[mangore]

Bernie Ward Interview Phyllis Bennis, head of the Middle East Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Bennis: . . . crisis when we escalate the patterns of more and more and
more violence.

Ward: At this point in time most Americans would say how could they
escalate it, I mean, if you didn't respond militarily, wouldn't that be
worse than in fact responding?

Bennis: Well, I think the very worst thing would be responding
militarily to the wrong country, as the U.S. has been known to do, not
too long ago, in fact, when it knocked out a vaccine company in the
Sudan claiming that it was tied to Bin Laden and only six months later
saying, whoops, I guess we got the wrong place. And in fact, settled
with the owner of that factory for having destroyed it, not to mention
destroyed the one factory in central Africa that was producing crucial
vaccines for children in that impoverished part of the world. So we have
to be very careful. And yes, I think it would be worse to respond
militarily than to be cautious and to say let's use this to do what is
so difficult at a moment like this, when we're horrified by the human
toll, the human tragedy, to say let's stop for a moment and think about
why is it that people around the world, so many people, are starting to
hate symbols of the U.S. as symbols of oppression.

Ward: Well, now you know that you are in a huge minority tonight when
you suggest that one of the things we ought to take from this is to ask
the question of why committed terrorism against the United States to
begin with, and most Americans are simply going to say, "Who cares?"
most Americans are going to say, "It was whoever it was and we're going
to go get them," and most Americans at least in the polls already that
have been released, say that our support for Israel is very crucial and
that, you know, this is just going to solidify . . . you, you are in a
huge minority when you suggest that part of what happened today might be
connected to foreign policy decisions that we have made in other parts
of the world.

Bennis: But, you know what Bernie, you may be right that I am in a
minority, but I think these words have to be said. We've had too many
years of experience of answering these kinds of attacks with more
violence. And you know what? It hasn't worked. If we're serious about
ending attacks like this, we have to go to the root causes.

Ward: And what are the root causes?

Bennis: To me it's a question of the arrogance of the U.S., the policies
around the world, not only in the Middle East, although that's obviously
a big component, but our policies of abandoning international law,
dissing the United Nations, refusing to sign conventions and
international treaties that we demand everybody else in the world sign
on to, whether it's the prohibition against anti-personnel land mines,
support for the international criminal court, the convention on the
rights of the child, for God sakes that should be a no-brainer, only the
U.S. and Somalia have refused that one, you know, when countries around
the world and people around the world look at this, not to mention the
most recent stuff about abandoning the Kyoto treaty, threatening to
throw out the ABM Treaty, that's been the cornerstone of arms control
for, you know, twenty-five years, they say, "Who is this country? Why do
they think they're so much better than everybody else in the world just
because they have a bigger army?"

Ward: So do we deserve what happened to us today?
Bennis: No, no one deserves what happened. There's no justification. . .

Ward: Did we ask for it?

Bennis: The question is: How do we stop it? The question is how do we
stop it. And military strikes are not going to stop it.
Ward: All right. So the example of terrorism certainly is if we look at
Israel, the example is that when you respond with violence for violence
it does not stop the terrorism.

Bennis: Absolutely right.

Ward: And in fact we saw for the first time yesterday or the day before
an Arab Israeli citizen who committed a suicide bombing, meaning
obviously that even buffers between them and the West Bank aren't going
to make any difference one way or the other.
Bennis: Right. Ending occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and East
Jerusalem might make some difference. But certainly what isn't working
is responding with more violence.

Ward: But aren't the extremists, Osama Bin Laden has declared war on
this country, , there's an interesting article in Salon.com about how
this is a very different kind of terrorism than the terrorism of the
P.L.O. and Black September and others in the sixties and the seventies
and the eighties, that they see this as a war of attrition, that if they
can wear down the American people, if they can get them so worried about
this that they'll be willing to make compromises. Is it a war? Is that
an accurate term today?
Bennis: I don't know if it's a very useful term. Again, we don't know
that this was Osama Bin Laden having anything to do with the events of
today. I think that we have to be a little bit cautious when we hear
U.S. officials and former U.S. officials, as we've been hearing all day
tonight, talking as if, number one, they knew it was Osama Bin Laden,
number two, that this is what Henry Kissinger and so many others today
have said is just like Pearl Harbor and the U.S. should respond . . .

Ward: Yeah. I don't like that analogy and I can't tell you why I don't
like it, but I don't like it.

