Brian D Williams wrote:
>
> >From: Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
>
> >Certainly don't ignore them. But it would be good to also not
> >accept the first proposed action that comes along without due
> >considerations of its consequences, costs (in all measures),
> >whether it is is just response and whether it is likely to have
> >the desired effects.
>
> I think we've given the matter considerable thought, and I think
> our current action is correct. Deatroy those who perpetrated this
> atrocity.
>
I have taken some trouble to dialog with you about why that
isn't precisely what is being done and about why the way we are
running this campaign is a human rights disaster in the making.
So I am surprised to see such a categorical statement at this
point.
> >These people were dependent on foreign aid for food before
> >9/11. What food they were getting has largely been disrupted.
> >We orderd the ending of the truck caravans from Pakistan that
> >brought in most of the food by 9/16. Most of rest is now
> >impossible to deliver while the bombardment continues. In a
> >week or two at most (and perhaps already for some areas) it will
> >be too late for many. Is this actually a goal that any of us
> >support or desire? Do we believe that continuing the
> >bombardment is worth this consequence. I don't. We can't speak
> >of the good of the people as justification for our actions at
> >this time if our actions are directly threatening the deaths of
> >millions of innocent civilians.
>
> I know where they get their food, and in fact the vast majority of
> it comes from the U.S.
>
I don't know if it does or did come mainly from the US or not.
But I know it is not happending now and hasn't been since
mid-September when the truck convoys were stopped. What was
left has all but dried up due to the bombing.
> I've already said I thought we should have done things differently.
> we should have seized a major airbase like the one at Mazer-l-
> Sharif and begun re-establishing food distribution.
>
> No, we should not stop, not for Ramadan, not for anything at this
> point.
>
We should not stop if 3-4 million people will die of starvation
if we don't restart the food transport and distributing very
very soon now? How on earth do you figure that sort of
callousness is justified?
> >That will be utterly insufficient to eliminate terrorism.
>
> Your right, a great deal more will need to be done, but placating
> terrorists will not be part of it.
>
Keeping 3-4 million civilians from starving this winder is
"placating terrorsts"?
> >Then you are not familiar with history.
>
> On the contrary history is one of my favorite subjects, especially
> the history of conflict.
>
> >I did not say it justifies it. I said that speaking as if it
> >was only lies and fundamentalism that give rise to the anger is
> >speaking falsely and simplistically. There is a big difference.
>
> Their anger is a combination of things including their incorrect
> perception of us, and the way the world works. I have no intention
> of changing to please them.
>
I am concerned with their correct perception of the atrocious
things we have done in the region and around the world. If you
cannot admit we have done such things then I guess there is no
point in continuing down that line with you.
> I do not care if they don't like us, but they will care if they
> attack us.
>
> >I don't parse that sentence. We say we stand for certain things
> >in the world and I propose that we actually act as if we do and
> >that we correct ourselves where we act as if we do not. If you
> >are counting people then their are over 6 billion reather than
> >250 million.
>
>
> No the U.S, is some 265 million, the rest of the world was not
> attacked, we were. We do stand for many things, one of them is you
> can count on retaliation if you attack us.
>
The world does not revovle around the US. It is about time we
learned that.
> >That will be insufficient. Especially as we have already passed
> >significant measures greatly dangerous to our domestic freedom
> >and well-being.
>
> We passed a bunch of such measures over the last 8 years and I
> barely heard a peep, except from the NRA.
>
Does that somehow make more measures OK?
> >Then why concentrate your contempt only on their media?
>
> I was making a point about the falsehoods they spread affecting the
> beliefs of the people of the region.
>
> >You do not think that others will also gain money and have
> >sanctuary and support? There is a lot of wealth in the MidEast
> >and a lot of anger.
>
> Anybody who wants to be next to die is welcome to try.
>
I see. Anyone who is upset enough to attack, even if they have
good reason to be upset, will be destroyed and their country
laid waste possibly including a lot of their civilians. So we
don't need to examine our policies and change those are wrong.
After all we are the baddest muther on the block. Excuse me if
that sickens me.
> >Are you ignorning the point that you may be missing something?
> >Or that we are being told ourselves in part lies and
> >half-truths? How will you find out? Do you care to or are you
> >comfortable with the current assumption that the current means,
> >horrendous as they may be in consequences of famine in
> >Afghanistan, are sufficient and the "right thing"?
>
> I am completely confident in our ability to both punish the
> attackers and help the people of Afghanistan.
