X-Message-Number: 17585
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 14:11:06 -0700
From: Kennita Watson <>
Subject: Re: Terrorism discussion from cryonet 9/15/2001
References: <>
> From: "John de Rivaz" <>
> Subject: Terrorism as "God's work"
>
> I am glad Mike Perry raised the "God's Work" issue.
>
> The thought that someone could deliberately train for 5 years for an event
> in which he sacrifices his own life for a cause is incredible. Rather than
> military counterstrikes, where most of those killed would have had nothing
> to do with it, I think that a long standing campaign using the entertainment
> media subtlely to remove the concept of the "noble sacrifice" from the human
> mind set would be a much more effective counter to suicide terrorism.
Counterstrikes and a media campaign are not the only options.
Thank goodness for that.
Counterstrikes would kill many people who knew nothing about
the WTC attack until after it happened. As such they would
play directly into the terrorists' hands. The "free world"
has no stomach for killing noncombatants in a war, so as soon
as the first Afghani peasant is killed, support for a war
will start to crumble.
A media campaign sounds noble, and definitely would make a
good part of a long-term solution, but won't solve our
immediate problems. First, even the most widespread media
campaign won't reach everyone, and certainly not immediately
(Rand made an end run around this in _Atlas Shrugged_ by
giving John Galt the ability to take over all airwaves at
once). Second, even if everyone hears, everyone won't
listen, understand, and concur. Not everyone knows English,
not everyone likes the same kinds of music, not everyone is
openminded enough to let the ideas in -- not everyone is
even intelligent enough to understand the concepts involved.
This is all on top of not having time to listen to, or
energy to act on, a media campaign when you struggle every
day to have enough to eat.
> The idea that anyone who sacrifices his life fighting for the cause
> automatically goes to heaven
> is one of the most destructive mind-viruses with which humanity is
> contaminated. If it were possible to get all the major religious leaders to
> withdraw religious services until people start behaving properly, it would
> get the message across.
1) How do you propose to get them to do that?
2) I don't think the terrorists depend on "major religious
leaders" for their services; they have their own, who are
just as fanatical as they are.
3) If a religious leader withdrew religious services, the
people would be suffering for something most of them had
nothing to do with; not as dramatic as bombing, but
unjust nevertheless.
> I am also disturbed by the production of films such as "Air Force One"
> turning such events into entertainment. I know the story of "Air Force One"
> was fiction, but it must play its part in indoctrinating people into this
> "sacrifice mode".
Personally, I found it the opposite, showing the futility of
that mode in the face of committed defense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> From:
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:34:27 EDT
> Subject: Proper response to terrorism
>
> The first thing we need to do is get rid of all US-generated terrorism
> against innocent civilians. Our blockade against the poor of Iraq ... is a
> case in point, which we are now duplicating by trying to force Pakistan to
> cut off food and fuel for the poor of Afghanistan. Blockades selectively kill
> children and the powerless...
> On the other side, we need to actually fight terrorism, not just try to
> make it look like the government is doing something by putting on ludicrous
> "security" measures like banning silverware in airports. I think one idea
> that might actually help is arming the flight crews and attendants...
Hear, hear! I've even heard it suggested that anyone with a CCW be
allowed to carry, but that would be harder to sell.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 06:42:28 +0800 (CST)
> From: =?big5?q?kurt2100kimo?= <>
> Subject: Mike darwin and Islam
...
> I will say one thing about Ettinger's response to
> Mike. I may not like Mike's personality and disagree
> with some of his methods. But to question his
> commitment to progress, freedom, and capitalism is way
> off base.
He's one of my favorite curmudgeons :-) .
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: "George Smith" <>
> Subject: The nuclear option and the future.
> Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 16:17:19 -0700
>
> In Message #17552 John Grigg wrote in part:
>
> > George, your belief that a nuclear strike is the way to go not only scares
> > me, but also deeply offends me.
>
> What nonsense. My assessment is that a low yield tactical nuclear strike is
> very likely....
>
> However if you are offended that I would be completely willing to see
> millions of people die who wish to kill me and those I love, then go ahead
> and be offended....
It's not the deaths of the thousands of people who wish to kill me
and those I love that I mind; it's the deaths of the millions who
never wished me any harm and are minding their own business.
>
> And by the way TENS of thousands died already. The World Trade Center
> commonly holds 50,000 people. If that matters. (And it does matter very,
> very much).
I guess you haven't watched enough TV. As of noon Sunday there
were 180 confirmed dead and 5097 missing (I presume they are dead,
but hope keeps the workers going). Even added to the dead from the
planes and the Pentagon, that's around 6000 -- not that that's to
be made light of, but it's not "tens of thousands" -- please don't
spread misinformation.