Bennis: I'll tell you one reason why maybe you don't like it, and it's
one of the reasons I don't like it either. It's that one of the first
things the U.S. did after Pearl Harbor was to round up all the
Japanese-American citizens and put them in concentration camps - in this
country. Now I hope that that's not what anyone in the U.S. is thinking
about when they talk about responding the way we did to Pearl Harbor.
But it's a very dangerous precedent. We've already heard about death
threats against Arab Americans and Muslim organizations in the U.S. That
kind of hysteria is already on the rise. And we have to be very cautious
and conscious about the dangers of that. We have to be very cautious
when we hear someone like James Baker, the former Secretary of State,
claiming that he thinks there would be ninety-nine to one hundred
percent support across the U.S., that's what he said today, for "taking
out" a person who heads an organization like Bin Laden's and getting rid
of the legal prohibitions against that.

Ward: Well, I think that's going to go, to be quite honest with you, I
think there's going to be legislation maybe even as early as tomorrow to
eliminate that or get rid of that prohibition against assassinations.

Bennis: You may be right. But I think that we can guarantee it's not
going to work. It's not going to stop events like this.
Ward: Let me put you into a bigger minority.
Bennis: O.K.

Ward: Make the case for why the U.S. would be so hated in the Middle
East.

Bennis: I think it's hated in the Middle East because, number one, it's
uncritical support to the tune of between three and five billion dollars
a year in unconditional support to Israeli occupation, including
providing the helicopter gunships, the F-16s, the missiles that are
fired from the gunships, that are used to enforce that occupation. It's
hated, number two, because it has armed these, these, repressive Arab
regimes throughout the region, in Saudi Arabia, In Egypt, in Jordan,
throughout the region, that have suppressed their own people, that have
taken either oil money or arms to build absolute monarchies in which
citizens have no rights and where the U.S. claims to support
democratization of every government in the world, don't seem to apply
when the U.S. seems to think it's fine when one absolute monarch dies
and passes on the baton to his son, you see every U.S. official and all
of their European and other Western allies flocking to the funeral to
say "The King is dead, long live the new King." We see it in Saudi
Arabia, we see it in Morocco, in Jordan, throughout the region. And
there's enormous resentment of that kind of support. So those two
sectors alone, support for the Israeli occupation and the arming of
these repressive Arab regimes is enough. Now that doesn't even get to
the question of the impact of U.S. imposed sanctions on the civilian
population of Iraq, the bombing of Iraq, that's been going on for ten
years now, all of these are things that have dropped off the radar
screen of the media coverage in the U.S. but are very much front and
center in Arab consciousness in the region.

Ward: Would you be surprised if I told you a poll has come out in which
a very large majority of Americans say they're willing to give up civil
liberties in order to "fight terrorism," and that there may be
legislation introduced in Congress tomorrow to in some cases suspend
habeas corpus and other things in the cause of fighting terrorism?

Bennis: Would I be surprised? No. Because I think too many people in
this country have been misled by politicians and by the media to think
that somehow that's going to work. That if you have more profiling based
on race and ethnicity, if you identify Arabs and don't let them on
planes, if you do what the multi-agency task force in 1987 and 1988
tried to do, which was to actually round up citizens of seven Arab
countries plus Iran on a preventive basis and put them in a
concentration camp in Oakdale, Louisiana. It would not be surprising
that that's something very much on the minds of policy-makers. It would
be, I hope you're wrong to say that it would be supported by most people
in this country, but unfortunately I could understand why it might be
because of that misleading, what I would call propaganda, that has led
people to think that somehow that would work, that that would make
people safer, that if you didn't allow Arabs on the airplanes, somehow
it would be safe to fly. You know, this is the kind of illusion that is
bred by racism. And it's a very dangerous tendency in this country. And
I do hope that we don't have our political leadership in Washington
tomorrow or next week moving towards this kind of an approach ostensibly
as a way of providing safety for American citizens.

Ward: Phyllis Bennis, I really appreciate this. I hope we can keep in
touch and maybe invite you back on again.
Bennis: I look forward to it.

-fin-

Sorry for the long post, take what you will of it. Bennis makes some strong points.
Think different.

[jeffhot]

Thank you very much for posting that level headed discussion. One day when I am old and wise I will say things eloquently and with supporting facts like that, so that I don't just start hissy fights like I mostly did here.

Nice interview. Anyone gonna argue with that?

[Joshua]

Altering out foreign policy to accomodate those who perpetrated this act of mass murder would, essentially, validate their actions. Do you wish to live in a nation that accepts mass civilian murder as a valid form of political lobbying?

[jeffhot]

Okay, a lot of people are saying that rather than take terrorist action these people should have used diplomatic channels and the like.

