From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Oct 31 2001 - 01:44:38 MST
Brian D Williams wrote:
>
ow refer to as Janus Muslims, two-
> faced.
>
> >> This has turned into a chance for everyone who doesn't like the
> >> U.S. to get out their list of grievances, real or imagined.
>
>
> >Is this a necessarily bad thing? I think it would be a damn
> >good time to understand how the US is seen in the world and why
> >and to do something about it where/if necessary.
>
> I don't think it's the appropriate time for it. This is supposed to
> be about terrorism. We are after the people who murdered our
> citizens. The focus should be on that and that alone.
>
> The average person on the streets in the middle east has been
> watching the agitprop coming from Al-Jazeera, they think the
> Israelis destroyed the World Trade Center!
>
What is "supposed to be about terrorism"? If we are attempting
to find solutions to terrorism then it is important to
understand where it comes from and why. If part of the why is
the grievances various countries and entities have against US
policies then the question comes up as to whether any of those
grievances have merit and whether we are in fact sometimes
acting in oppressive manner in other countries and what we might
do to change that if so.
If it makes sense to agree to an open-ended "war" to root out
all actual terrorists from anywhere and everywhere then surely
it also makes sense to understand the roots and to work to
lessen the seeds of future terrorism where/if we can.
I don't see how the "that alone" makes any sense at all.
Especially when our government is certainly not after "that
alone" but after finding and neutralizing all terrorists
everywhere.
Al-Jareeza happens to be the most independent and competent news
source in the Mid East. That some of its writers may have
expoused an alternate theory does not mean they are incompetent
nicompoops. Especially when the biases in other reports from
more "mainstream" sources have also been quite evident.
In point of fact, we do not know who was behind the attack yet.
We have strong suspicion of it being bin Laden. But I haven't
seen anything really strong enough to convict in an open court
yet.
>
> >> I think we're on the wrong track. I think we're screwing around
> >>and we need to get serious.
>
> >What does serious look like if you think what is currently being
> >done is not serious?
>
> Even the Pentagon is admitting they have made at least two key
> mistakes so far.
>
> Serious to me? I would have put ground troops in with the northern
> alliance and immediately moved to re-take Kabul, and Maziri-al-
> sherif with all the air support required. Once an airbase had been
> established I would have poured ground troops in.
>
To what end? What are your objectives?
> Once Kabul was re-taken and the Taliban rounded up, I would have
> put in a call for U.N. peacekeepers to hold it and started flying
> in humanitarian supplies. This would leave troops free to move on
> and crush Kandahar.
>
Why is crushing Kandahar a big objective? I agree on bringing
in UN peacekeepers and bringing in aid before winter comes on
100%.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:11:45 MST