocent people, and then react to it. What we need to do is to put these guys out of action BEFORE they can do any harm. We've seen these people planning their attacks for many years. We've seen their training camps. They've been threatening to attack the U.S. mainland for years. Why did we wait for it to happen?
We also need to strenghten our intelligence gathering efforts and security. In the past eight years security in this country has become a joke. Soviet spys freely wandering the halls of the State Department in Washington planting bugs, the Chineese obtaining the plans to our most effective and highly classified nuclear warhead, the W82, the Chineese obtaining the plans for our most advanced missile guidance systems, the US Department of Energy declassifying, under the Freedom of Information Act, records that tell how much plutonium, uranium, and other strategic materials we have stockpiled over the last 40 years, the lax security at Los Alamos that resulted in missing files and one spy conviction.
We live in a free society but there need to be SOME limitations, especially for guests in this country.
NickLeeson
Guest
Succumbing to calls for *bombing the living daylights* out of somebody is NOT what will make the US a safer place to live in the future, you CANNOT eradicate all terrorists by doing that, you'll only create new ones. Did we achieve anything in Vietnam by large scale bombing - keeping in mind that we threw more bombs there than were thrown during entire WW2? Did the Soviet Union manage to overcome the Afghans by doing that? Did the Brits, in almost 100 years of armed and bloody conflict manage to bring peace to Northern Ireland and prevent IRA bombs from going off in the UK, the IRA even shot a missile at 10 Downing Street at one point, where only luck prevented the Cabinet from being eradicated?
Was anything but senseless horror the result of these "let's go bomb somebody strategies" for all involved?
I mean, I realise that they're going to do sthg because of pressure from Joe on the street, but, do you really think that lobbing a couple of thousand cruise missiles on Baghdad or Kabul or wherever is really going to nub out terrorism????
That will only ensure that we can expect more of the same in the future.
That should be perfectly obvious to anybody who is aware of what everday life is like for people living in say Israel or Northern Ireland, it's been a constant cycle of violence and revenge, never-ending.
Both were places laboring under the illusion that military force is able to solve underlying problems.
Well, the facts speak for themselves.
The strategy has absolutely failed as measured by security and quality of life for those who have had the bad fate of having been born there and having to live there.
If we want to solve the problem, we have to tackle the underlying causes by working for a negotiated peace settlement between Israel/Palestine.
London's Guardian Newspaper warns that a harsh response to the terror could be innefective and, worse, create "enemies not just among governments but their citizens as well. ... Right now America needs a statesman, but wants a cowboy. Bush must steel himself to lead, not allow himself to follow."www.slate.com
And a pretty good article from SALON.COM:
How to defeat bin Laden
The U.S. should drop its war rhetoric and convince the Islamic world that he is a dangerous fugitive from justice.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Michael T. Klare
Sept. 13, 2001 | If, as appears increasingly likely, groups associated with terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden are found to be responsible for Tuesday's murderous attacks in New York and Washington, the United States would be fully justified in taking vigorous action to apprehend and punish him and to put his terror networks out of business. The question then becomes: What strategy will best accomplish this objective?
There are many in Washington and around the country who believe that the United States should declare war on bin Laden -- along with any governments that have given him assistance of one sort or another -- and employ the full weight of American military power to accomplish this purpose. Such action would undoubtedly help restore confidence in the power of the American nation, and provide a degree of satisfaction to those who crave retribution for Tuesday's horrific attacks. But we must also ask: Will it achieve the goal of eradicating bin Laden's networks and eliminating the terrorist threat to the United States? There are good reasons to suspect that it will not.
The image of American aircraft and missiles bombing Arab states and producing massive casualties -- many of them, inevitably, civilians with no ties to terrorists -- will surely confirm the belief among many ordinary Muslims that bin Laden is right: that the United States is intent on tormenting and subduing the Islamic world. As Bruce Shapiro has observed, out of the rubble of American attacks will come thousands of new volunteers for bin Laden's anti-American jihad.
Even more troubling, it is highly unlikely that such action will actually succeed in crippling bin Laden's underground networks. Unlike conventional military forces, these groups do not maintain fixed bases and installations but move from one camouflaged location to another -- all over the world. (Several of the terrorists suspected of involvement in Tuesday's attacks are now thought to have spent the past year hiding in a quiet, inconspicuous neighborhood in Hamburg, Germany.) Some of these groups may get caught in the U.S. attacks, but others will surely escape -- and remain in position to conduct new acts of terrorism.