Well don't you think maybe they tried that? The United States stifles all criticisms that are directed at its policy decisions. Especially those from overseas. Go ahead and think that no one is protesting anything the United States does, just because you don't see it on the evening news. You will, of course, be wrong.


The next point that everyone makes is about letting the terrorists "win" by changing our foreign policy. To that I would respond that we are not playing a tennis match here. There is no "winning" and "losing". If we stop terrorist attacks by changing foreign policy, haven't we both "won"? The goal is not to win, but to stop violence and death and all other forms of injustice, correct?

[mangore]

Joshua-

Of course I don't want to live in a nation that accepts mass civilian murder as political lobbying. I want the blood of whoever was behind this most horrible act as much as many of you. I do, however, think we should be extremely careful in our actions, and afterwards perhaps put some thought into WHY this happened and why we're a hated country to innumerable people. The above interview states just a few reasons why, and I don't doubt others have been covered up beyond discovery.

Jeff-

Good points in your last post.

[MikeM32]

nonhuman is 100% correct. If we just roll over and take it up the you-know-what, we'll just become the worlds bi_ch.

What if we just rolled over when Japan struck Pearl Harbor? We'd be an extension of the Japanese Empire right now.

Jeff I know you wish the best, but the fact is retaliation must be taken, even at the cost of more retaliation from whoever is behind this. I'm not certain you've thought this out too well yourself. We don't live in this surrealistic world you have painted.

Do you truly believe changes in foriegn policy will prevent these sorts of things from happening? Have you seen what these heathens did? Assuming you did, what makes you believe these people would be reasonable at all?

Now lets examine your concepts here a bit. Can I deny the United States has assisted certain sides in other countries? No, but here's the reality of that. These countries we assist are waging wars. During a true war people are prepared to die. Soldiers kill the other sides soldiers, and yes some innocent lives are also taken due to these actions. But the sides are clearly defined, and there's no mistaking a man chasing you down with a rifle.

This was not an example of some army attempting to invade Manhattan and Washington D.C.. This was not some group of warplanes dropping bombs on a Military Installation alone where service men are prepared to die for thier country every single day of thier military careers. This was the deliberate murder of thousands of innocent people. These people were working or visiting the observation deck of the WTC. These people were going about thier everyday lives. Unlike many at the pentagon situation (which is also inexcusable), these were not soldiers who took an oath to defend (and possibly die for) thier country. These were innocent people.

When someone is obviously coming after you, you have a chance to fight or flee. When your'e in the military out in the field, you know your'e in danger, you know what the enemy looks like, and you know you could die. When you board a civilian airliner your'e not expecting to be hijacked in the name of someone elses god. Your'e not expecting to die as your captors decide to slam your flight into a building. Your'e not planning on dieing for someone elses beliefs, and you don't want to. When your'e at work getting a cup of coffee on your break you're not expecting a hijacked 767 to kill you.

There's a vast difference between terrorism and war. What we saw yesterday was raw and underhanded "toss the cherry bomb in the High School mens room sh_tter and run away before it explodes" terrorism. These heathens don't care about your life. We must now wage a full blown war of possibly nuclear proportions (hey it worked in Nagasaki and Hiroshima). We must show these people that we will not have thier belief system imposed on our innocent citizens and that we do care.

Put simply No we can't roll over and say "thank you may I have another". We go in, we take action. And we take enough action to send the message. The time for a peaceful resolution is over with here. Those responsible never attempted to negotiate with us. What makes anyone think they ever would?

I won't drone on and on about my having been in the service or the fact that my Father volunteered for the Army Air Corps in WW2 or that I've got an Uncle who was at Pearl Harbor. I'm not just some die hard patriot, I'm not 100% happy with everything in the United States 100% of the time.

But I certainly pray that you and I and everyone here is never forced to defend ourselves against foriegn aggression when it starts beating down our doors, raping and killing our wives and children and destroying our cities and schools.

You can take action or you can just roll-over.

Mike

[BRussell]

Originally posted by jeffhot:
<STRONG>The United States stifles all criticisms that are directed at its policy decisions. Especially those from overseas. Go ahead and think that no one is protesting anything the United States does, just because you don't see it on the evening news. You will, of course, be wrong.</STRONG>

What are you talking about? The US is probably the most-protested country in the world, both overseas and at home. Did you watch the news about Bush's trip to Europe several weeks back? They talked as much about the protests and the disagreements between the US and Europe as anything else.

Just because someone protests the US, does that mean we should change? Should the goal of our foreign policy be to do the right thing, or to make everyone like us?