>
On what basis are you confident? We have made no plans or
promises to avoid the impending famine.
> >No. We don't know precisely who did the attack. We do know who
> >bin Laden is and that he is a sworn enemy but that is not the
> >same thing as knowing he is guilty of this.
>
> Yes, we do know who did the attack and we do know who they work
> for.
>
Then prove it. Oh, I forgot, of course you can't prove it which
only proves that a smart deranged fellow like bin Laden must be
guilty.
> >Do you know where the CIAs money had come from, btw, for many of
> >its black ops over the years? Largely from drugs. Follow the
> >source and flow of drugs and you will find the hands and
> >lifeblood of some of our own cladestine activities.
>
> I'd be happy to see the people in the CIA who engaged in any such
> activity serve time for such acts.
>
Well, we have ignored know incidents of these kinds for the last
40+ years or given those involved a slap on the wrist. I am
glad you would like to see justice there.
> >Actually, no they don't when it comes to international law. But
> >perhaps you would say that isn't civilized.
>
> Actually yes they do, even the U.N. recognizes our right to attack
> those who attacked us as valid.
>
Actually we did not OK these actions or present evidence. We
claimed we did not need too. We claimed we did not need to show
the Taliban our evidence when we "requested" the extradition of
bin Laden. We have basically told the world they are "either
with US or with the terrorists".
> >>>I see. So much for yuur early seeming claim we were only
> >>>involved in Afghanistan and then would go home. Will you then
> >>>go after Hammas and other groups? Do you think you can end or
> >>>eviscerate so much anger by militarily finding the most actively
> >>>angry and killing them and inflicting whatever "collateral
> >>>damage" it takes? To me this is a very very dangerous and
> >>>twisted fallacy that can do nothing but much more seriously
> >>>inflame the world and endanger all of us (all of humanity not
> >>>just us) and what we hold most dear.
>
>
> >> Do you think you can placate these groups and they will all go
> >> away? And at what price?
>
> >I think if we do not address the causes of what righteous anger
> >toward us may be in the region that all the bombs and guns in
> >the world will not be enough to keep us safe. We should bring
> >international criminals to justice certainly. But I don't think
> >what we are doing now is a step toward justice. I think it is a
> >step toward further hatred and terror and millions of deaths.
>
> I don't think their anger is "righteous" at all.
>
If you think their is no righetous anger fueling terrorists acts
against the US then you are ill-informed, dishonest or both.
> These people are more than international criminals, they are
> terrorists, and they have comitted an act of war against a
> sovereign nation.
>
Criminals are not empowered to commit an "act of war".
Criminals should be hauled before a suitable court and if
convicted, suitably punished. We should not collaterally cause
the deaths of 3-4 million in the process of bringing them to
justice.
> It's time to pay the price.
>
The price is too high.
> >I think we should have presented our evidence before world
> >courts and the Taliban and then demanded bin Laden be turned
> >over. I think we must stop the bombing now while there is a
> >ghost of a chance to save millions of Afghani lives this
> >winter. I think continuing the bombing through the holy month
> >of Ramadan would be a seen as extremely callous and will be a
> >political and cultural disaster. And most of all I think we
> >would be fools to extend this campaign into other countries in
> >the region.
>
> The world court doesn't have the authority and if I have anything
> to say about it, it never will.
>
I hope for the sake of most of the world that you will not have
that much to say about it as the US is currently threatening to
run amok wherever it things anyone that might be interested in
threatening it is to be found.
> Maybe you missed my last post, as I pointed out we already tried
> the weak liberal "take them to court" bit. We have 5000 people dead
> because of it. We won't be making that mistake again.
>
So, you would rather have 4 million dead and the region even
more inflamed than it was to produce the Sept 11 atrocity? Does
this make sense to you?
> Muslim countries have always fought through Ramadan and so should
> we.
>
We are not Muslim. In my opinion it is an insult added to a
huge potential human rights injury that will not be forgotten or
forgiven for a long time.
> As to our next step. How do you think there can ever be peace in
> the middle east as long as groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, who's
> sole reason of existence is to destroy Israel, are permitted to
> exist?
>
That is a canard. The Hezbollah came into power when it turned
back the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. At least give some
balance and acknowldge that the Palestinians have cause for
unrest and that in all justice there should be a real (versus
the planned toy) Palestinian state and that Israel has acted
quite badly and even employed more than a little terrorism
itself over the last 35 years.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:17 MDT