As an alternative to military action of this sort, I propose a strategy that combines global law enforcement collaboration plus moral and religious combat. It would compel the Bush administration to drop its war rhetoric and instead treat its hunt for bin Laden as a criminal investigation.
It will not be possible to put bin Laden's networks out of operation without the cooperation of police and intelligence personnel all over the globe -- including the Islamic world. The best way to do this is to brand bin Laden and his associates as mass murderers who are sought for trial and punishment under U.S. law -- as has been done with other suspected terrorists. Then, the United States should order a massive global manhunt to capture bin Laden and all of his associates, wherever they dwell. It will be much harder for an Islamic government to refuse our requests for assistance in tracking down and arresting bin Laden's associates if we indict them for multiple murders and portray this as a criminal matter. The deliberate murder of innocents is a crime and an abomination in all societies -- Islamic ones no less than any others.
Furthermore, to prevent the recruitment of additional volunteers into bin Laden's networks (or others of their type), we have to successfully portray him as an enemy of authentic Islam. Bin Laden has succeeded in recruiting followers up until now -- volunteers who are willing to sacrifice their lives -- because he has been able to portray himself as the true defender of Islam. Now, we must seek out and ally ourselves with the vast number of Muslims who are repelled and horrified by the death of so many innocent people in New York and Washington. We must encourage influential Muslim clerics to condemn bin Laden as an enemy of true Islamic belief. Only in this way can we silence him (and his kind) forever.
To win over peace-minded Muslims to our side in this struggle, we will, of course, have to show greater sympathy for their concerns. This includes, for example, the plight of ordinary Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and the suffering of the Iraqi civilians who are denied basic goods and medicine due to the U.S.-backed economic sanctions. This need not entail a sudden about-face in U.S. policy, but would require greater public recognition of others' pain and suffering. After all, we are now victims too -- and this gives us a common basis upon which to ask for their assistance in a common struggle against violence and terrorism.
I know that the calls for military action will grow in volume. And I share a sense of outrage against those who killed so many of our countrymen and women. But I want the campaign against bin Laden to succeed -- both in a practical and a moral sense. Battle cries like that of Sen. Zell Miller, who called on the U.S. Thursday to "bomb the hell out of Afghanistan" for harboring bin Laden, may make us feel momentarily elated. But in the long run, it is only the pursuit of justice that can secure a peaceful world. The best way to accomplish this is for the U.S. to treat bin Laden as a criminal fugitive, not an enemy of war.
salon.com
About the writer
Michael T. Klare is a professor of world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author of "Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict"
*****************************
Hatred is the best breeding ground for terrorism and the resulting vicious cycle of violence and revenge. Wisdom is the vicious cycles strongest enemy.
Justice, not Revenge.
Was anything but senseless horror the result of these "let's go bomb somebody strategies" for all involved?
I mean, I realise that they're going to do sthg because of pressure from Joe on the street, but, do you really think that lobbing a couple of thousand cruise missiles on Baghdad or Kabul or wherever is really going to nub out terrorism????
That will only ensure that we can expect more of the same in the future.
That should be perfectly obvious to anybody who is aware of what everday life is like for people living in say Israel or Northern Ireland, it's been a constant cycle of violence and revenge, never-ending.
Both were places laboring under the illusion that military force is able to solve underlying problems.
Well, the facts speak for themselves.
The strategy has absolutely failed as measured by security and quality of life for those who have had the bad fate of having been born there and having to live there.
If we want to solve the problem, we have to tackle the underlying causes by working for a negotiated peace settlement between Israel/Palestine.
London's Guardian Newspaper warns that a harsh response to the terror could be innefective and, worse, create "enemies not just among governments but their citizens as well. ... Right now America needs a statesman, but wants a cowboy. Bush must steel himself to lead, not allow himself to follow."www.slate.com
And a pretty good article from SALON.COM:
How to defeat bin Laden
The U.S. should drop its war rhetoric and convince the Islamic world that he is a dangerous fugitive from justice.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Michael T. Klare
Sept. 13, 2001 | If, as appears increasingly likely, groups associated with terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden are found to be responsible for Tuesday's murderous attacks in New York and Washington, the United States would be fully justified in taking vigorous action to apprehend and punish him and to put his terror networks out of business. The question then becomes: What strategy will best accomplish this objective?
There are many in Washington and around the country who believe that the United States should declare war on bin Laden -- along with any governments that have given him assistance of one sort or another -- and employ the full weight of American military power to accomplish this purpose. Such action would undoubtedly help restore confidence in the power of the American nation, and provide a degree of satisfaction to those who crave retribution for Tuesday's horrific attacks. But we must also ask: Will it achieve the goal of eradicating bin Laden's networks and eliminating the terrorist threat to the United States? There are good reasons to suspect that it will not.