I personally think our support of Israel is right, and our involvement in the Middle East is a good thing. You may disagree.

But to base our foreign policy on being liked by protestors (not to mention terrorists, extremists, and anti-American fanatics) is wrong. And to take these terrorist acts as evidence that our foreign policy must be changed is very wrong.

[3.1416]

If we stop terrorist attacks by changing foreign policy, haven't we both "won"?

What you suggest won't stop terrorist attacks, it will encourage them. It will announce to the world that the most effective way to manipulate U.S. foreign policy is to murder innocent Americans.

[chingwei]

For what it's worth, jeffhot, I am with you...I can't believe the proportions of people's opinions here...thought I should chime in support...

Just as a point of discussion, to those who are crying out for the blood of whoever did this...to show others who might dare to do something like this again that they will be destroyed...do you think they really care?

When you are talking about people who are willing to give up there lives for a cause, it becomes really hard to deter people using such tactics, doesn't it? What can you do? The biggest threat anyone can ever make is to take away someone's life, but if that someone doesn't care about his/her life, then that's kind of an interesting situation, isn't it? What can you do beyond threatening to kill someone?

Like all of you, I've sat down trying to think what we should do to prevent this happening again. The first thought that came into my head, of course, was, eliminate the problem, catch the villains, bring them to justice. But while jail or death might be the just thing to do, would it actually deter future attacks? Again, I'm sure any would-be terrorists wouldn't mind being killed. So, what then? I think the only solution is not to eliminate all our enemies (which will only keep coming back), but to try to not have any enemies. Remove the reasons for people to hate us (and they do).

OK, this is impossible, to have no enemies. We can't make all 7 billion people on earth happy, that is true...but it is my belief that we can certainly make a whole lot more people happy than are happy with us right now. We should try not to think of only the extremes: "If we don't hunt down and kill all the people who did this, what should we do, bow down to them and give them flowers?", "If we want to be a little nicer in the international arena, should we just roll over and be the world's b_tch and do what everyone tells us to do?" C'mon, that's not what people are talking about.

More later...

Sincerely,
Ching-Wei

[Millennium]

Jeffhot, are you saying the views of the United States are invalid? That is what you imply, by saying that we should do just what anyone else wants us to do, because, why, they must be right and we must be wrong 'cause they don't have as much as we do.

We have as much right to our values as they have to theirs. We have a right to sign whatever treaties we want. We also have the right not to sign whatever treaties we want, if we believe they are unfair. That is what has happened here, in the case of treaties like Kyoto (based on unsound science, and grossly imbalanced to screw the US over), the rights of the child (a great idea, but wherre is the money going to come from?), support for the ICC (undermining the rights of nations and transferring far too much power to far too small a group), and such.

I'm sorry. The US is protested all over the place, sometimes for justifiable reasons, sometimes not. But if it weren't the US taking this crap, you'd scream of persecution of a pariah state. Why, then, do you hold us to this double-standard?

[nkylin]

I am sorry if I am repeating anything that anyone else has said, but I had to reply.

I worry that if the United States pulls out of all foreign policy (which is what would have to happen to not piss anyone else off) there would be grave consequences.
Imagine bin Laden getting his way; the U.S. lets his groups do what they want. Where will they stop. They take over areas which they want in the Middle East. Then they continue to Europe. This will eventually spill over to the U.S. They will not stop if we do not stop them. They will continue until they have everything their way. If we do not show that we will not tolerate attacks on innocent people in the United States they will just keep attacking until there is nothing left. They (again bin Laden's groups) do not like Americans and will continue until there are none left.

[ort888]

I do agree with a lot of what jeffhot is saying.

Doesn't anyone find it odd that not one news channel or politician seems to care to talk about the possible motives of this attack? A group of people are so pissed at us, that they were willing to kill themselves and thousands of innocent people in a precision suicide mission and no one is asking why they did this?

Could it be possible (and I will probably be flogged for this) that we are indeed screwing these people over? Is it possible that our actions have resulted in the misery and suffering of millions of middle eastern citizens? Why do they hate us so much? Why is that?

I know why we hate them, but no one ever wants to talk about how they see it. There can be NO justification for what has happened, but why does no one want to discuss why it happened?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by chingwei:
<STRONG>Just as a point of discussion, to those who are crying out for the blood of whoever did this...to show others who might dare to do something like this again that they will be destroyed...do you think they really care?