Lest you think that makes no sense, note that the buildings *can*
hold 50,000; there were about 25,000 inside when the attack
struck. And the first plane struck very high up (about the 90th
floor. I saw an interview with someone from that high up, saying
["I saw the plane go by me and the floor opened up under me...
It's a miracle that I'm speaking to you...". I've seen other
interviews from people who were on 78 and 76. So at least from
that building, thousands were evacuated before it collapsed. There
would be somewhat fewer from the other building, because it was hit
at around floor 70 and collapsed sooner, but still many escaped. My
kudos to the designers, who built it well enough to remain standing
so long, and who designed it to collapse rather than topple.
>
> I simply do not see how this can be accomplished with conventional armaments
> we no longer have at this time.
> ...
> I also doubt that a repeat of the Gulf War style bombings and troop
> movements would be (1) shocking enough nor (2) effective enough especially
> in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan. The Soviet Union couldn't do it.
I think what it will take is not bombs but rifles, and not armies
but strike forces. I don't expect the US military to get this; I
hope they do.
> The very fact that people feel as you do, that nuclear weapons are so
> terrifying, is precisely why a nuclear strike would be so very useful at
> this time. Terror must meet terrorism to defeat it.
Um, no. What descending to the level of the enemy would accomplish
is to destroy a military alliance of a scope greater than I would
have imagined possible. I think it will take the cooperation of
the democratic nations (and some non-democratic ones -- even Castro
is on this bandwagon!) of the world to make significant headway
against terrorism.
> We must behave as a Bull Ape to intimidate the other apes.
These are thinking apes on a holy mission. Stomping about roaring
and beating our chests will merely strengthen their resolve,
especially if we stomp women and children in the process.
> A nuclear strike would terrorize the terrorists. If would fight fire with
> fire.
To my mind, extinguishing fires before they erupt into flames
will work better. Diplomacy and forces dispatched to each
operating cell we discover, appropriate to the size of the cell,
will net us a) more goodwill with observing nations, and b)
maybe even a few prisoners and some information we can use.
Not a sure thing, but it's hard to interrogate a crater.
> ...
> If the United States indicates by its actions that if the US is attacked we
> will make a nuclear strike on a city in the identified harboring nation, the
> other governments of the world would themselves root out the potential
> threat to their survival by fighting against the terrorists they formerly
> tolerated or assisted.
I think our words to the effect that we would treat any country
harboring terrorists as though they were terrorists themselves
has already brought some people around on that score. We're the
big kids on the block, and I think the world knows that Bush
ain't just whistlin' Dixie.
> ...
> These people are intent on destroying our technological civilization just as
> we are on the brink of physical immortality and space migration. They are
> the enemies of humanity and the future.
>
> Like it or not, it's them or us. 100%.
>
> If we do NOT swat them down HARD this will be viewed BY them as further
> evidence of their assessment that we are morally weak ...
Yes, but you don't swat bugs with a bazooka, or even a 10-pound
sledge, especially in your friend's house (or your own). We need
to use much more precise weapons, and to train people to use
them.
> ...
> We must terrorize the terrorists.
>
> We must be more "suicidal" than they are.
>
> It must be civilization or nothing.
Boy, am I glad that you're not Commander in Chief.
>
> It takes time to organize effective large scale terrorist attacks whether
> using conventional, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. When you
> assassinate the leadership it meaningfully delays terrorism. This is a
> strategic fact which has been demonstrated repeatedly.
Assassinate, yes. Bomb, no. Bombing can make enemies of parties
who were previously neutral or friendly. And survivors flee to
other countries with even greater hatred in their hearts.
>
> Terrorists are not cloned in laboratories. They have families, friends and
> a culture. When these are threatened with total extinction the terrorists
> will be defeated.
I think they know that the world wouldn't follow us that far.
>
> It has been proven to work before if we will learn from history.
Terrorists learn too. For example, they will have learned how
not to be defeated in the same ways as before, and (gadzooks, I've
been doing this for four hours -- I'll leave that argument for
now).... Suffice it to say, George, that I think nuclear weapons are
a *bad* idea, and that taking a combative, almost desperate, tone
about it raises your blood pressure, which isn't healthy.
--
May you live long and prosper,
Kennita
--
Kennita Watson | Way Cool Internet Radio: http://www.live365.com
|
http://www.kennita.com | Great Minds Think Alive! -- Lee Corbin
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17585