The image of American aircraft and missiles bombing Arab states and producing massive casualties -- many of them, inevitably, civilians with no ties to terrorists -- will surely confirm the belief among many ordinary Muslims that bin Laden is right: that the United States is intent on tormenting and subduing the Islamic world. As Bruce Shapiro has observed, out of the rubble of American attacks will come thousands of new volunteers for bin Laden's anti-American jihad.
Even more troubling, it is highly unlikely that such action will actually succeed in crippling bin Laden's underground networks. Unlike conventional military forces, these groups do not maintain fixed bases and installations but move from one camouflaged location to another -- all over the world. (Several of the terrorists suspected of involvement in Tuesday's attacks are now thought to have spent the past year hiding in a quiet, inconspicuous neighborhood in Hamburg, Germany.) Some of these groups may get caught in the U.S. attacks, but others will surely escape -- and remain in position to conduct new acts of terrorism.
As an alternative to military action of this sort, I propose a strategy that combines global law enforcement collaboration plus moral and religious combat. It would compel the Bush administration to drop its war rhetoric and instead treat its hunt for bin Laden as a criminal investigation.
It will not be possible to put bin Laden's networks out of operation without the cooperation of police and intelligence personnel all over the globe -- including the Islamic world. The best way to do this is to brand bin Laden and his associates as mass murderers who are sought for trial and punishment under U.S. law -- as has been done with other suspected terrorists. Then, the United States should order a massive global manhunt to capture bin Laden and all of his associates, wherever they dwell. It will be much harder for an Islamic government to refuse our requests for assistance in tracking down and arresting bin Laden's associates if we indict them for multiple murders and portray this as a criminal matter. The deliberate murder of innocents is a crime and an abomination in all societies -- Islamic ones no less than any others.
Furthermore, to prevent the recruitment of additional volunteers into bin Laden's networks (or others of their type), we have to successfully portray him as an enemy of authentic Islam. Bin Laden has succeeded in recruiting followers up until now -- volunteers who are willing to sacrifice their lives -- because he has been able to portray himself as the true defender of Islam. Now, we must seek out and ally ourselves with the vast number of Muslims who are repelled and horrified by the death of so many innocent people in New York and Washington. We must encourage influential Muslim clerics to condemn bin Laden as an enemy of true Islamic belief. Only in this way can we silence him (and his kind) forever.
To win over peace-minded Muslims to our side in this struggle, we will, of course, have to show greater sympathy for their concerns. This includes, for example, the plight of ordinary Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and the suffering of the Iraqi civilians who are denied basic goods and medicine due to the U.S.-backed economic sanctions. This need not entail a sudden about-face in U.S. policy, but would require greater public recognition of others' pain and suffering. After all, we are now victims too -- and this gives us a common basis upon which to ask for their assistance in a common struggle against violence and terrorism.
I know that the calls for military action will grow in volume. And I share a sense of outrage against those who killed so many of our countrymen and women. But I want the campaign against bin Laden to succeed -- both in a practical and a moral sense. Battle cries like that of Sen. Zell Miller, who called on the U.S. Thursday to "bomb the hell out of Afghanistan" for harboring bin Laden, may make us feel momentarily elated. But in the long run, it is only the pursuit of justice that can secure a peaceful world. The best way to accomplish this is for the U.S. to treat bin Laden as a criminal fugitive, not an enemy of war.
salon.com
About the writer
Michael T. Klare is a professor of world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author of "Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict"
*****************************
Hatred is the best breeding ground for terrorism and the resulting vicious cycle of violence and revenge. Wisdom is the vicious cycles strongest enemy.
Justice, not Revenge.
NickLeeson
Guest
dg2000, should actually be 80/20 correctly, it's what's become known as the Pareto Principle that has proven its validity in a number of areas, Vilfredo Pareto was an economist in the late 1800's who studied distribution theory and advanced the theory of logarithmic wealth distribution which basically says that few account for most.
Translated to say input/output relationships you'll find that 80% of your quantifiable output will result from 20% of your input, etc.
Translated to say input/output relationships you'll find that 80% of your quantifiable output will result from 20% of your input, etc.
NickLeeson
Guest
Originally posted by shortnfool
Nick, good commentary.