When you are talking about people who are willing to give up there lives for a cause, it becomes really hard to deter people using such tactics, doesn't it? What can you do? The biggest threat anyone can ever make is to take away someone's life, but if that someone doesn't care about his/her life, then that's kind of an interesting situation, isn't it? What can you do beyond threatening to kill someone?</STRONG>

You're right that the threat of death is not enough to stop someone who's willing to give their life for their cause. But you have to remember that they're giving their life for their cause. The people who hijacked those planes did so knowing that they would die, but they were willing to do it anyway because they believe that their deaths would further the goals of their religion/society/cell/whatever. If we cave in, and do what they want us to do they will be encouraged. If we show them that the result of their actions is their death and the death of their comrades, but just those deaths and most certainly not any sort of progress towards their goals they may at least be somewhat dissuaded from perpetrating such attacks. We may never be able to stop such attrocities entirely, but at least we can show that they are futile and that their proponents in no way benefit from them.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by ort888:
<STRONG>Doesn't anyone find it odd that not one news channel or politician seems to care to talk about the possible motives of this attack? A group of people are so pissed at us, that they were willing to kill themselves and thousands of innocent people in a precision suicide mission and no one is asking why they did this?

Could it be possible (and I will probably be flogged for this) that we are indeed screwing these people over? Is it possible that our actions have resulted in the misery and suffering of millions of middle eastern citizens? Why do they hate us so much? Why is that?</STRONG>

I, for one, would be curious to find this out. But it's rather hard to ascertain someone's motives when they're too cowardly to reveal who they are. If they're not willing to deal with us in the open in an honorable way then how are we expected to sympathize with them?

[jeffhot]

Well that was fun to argue with people. Thanks to those who agreed with my, even just a little. Also thanks to those who countered my statements with reasonable thoughts.

If any of the rest of you want to keep yelling insults, ignoring earlier posts, and taking everything to simplistic extremes, please continue to do so. Whatever you do, don't change your mind no matter what! Maybe I'll catch up with you on some other thread.

[oriak]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
<STRONG>We should be at war with any group that thinks they have a right to attack innocent civilians, to slaughter them on a horrific scale, just to further an agenda.</STRONG>

well, i really understand all your feelings here, and i'm very sad with what happened this week in the usa.
but ThinkInsane: what did your country in the past? didn't it attack innocent civilians in vietnam? some years ago in sudan? what about this? don't get me wrong. that was happened in NY was one of the horribilst action ever seen. but don't think your governement are angels and just want peace on earth. it's all about money

jeffhot: you are so right!

[ThinkInsane]

I am not about to defend Vietnam. That was a war. Civilians get killed, but at least we didn't take their civilians, use them as a weapon, in peace time. They new their country was at war. Was it right? No, it wasn't. Does that justify this attack? **** no. I am not saying that anything that happened there was right, but I am saying the two things don't compare.

The fact that one madman can decide that "It is every Muslims 'DUTY' to kill Americans" (quoted to bin-Laden)is disgusting. I work with a guy that is Iranian by birth, and raised Muslim. Do you know how he described bin-Laden? "A pig and a disgrace to his religion". This man cried when he watched that footage of the plane hitting the tower. And I am not an expert on US policy, but on the other hand I have never heard a single demand from bin-Laden. I have heard about how we are infidels and must die, but no reason for it. Except that he is a madman and a savage, and that he is a disgrace to his religion, his country, and the human race. And so is anyone that fallows him.

Oh, and if he doesn't fear death, then why hasn't he personally led any of these suicide missions? Why not become a martyr for his cause and gain instant access to Nirvana while striking down the infidels? Because like all generals, he knows that being on the front line sucks. Why get yourself blown up when you have perfectly good followers to do it for you. Islam is not to blame, psychosis is.

[MacFan]

No one can argue that this was not the worst tradgedy to ever hit our country in recent times if not ever in the history of our country.

While I am disgusted by this horrendous acts, I also am hopeful that those in charge of our country will not take the simple path of accusing someone and then blowing sh*t up just to appease voters. Those in power need to determine EXACTLY who did this and then determine a fair act of recourse. This is the difficult part as the lost of thousands of innocent lives is impossible to assess. Taking out building is not enough and to slaughter thousands of innocents is not the answer. We cannot simply assume that it is Bin-Laden simply because he is on our most wanted list. Everyone assumed that the Oklahoma bombing was commited by one of his factions until the evidence came in that it was not.

What we have witnessed is the result but we have forgotten to look at the possible cause. While I do not believe that we should let others walk all over us I think that in the past we have not practiced the best judgement at times and have gotten ourselves involved in issues that maybe we should not have and in some cases ignored those that we really should have been involved in sooner. Fact is that the U.S. has ticked off a lot of countries around the world and they are not happy about it and are taking the war to us rather than fighting it on their own soil anymore.