Interesting articles on the origins of bin laden and his network etc... http://www.csmonitor.com/index.html
Here's another.... http://www.terrorism.com/index.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/commission.html
Short, thanks, and wow, great links.
Retaliation is trickier than Afghan terrain
People staying in Osama bin Laden's complex have been moving out to undisclosed locations, according to reports.
By Cameron W. Barr and Scott Peterson | Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor
JERUSALEM AND MOSCOW - A thousand years ago, a small Islamic sect called the Assassins used suicide attacks to terrorize Arab leaders and European crusaders for more than two centuries. The Assassins defied their enemies until a massive Mongol army wiped out their castle stronghold in the mountains of northern Persia.
The elusive Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden, who is in some ways a modern-day Assassin, is being increasingly identified as the architect of Tuesday's attacks on the US. Like the ancient sect, he vows to evict foreigners from the Middle East and favors mountain hideaways. Without specifically referring to Mr. bin Laden, Secretary of State Colin Powell promised Wednesday to launch a "multifaceted attack on many dimensions ... to bring this scourge [of terrorism] under control."
But analysts say that an American duplication of the Mongols' success will not be easy. If bin Laden is, indeed, the source of the attacks, US retribution is likely to be geographically complex and replete with risks that could lead to a wider war.
The main problem is that bin Laden is the head not of a country, or even a fortress, but of a network of hard-to-find militants and cells in the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and North America. The only nation that can be convincingly said to support him is Afghanistan, the war-torn, destitute country where he has lived since 1996.
"If [the attacks on the US] are linked directly to Osama bin Laden, the Afghans will be given an ultimatum to deliver him," says Mustafa Hamarneh, director of the Center for Strategic Studies in Jordan. "If they don't, the Americans and their allies will consider military action."
Afghanistan's leadership - the hardline Islamic Taliban militia - has already appealed to the US not "to put Afghanistan into more misery because our people have suffered so much," in the words of one spokesman.
NATO has already invoked a treaty provision that would allow it to assist the US and President Bush, and other officials have indicated they intend to assemble a broad coalition to face America's nearly invisible enemy. "I think it will be a replay of the Gulf war," Mr. Hamarneh adds, "except that it will be easier for the US ... to get Arab and Muslim countries on board against bin Laden and the Taliban" than it was to orchestrate regional support against Iraq.
But if the diplomacy is simpler, the logistics are not. "There's a danger in everything," says John Cooley, a journalist and the author of the book "Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism." "Suppose this is a composite job, with experts recruited from other organizations coming from all different countries. How do you retaliate?"
Arrests and investigations in recent years have demonstrated that bin Laden's organization includes Algerians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Palestinians, Saudis, and Yemenis. Some of their nations are among the closest friends of the US in the Middle East. One of the suspects identified in Tuesday's attack is a Saudi national who was trained as an airline pilot, and two hijackers were brothers who held passports from the United Arab Emirates. Analysts say there could have been as many as 50 people involved in the planning.
The Afghans, stricken by decades of conflict and impoverished by years of drought, would have little to lose in defying the West. Bin Laden, on the other hand, is said to provide financial and other resources to the Taliban, an ostracized group whose rule is only recognized by three nations.
Invading or occupying the country would prove difficult - Afghanistan is a rugged land whose fighters have defeated the imperial ambitions of several invading armies, including the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Any large military operation against Afghanistan would require the help of neighboring Pakistan, whose military intelligence service helped to create and train the Taliban. This critical connection is one reason why US diplomats have been working overtime, huddling with Pakistani officials yesterday and the day before to gain firm commitments of support.
"The Taliban are not exactly in one place. They are spread [out] in Kabul and Kandahar," Mr. Cooley says. "It would be a very messy operation, tracking them all down - let alone bin Laden's gang."
"It's like a bunch of grapes. Pick one grape, and the bunch remains," says the Western intelligence officer. "Each is a segment unto itself, but they're talking with each other. They're training together. They're working together for the same causes. Yet there's a protection in being separate."
Bin Laden is known to live with as many as 300 others in a sprawling housing complex in the southern Kandahar province. According to the Associated Press, several reports began to appear Wednesday that Arabs were moving out of the complex. Meanwhile, several Arab families in Kabul have been seen loading their belongings into vehicles and leaving.
There is little sympathy from bin Laden himself. An aide, who spoke by satellite telephone to Abu Dhabi television in Pakistan, quoted him as saying he had nothing to do with the attacks, which he said were "punishment from Allah."