I think Bin-Laden is wrong in his beliefs and that he is using religion to back his views just as others have in the past to justify acts of violence.

My main question is what can we and / or should we do? Some people where I work say that we should attack the countries that harbor these people. Already they are assuming it is Bin-Laden. They say that we should send ground troops into wherever which I disagree with. We trained Bin-Laden and his people and they have proven that they know how to fight in the Afghan war unlike the Iraqis in Desert Storm. Sending troops in would be a big mistake IMHO. Although I am not sure what would be the steps to take.

Just my .02

[- - e r i k - -]

Let's stop all irrational thoughts here.

Why is that when someone argues for a less agressive way of solving this conflict than starting a full-blown war (possibly escalating into a world war now with NATO declaring this an attack against all the alliance), they are automaticly declared terrorist, Bin-Laden-sympathisers, sissies and what-not.

Give me a frickin' break people.

You know what, and I have stated this before, I feel deeply for the people involved. I've even paid out of my own pocket to support rescue operation.

Now tell me that I'm anti-US. Tell me that Jeffhot is a sissy for suggesting that we shouldn't retaliate that hard. That I'm an euro-trash. That we can rid terrorism once and for all by killing off a few arabs. Tell me no (more) innocent lives will be lost.

Can you?

[FormerLurker]

&gt; Well that was fun to argue with people. Thanks to those who agreed with my, even just a little.
&gt; Also thanks to those who countered my statements with reasonable thoughts.
&gt;
&gt; If any of the rest of you want to keep yelling insults, ignoring earlier posts, and taking
&gt; everything to simplistic extremes, please continue to do so. Whatever you do, don't change
&gt; your mind no matter what! Maybe I'll catch up with you on some other thread.

hmmm, so you've been disagreed with so much, that you are exiting this thread?

Interesting.... NOT impressive....

jeffhot, you are either...

A) an idealistic liberal intellectual who is an undergraduate at a fairly intellectual higher learning institution, and sadly lacking in real-world clues,
OR
B) a terrorist-supporting Islamic troll who needs his IP address traced so some of us can come and have a serious conversation with you (though you seem to have a lot of posts for a troll... are you by any chance the MacNN Holy Mole of Islam?)

Originally posted by jeffhot:

Yes they wanted to kill Americans.

Not just "Americans" - American citizens... American CIVILIANS.
Bombing the USS Cole is worthy of death, but attacking the CIVILIANS in the center of our nation is worthy of a worse death than all those in the twin towers suffered.

Tell me, when is the last time an American citizen killed ANY civilian, anywhere, in the Middle East? When is the last time we blew up a mosque (or other landmark of their world) full of people?

And now that they have killed thousands of Amercian civilians....
MILLIONS of American civilians like ME want to kill THEM... (what a surprise!) .

Just drop me with full paratrooper equipment over Af-GONE-istan tomorrow... I'm a player.. and I'm sure I would not exactly be alone, even among those on this board, given such an opportunity.

Yes they wanted to destroy some of our institutions and symbols. Yes, they were even beyond diplomacy.

WHY exactly are they "beyond diplomacy"? Have they even tried "diplomacy"? Do they even know what "diplomacy" IS?

They are simply on a "Jihaad" (as defined by bin Laden) that basically says (and teaches the young and "faithful") that the quickest way to get to Islam's version of "heaven" is to die while killing Israeli or American CIVILIANS.

&lt;sarcasm&gt;Hmm, we disagree with a nation's foreign polity, therefore we should kill the citizens of that nation...that sounds reasonable. I'm sure YOU would embark on the same pattern of murder of civilians of a certain nation, if you disagreed with a nation's foreign policy...&lt;/sarcasm&gt;

But all that doesn't mean they had NO reason.

I don't agree with Apple's policy of forcing a "lemon" brand-new Mac to be repaired rather than replaced under warranty IF it "boots upon first use". There has been a time or two over the past few years that policy has REALLY pissed me off!!

Does that give me a "reason" to hijack a plane and crash it into 1 Infinite Loop in Cupertino?
Sure!
(insert disclaimer HERE- I have no plans whatsoever for any violence toward Apple, Cupertino, or anyone heretofor or heretoafter related)

And of course, EVERYONE who has ever committed murder has had a "reason" to do it... I believe that the legal definition of that is MOTIVE, and it is NOT admissible as a legal defense ("the bitch PISSED me off your honer... I didn't like her foreign policy, so I bashed her fukkin head in")...
JUST in case you are SO completely ignorant as to require such an explanation.