For the moment, it seems that Afghanistan is No. One on the target list, simply by default. "It's very difficult to put your finger on a precise place where they can strike," says Esther Webmen, an Israeli historian who has recently studied bin Laden's organization, referring to those interested in retaliating for the attacks on the US. She adds: "Except Afghanistan."
Some American and Israeli analysts have speculated that Iraq may have assisted bin Laden, but the connection is unproven. "If they decide to go after Saddam Hussein as well, then we could have a big regional war on our hands," says Cooley.
The Russians have been supporting anti-Taliban Afghan guerrillas in the north for years, and new US support of this Northern Alliance with cash or other assistance could be part of the equation.
Any such support might recall Washington's covert backing of the Islamic mujahideen in Afghanistan. Backing of the Afghan fighters - bin Laden prominent among them - has resulted in years of instability there and in other countries.
Despite the proven risks of intervention, a military strike -and even US forces on the ground in Afghanistan -might receive only slight condemnation across the Islamic world, says Bashraheel Bashraheel, foreign editor of the Al-Ayyam newspaper in the port city of Aden, Yemen, where suicide bombers killed 17 American service personnel last October on an attack on the USS Cole. "Everybody here thinks that the Taliban has been harboring and protecting these guys for a long time, and that sooner or later the Taliban would be held responsible," says Mr. Bashraheel.
Jordan, Algeria and Yemen itself are all believed by Western intelligence sources to have bin Laden cells. But if no other nation is targeted, the view across the Arab world will be that any "punishment" will be deserved, he adds, "because the Taliban are so extreme."
"The idea of a worldwide coalition against terrorism is much better and more effective than one huge military strike, because these people are spread all around the world," adds Bashraheel. "Cutting off its head is not effective - it has to be a large, group effort by all countries to stop it."csmonitor.com
**********************************************
Hatred is the best breeding ground for terrorism and the resulting vicious cycle of violence and revenge. Wisdom is the vicious cycles strongest enemy.
Justice, not Revenge.
Nick-on the side-I (many) of us have shortnfool on our ignore lists so we cannot see his posts. He has proven to be an unworthy member of this site.----Nick you can produce all the articles you want. The truth(perhaps my truth) is that the world changed Sept 11th-and will never be the same. There is no way to fight THIS maniacal terrorism with talk and compromise. There is no surgical way of carving up this ememy. In fact the longer we pursue this couse of action the stronger their #'s will be-as they perceive us to be weak. I believe we must garner up the beast within us- to overwhelm the beast we face- to save our lives-lives of of families-the US. I don't have the answers--however-it seems to me that if one of these sub- humans-wherever he resides- realizes should he indiscriminately take american lives-we will immediately kill ALL his family members-then just maybe he'll think twice. I know we're providing free trips to paradise for them here-but I'm assuming not all of them have their bags packed and are ready to go. It's horrible-I just see no other way. They will not stop. Yes innocent lives will be taken-I just prefer them not to be american. I agree with Qwik -- we should pursue this with vigor.
NickLeeson
Guest
Limbo, I guess we started this discussion at an too early stage, when the hurt and shock and all were still too strong, I can accept that, in fact I believe that Jaan posted sthg along those lines in the other thread, that we need to let the grieving properly take place, but that we also need to try and steer things along lines of reason and measure to prevent too drastic consequences, I hope I paraphrased him more or less correctly here.
It's just when you take a closer look at history, a lot of things were started because of pain and hurt, but that very quickly spiralled out of all control and led to consequences that nobody had previously envisioned, and where eventually you reach a stage where the original crime is all but forgotten, but what's not forgotten is the enmity as such, then you get entire generations growing up that have very little idea of the original cause but that are socialised to learn that the "other" side is our "blood" enemy, and, hey presto, there you have your status quo cemented into reality and questioned by few, as in certain segments of the respective Israeli/Palestine populations. Both are convinced they're right, and the respective other side wrong, and that when fighting for their perceived and respective "right" the end starts legitimising all and every means, and perversely the question of wrong or right then becomes more important than ensuring a good and secure future for the coming generations based on the time honored principle of compromise, but that's actually what states and those that are elected for a limited period of time and given a mandate to lead them from the people should primarily be about in the first place, achieving real peace for their electorate, security is the most cherished objective of most people, if only you'd let them achieve that. Take democracies, democracies going to war are by far the exception, not the rule.
And that's just the very real danger I see here, I mean we're talking about almost one THIRD of the worlds population that's muslim but at this stage to the very largest extent NOT anti american, I'd say that most are just as horrified by this as the next person, and in fact most dislike the Taliban for their radicalism.