NO reason, none WHATSOEVER, gives anyone a REASON to do what was done to the people in the World Trade Center.
Anyone who believes differently... should be just as prepared to die for those beliefs as were the hijackers.

How do you know they didn't want to change American policy?

DUH
Well, I'm pretty sure that "they" DID, in fact, want to CHANGE Amercian policy. No question about it!!

And, I'm pretty sure that "they" DID, in fact, CHANGE Amercian policy (congratulations!).
In fact, I'm VERY certain of that.
I'm COMPLETELY sure that "they" will NOT be at ALL happy with the changes in American policy that they have brought about (assuming that they even remain alive long enough to reflect on the policy changes).
Be careful of what you wish for, because you just might get it

Why did they want to kill Americans, why did they want to destroy our institutions. I say the only thing that could have elicited such a responce (extreme and wrong as it was) must be US foreign policy.

Again, this is absolute horse$hit.
The very idea of justifying such ideas with a disagreement with foreign policy is just plain reprehensible..
Well, let's suppose that I don't agree with all of Mexico's foreign policies, so should I feel justified if I go and blow up major buildings in Mexico City? (insert disclaimer once again - just trying to make a point, I am NOT some cowerdly terrorist)


How am I wrong?


Wow, in SOOOOO many ways, is the first and most obvious answer to that simple(ton) question.

SEE ABOVE for the rest of the questions to your lame-a$$ answer!!

REVIEW YOUR WORLD HISTORY before pretending that you know what the hell you are talking about.

For starters, you might want to start with the fact that the U.S. has NEVER been in control of the territory in dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That's why I continue to be confused by those Islamic extremists who want to blame all of the region's problems on the U.S.

Arab states got arms from USSR. Israel got arms from us. They all fought, and Israel won (more than once).
BFD, get over it!!!

"Palestine" was a British territory at the end of WW II. They set aside a portion of it for a Jewish homeland in 1947.

If the 3rd generation of displaced Palestinians want to bomb anyone, let them go bomb London.
(insert disclaimer here... I do not endores anyone bombing anyone!).

The U.S did NOT create the situation that they are in. They do not make their situation better with acts of terrorism, whether is are a suicide bomb in Israel or an act of war in Manhatten.

Perhaps you could DETAIL what exactly is so HORRIBLE about US foreign policy, that would justify anything close to Tuesday's attack?

All I'm saying is, isn't there a way to stop pissing people off?

Wow, are you really that clueless to believe that we could build our entire foreign policy so as to not piss off anyone, anywhere? What happens if we piss off 10,000 fanatics out of the world's 5 billion people - should we scramble to change our foreign policy to make every person on the planet happy?

jefffhot, I hope for your sake that you are in a good college and still in "learning mode" enough to eventually see the flaws in your reasoning.... maybe when you hit your mid-twentys, and the dreaded quarter-century mark... you will begin to understand....

Unless, of course, you are choice B as outlined at the beginning of this post... in which case, I hope we can meet in person some day REAL soon!!


(UBB Formatting Edit)

[ 09-13-2001: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]

[Keda]

jeffhot- Well I got your PM (an invitation to debate 'in person'). Email is no more in person than the forums, so whats the point? Id love to do this face to face.

Well so do I have to have all the answers? And what is wrong about asking questions? In my opinion, it is a greater folly to assume that you understand a situation that you do not. But go ahead if that makes you comfortable.

Folly? You are attemping to legitimize mass murder! As a previous poster said, every murderer has a 'reason.' That does not justify anything.

I may have guessed your age wrong because clich�d liberal attitude, but I have a feeling most of my other assessments are pretty close. Your arguments are very typical, I've heard them voiced many times over.

The quotes by Phyllis Bennis are one side of the coin. She is an activist on the side of the Palestinians and generally anti-US. Considering the source, I dont consider her remarks to be any more reliable than Orin Hatch's.

She points to the Israeli situation as evidence that military action are ineffective against terrorism. But if you ever get the opportunity to talk about this w/an Israeli, you will get a very different view point. To them the issue is survival not simpily controlling a problem. Giving up the West Bank and Gaza strip would be tactical suicide for Israel. Israel exists because they stay strong.

In my first post, I wrote about some Palestinians I worked with. They all had scars and tatoos from conflicts in their homeland. They talked about the brutality of Isaeli prisons. They had so much hate in them that no reasonable argument could take it away. Their emmotions are reactions to violence, just like what you are seeing around you in the US now. If Israel were to show weakness, these people would exact their brand of vengence on its citizens.