But, and that's the big caveat here, in times of trouble and anger, or when peoples subjectively believe that they are being discriminated against because of race, religion or beliefs, even if the originators of the initial crime were just a couple of bad apples that just happened to share their religious or whatever denomination, then they'll sooner or later start pulling together, and sometimes with a vengeance when the perceived pain gets too bad, even more so when they see absolutely no hope whatsoever for their personal future, sthg we want to prevent from occurring amongst muslims.
And that's why I also believe that the best thing the terrorists could hope for would be massive retaliatory actions from the West seen to be based more on a desire for revenge than justice, most in the international community including Islamic states would accept the latter justice but many would have problems with the former revenge, and if we do the former then we'd really be doing the terrorists job for them by recruiting new fanatics for them.
But that would pretty much be the worst case scenario for us.
I mean, whats our main objective? Ensuring the safety and security of American lives, right? And I'd say that one of the most effective ways of ensuring that is an equitable peace between Israel and Palestine, a future order seen to be as perhaps not perfect, but, and that's probably more important for most, seen as just and with good intentions based on true interests as opposed to stated positions, and with us as the honest and neutral broker who managed to constructively assist in achieving that.
That would really make us heroes, I mean, hey, it's definitely not going to be as easy as scribbling a posting here as you and I and many others have done, no question about that, but I sincerely believe that that is the best chance we've got. And if then we limit our animosity to bringing to justice the real culprits, if we're seen as being interested in doing the right and measured thing and not going on a gunslinging spree, well, then we'll definitely manage to keep the worlds support for that and be able to continue to build on establishing the new world order we still haven't quite found after the end of the Cold War just a decade ago.
Well, anyway, I'm gonna cut down on the articles, just let me add this one here about the Kamikaze mind set of these terrorists.
As this is apparently too long I'll post it in the next one.
It's just when you take a closer look at history, a lot of things were started because of pain and hurt, but that very quickly spiralled out of all control and led to consequences that nobody had previously envisioned, and where eventually you reach a stage where the original crime is all but forgotten, but what's not forgotten is the enmity as such, then you get entire generations growing up that have very little idea of the original cause but that are socialised to learn that the "other" side is our "blood" enemy, and, hey presto, there you have your status quo cemented into reality and questioned by few, as in certain segments of the respective Israeli/Palestine populations. Both are convinced they're right, and the respective other side wrong, and that when fighting for their perceived and respective "right" the end starts legitimising all and every means, and perversely the question of wrong or right then becomes more important than ensuring a good and secure future for the coming generations based on the time honored principle of compromise, but that's actually what states and those that are elected for a limited period of time and given a mandate to lead them from the people should primarily be about in the first place, achieving real peace for their electorate, security is the most cherished objective of most people, if only you'd let them achieve that. Take democracies, democracies going to war are by far the exception, not the rule.
And that's just the very real danger I see here, I mean we're talking about almost one THIRD of the worlds population that's muslim but at this stage to the very largest extent NOT anti american, I'd say that most are just as horrified by this as the next person, and in fact most dislike the Taliban for their radicalism.
But, and that's the big caveat here, in times of trouble and anger, or when peoples subjectively believe that they are being discriminated against because of race, religion or beliefs, even if the originators of the initial crime were just a couple of bad apples that just happened to share their religious or whatever denomination, then they'll sooner or later start pulling together, and sometimes with a vengeance when the perceived pain gets too bad, even more so when they see absolutely no hope whatsoever for their personal future, sthg we want to prevent from occurring amongst muslims.
And that's why I also believe that the best thing the terrorists could hope for would be massive retaliatory actions from the West seen to be based more on a desire for revenge than justice, most in the international community including Islamic states would accept the latter justice but many would have problems with the former revenge, and if we do the former then we'd really be doing the terrorists job for them by recruiting new fanatics for them.
But that would pretty much be the worst case scenario for us.
I mean, whats our main objective? Ensuring the safety and security of American lives, right? And I'd say that one of the most effective ways of ensuring that is an equitable peace between Israel and Palestine, a future order seen to be as perhaps not perfect, but, and that's probably more important for most, seen as just and with good intentions based on true interests as opposed to stated positions, and with us as the honest and neutral broker who managed to constructively assist in achieving that.
That would really make us heroes, I mean, hey, it's definitely not going to be as easy as scribbling a posting here as you and I and many others have done, no question about that, but I sincerely believe that that is the best chance we've got. And if then we limit our animosity to bringing to justice the real culprits, if we're seen as being interested in doing the right and measured thing and not going on a gunslinging spree, well, then we'll definitely manage to keep the worlds support for that and be able to continue to build on establishing the new world order we still haven't quite found after the end of the Cold War just a decade ago.
Well, anyway, I'm gonna cut down on the articles, just let me add this one here about the Kamikaze mind set of these terrorists.
As this is apparently too long I'll post it in the next one.
NickLeeson
Guest
The kamikaze factor
There was nothing high-tech about this week's suicide attacks. Their terror was psychological, not technological.
By Scott Rosenberg
Sept. 13, 2001 | My jaw dropped as I read the words of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, describing the "super-empowered angry people" responsible for this week's terror attacks: "What makes them super-empowered... is their genius at using the networked world, the Internet and the very high technology they hate to attack us."
Let's see: Are these the same attackers who used box cutters and plastic knives to carry out their mission? Whose ultimate weapons of choice were commercial jet airliners filled with fuel -- a technology nearly a half-century old?
There was nothing high-tech about Tuesday's attacks, and that is one of the many reasons they were so profoundly unnerving. The first megadisaster of the 21st century wasn't the result of germ-war attack or microexplosive. Even mentioning "high-tech" in the context of this story is bizarre -- and one reflection of the confusion and muddled thinking that continues to characterize the dialogue in the U.S. about this "new terrorism."
Perhaps the terrorists used the Internet to communicate -- so far, there's no hard information. Maybe they used cellphones. So what? They could have used cups connected with strings. If they were determined enough, they could have plotted and carried out Tuesday's attacks even if the Internet never existed.
What ultimately matters isn't how these conspirators communicated but what they were prepared to do. The single most important fact about them is not technological but psychological, and it is something Americans continue to be in deep denial about: These people were willing, even eager, to die. That -- not any trouble monitoring their e-mail -- is what blindsided us, and that's something the United States is simply ill-prepared to face.
According to the most recent information, three to six men boarded each of four airliners on Tuesday to execute their vicious plan. That means a minimum of 12 to 24 people accepted, with what we can only imagine was alacrity, their own certain death as part of their plot. None of our airline safety plans and hijacking scenarios imagined such a ghastly possibility.
This sacrificial passion is what every American policymaker and security expert and law enforcement official must now come to grips with. All our policies and strategies assume that any threats we face come from either lone madmen or organized groups of calculating fanatics. What we should now begin to fathom is that we face, in effect, organized groups of madmen. How do we defend ourselves against that? I don't know, but it's what our leaders better start thinking about.
We may not yet know the terrorists' precise names or nations of origin, but if they are Islamic true believers, as all signs now point, we do know something about their beliefs. We know that their version of Islam is one that, cruelly and deceptively, takes uneducated young men and promises them a glorious afterlife if they are willing to destroy their lives today. Apparently, according to some accounts, there are even voluptuous handmaidens in this martyrs' paradise. (The reports filtering back to this planet are a little sketchy, but that detail seems to surface in every one.)
Americans, understandably, have a hard time getting their heads around this. We are a nation built on Enlightenment values, on faith in reason and on inexorable material progress. Our corporations promise we'll be waited on by voluptuous handmaidens if we buy the right brand of car, but our religions are more circumspect and abstract about the rewards the next life could bring. And when we wage war, even though we have sometimes been callous with the lives of enemy civilians or bystanders, we prize the lives of our own fighters. "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" ("It is sweet and fitting to die for the fatherland") may be a Western phrase dating back to Horace, but it's more of an after-the-fact consolation than a recruiting tool. We have never embraced suicide as a strategy.
So before we unleash the kind of conventional war that Washington is beginning to talk about, before we lash out in understandable rage, let's pause to look ahead. What's the smartest way to preserve our lives and freedom in the face of attackers who don't care about their own? That's the yardstick we need to apply from now on to every proposed new airline regulation, every diplomatic maneuver or economic sanction, every possible bombing or invasion.
President Bush keeps saying the attacks were an act of war, leaving the nation to wonder: Who is the enemy? We know that our foes do not care about such niceties of international law as "acts of war." And we know that our enemies are killing themselves and will no doubt keep killing themselves if they know they can keep hurting us. The more casualties that result from our superpower fury, the bombing raids and invasions now being weighed in councils of state, the happier they will be, because our fury will swell their ranks and fuel their rhetoric of martyrdom.
The real enemy is unreason. And our most important task in coming days, as we pursue the inevitable and justified retaliation, is to make sure that the enemy does not become us. Sacrificing our own reason in the face of a mad enemy is just another way to give up.
salon.com
Let's all do our little thing to make things a little better in the future. Who is it here who's got the signature, Love is the greatest strength, or sthg along those lines, well, I agree.