Only if people get mad and lose coherance do I consider myself succesful.

Then I would consider you largely unsuccessful (but I think your used to that). There is nothing wrong with asking questions, but yours are laced with assumptions and accusations. In two pages of posts, you managed to make one reply that actually cantained a point. That is very good.

Of course there was the opening statement that 'violence is wrong!'

Violence is not wrong. The application of it decides its moral ground. Sun Tzu says that the acme of a general is not how many battles he can win, but how he can win w/out a battle (a paraphrase since I dont have the book right now). Violence can be a very effective motivator when applied correctly.

Ooops, I work and pay my own bills.

What an accomplishment. Now I have to do the same.

I laughed when I read you impression of me. Id like to see you to know if my image is any more accurate.

[Millennium]

Let's stop all irrational thoughts here.

Yes, let's. But first, admit irrationality on both sides of the issue. I am freely willing to admit that while I do not believe I have been thinking irrationally, I may in fact have been, and will listen to anyone who has evidence that I may have been. Are you willing to do the same?

Why is that when someone argues for a less agressive way of solving this conflict than starting a full-blown war (possibly escalating into a world war now with NATO declaring this an attack against all the alliance), they are automaticly declared terrorist, Bin-Laden-sympathisers, sissies and what-not.

I haven't been doing that. No one on this board had, at least not before your post. I am sad to say that it has happened since then

Now tell me that I'm anti-US. Tell me that Jeffhot is a sissy for suggesting that we shouldn't retaliate that hard. That I'm an euro-trash. That we can rid terrorism once and for all by killing off a few arabs. Tell me no (more) innocent lives will be lost.

I can say none of these things. You are not sissies, or anti-US, or Eurotrash, and I accuse you of none of these things. I do accuse you of thinking unrealistically; idealism is a fine thing, but there are times when one must react on what is, not what should be.

We cannot end all terrorism by killing a few terrorists. We can, however, end their parts in it. And if significant enough people are rendered nonthreats, we can put an equally significant dent in the others' ability to do harm. Case in point: bin Laden. Without his money, countless groups will not be able to procure what they would need to do harm to others, in terms of training, weapons, false identities, or other tools that they need to pull this off. These people want to die for their cause. Fine; let them, but let it be done in a way that no one else dies with them, or if that cannot be done, at least minimize the number of people who unwillingly die so that these terrorists might have their wish.

More innocents will probably die. There will be suffering; things will get worse before they get better. And I will mourn those innocents who die in the crossfire, just as I mourn those who have died in the blasts. But this must be done. No one will win this war; everyone loses, though this could be said of all wars. But it is a matter of survival. If one side is not wiped out, the other will be. And that's not pretty, and it's not fair, and it's utterly wrong, but it is reality. And as long as man holds power over man, it will continue to be.

[Nonsuch]

Millenium and erik: nicely said.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>
I can say none of these things. You are not sissies, or anti-US, or Eurotrash, and I accuse you of none of these things. I do accuse you of thinking unrealistically; idealism is a fine thing, but there are times when one must react on what is, not what should be.

We cannot end all terrorism by killing a few terrorists. We can, however, end their parts in it. And if significant enough people are rendered nonthreats, we can put an equally significant dent in the others' ability to do harm. Case in point: bin Laden. Without his money, countless groups will not be able to procure what they would need to do harm to others, in terms of training, weapons, false identities, or other tools that they need to pull this off. These people want to die for their cause. Fine; let them, but let it be done in a way that no one else dies with them, or if that cannot be done, at least minimize the number of people who unwillingly die so that these terrorists might have their wish.</STRONG>

Well said Millennium. I do not very often agree with you. But you are obviously an intelligent man/woman. Taking out Bin Laden will have an effect on their abilities to operate and coordinate.

But remember that revenge is not a one-way street. You can't just hit once and then expect that that's that (nice one..). Unless someone takes a stand and break the cycle, it will go on. And on. And on. And it will exponentially escalate too.

I hope I've not come forward that you believe me to want this matter to be ignored. Hell no. The guilty should be brought forward and prosecuted. Trown in jail. Bombing their camps, cities or countries will do neither us or them any good. And by them I mean the innocent ones, that will be by default stamped as terrorist due to their ethnicity.

Have you ever concidered how hard it will be for a afghan to take flight-lessons in the US from now on? A pakistani? An muslim? The act of terrorism did more to damage their people than the americans for the future, believe me. A full scale military retaliation now would only fuel the fire.