Anyway, have a peaceful weekend, all.
There was nothing high-tech about this week's suicide attacks. Their terror was psychological, not technological.
By Scott Rosenberg
Sept. 13, 2001 | My jaw dropped as I read the words of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, describing the "super-empowered angry people" responsible for this week's terror attacks: "What makes them super-empowered... is their genius at using the networked world, the Internet and the very high technology they hate to attack us."
Let's see: Are these the same attackers who used box cutters and plastic knives to carry out their mission? Whose ultimate weapons of choice were commercial jet airliners filled with fuel -- a technology nearly a half-century old?
There was nothing high-tech about Tuesday's attacks, and that is one of the many reasons they were so profoundly unnerving. The first megadisaster of the 21st century wasn't the result of germ-war attack or microexplosive. Even mentioning "high-tech" in the context of this story is bizarre -- and one reflection of the confusion and muddled thinking that continues to characterize the dialogue in the U.S. about this "new terrorism."
Perhaps the terrorists used the Internet to communicate -- so far, there's no hard information. Maybe they used cellphones. So what? They could have used cups connected with strings. If they were determined enough, they could have plotted and carried out Tuesday's attacks even if the Internet never existed.
What ultimately matters isn't how these conspirators communicated but what they were prepared to do. The single most important fact about them is not technological but psychological, and it is something Americans continue to be in deep denial about: These people were willing, even eager, to die. That -- not any trouble monitoring their e-mail -- is what blindsided us, and that's something the United States is simply ill-prepared to face.
According to the most recent information, three to six men boarded each of four airliners on Tuesday to execute their vicious plan. That means a minimum of 12 to 24 people accepted, with what we can only imagine was alacrity, their own certain death as part of their plot. None of our airline safety plans and hijacking scenarios imagined such a ghastly possibility.
This sacrificial passion is what every American policymaker and security expert and law enforcement official must now come to grips with. All our policies and strategies assume that any threats we face come from either lone madmen or organized groups of calculating fanatics. What we should now begin to fathom is that we face, in effect, organized groups of madmen. How do we defend ourselves against that? I don't know, but it's what our leaders better start thinking about.
We may not yet know the terrorists' precise names or nations of origin, but if they are Islamic true believers, as all signs now point, we do know something about their beliefs. We know that their version of Islam is one that, cruelly and deceptively, takes uneducated young men and promises them a glorious afterlife if they are willing to destroy their lives today. Apparently, according to some accounts, there are even voluptuous handmaidens in this martyrs' paradise. (The reports filtering back to this planet are a little sketchy, but that detail seems to surface in every one.)
Americans, understandably, have a hard time getting their heads around this. We are a nation built on Enlightenment values, on faith in reason and on inexorable material progress. Our corporations promise we'll be waited on by voluptuous handmaidens if we buy the right brand of car, but our religions are more circumspect and abstract about the rewards the next life could bring. And when we wage war, even though we have sometimes been callous with the lives of enemy civilians or bystanders, we prize the lives of our own fighters. "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" ("It is sweet and fitting to die for the fatherland") may be a Western phrase dating back to Horace, but it's more of an after-the-fact consolation than a recruiting tool. We have never embraced suicide as a strategy.
So before we unleash the kind of conventional war that Washington is beginning to talk about, before we lash out in understandable rage, let's pause to look ahead. What's the smartest way to preserve our lives and freedom in the face of attackers who don't care about their own? That's the yardstick we need to apply from now on to every proposed new airline regulation, every diplomatic maneuver or economic sanction, every possible bombing or invasion.
President Bush keeps saying the attacks were an act of war, leaving the nation to wonder: Who is the enemy? We know that our foes do not care about such niceties of international law as "acts of war." And we know that our enemies are killing themselves and will no doubt keep killing themselves if they know they can keep hurting us. The more casualties that result from our superpower fury, the bombing raids and invasions now being weighed in councils of state, the happier they will be, because our fury will swell their ranks and fuel their rhetoric of martyrdom.
The real enemy is unreason. And our most important task in coming days, as we pursue the inevitable and justified retaliation, is to make sure that the enemy does not become us. Sacrificing our own reason in the face of a mad enemy is just another way to give up.
salon.com
Let's all do our little thing to make things a little better in the future. Who is it here who's got the signature, Love is the greatest strength, or sthg along those lines, well, I agree.
Anyway, have a peaceful weekend, all.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.