World Trade Center

[erewhon]

The Canadian article found by PF further up the thread is amusing, but not I think to be taken as a serious piece of journalism.

I'm not sure about ground forces in Afghanistan either - the record isn't very good here.

[Purple Fencer]

I just found out that it was first published around 1973, but I beliebve the view still stands, since the radio program found it republished this week. Serious or not, though, it WAS written by and published in a foreign paper.

And look at one other thing...even today -- this very moment -- is there any other country offering aid to the US in reference to the recovery efforts? I haven't seen any.

Once again, we're on our own. So be it.

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: Purple Fencer ]

[edew]

There are two internet articles, one on Salon (which I'm sure some of you might consider to be liberal-biased commie-left-wing tripe) and one from The Guardian (via Wired.com). Both advocate NOT going out and blowing up half of the Middle East, but rather learn why the terrorists did what they did, and chase down the perpetrators using a criminal fugitive mindset rather than a global war mindset.

[Stryder]

Terrorism isn't new.
We pretend that these are the actions of isolated crimnal elements, but in fact they are acts of war. The only acts of war that smaller countries can afford to wage.
To treat a large problem (like a declaration of war) as if it were a small problem (like an isolated violent crime) is to invite failure.

That was a lesson America should have learned time and time again by now. Respond with insufficient force and commitment and not only do you fail to resolve the problem, you make it a hundred times worse.

Our government isn't stupid enough to act without reason as so many of you seem to fear. We will discover the parties responsible before any action is taken. But when their identities are discovered, our action must be swift and decisive.
And final.
I know we cannot cure the disease with violence. But the disease is not the issue.
Violence will treat the symptoms. It will remove the immediate threat. I have faith that our government will be equally diligent in seeking out a cure for the "disease" itself. And maybe we'll find one. But to ignore the immediate danger while searching out the higher cause of our problems, is suicidal.

[lochinvar]

If I develop and infection, and I go to the doctor, I want some medicine to break the fever and fight the infection.

I don't want to start an inquiry into sanitation and living conditions.

Maybe those are the ultimate cause of the infection, and maybe we can and should eradicate them...but if I don't get something now, I won't be alive to benefit.

Something like that, Stryder?

[its_me_mango]

edew, you're unique! i would say there's two basic types of people: selfish people and unselfish people. A selfish person is unable to sacrifice anything for anyone at anytime. Ergo: they don't want Sky Marshalls on all commercial flights because it may inconvenience themselves, interrupt their idea of a good time, cost money, create a problem for their uncle who wants to bring in 10 pounds of coke, or otherwise slow down their vacation. An unselfish person doesn't care about those sorts of things, they realize that the greater good (read John Stuart Mills) is better than their own selfish needs. And developing this attitude will not impede their athleticism, their progress, or their grades in school, or even their standing in the community or their standing in their office.

[edew]

Originally posted by its_me_mango:
<STRONG>edew, you're unique! i would say there's two basic types of people: selfish people and unselfish people. A selfish person is unable to sacrifice anything for anyone at anytime. Ergo: they don't want Sky Marshalls on all commercial flights because it may inconvenience themselves, interrupt their idea of a good time, cost money, create a problem for their uncle who wants to bring in 10 pounds of coke, or otherwise slow down their vacation. An unselfish person doesn't care about those sorts of things, they realize that the greater good (read John Stuart Mills) is better than their own selfish needs. And developing this attitude will not impede their athleticism, their progress, or their grades in school, or even their standing in the community or their standing in their office.
</STRONG>

There's always a level of reasonableness for it. Maybe you might rather advocate all passengers go on board with guns just in case. Maybe 99% of the passengers are sky marshalls and the 1% are actual passengers. Where do we draw the line? I draw the line when the "solution" causes more headaches and problems than the problem itself. To properly do risk analysis, one MUST assign fungible value to possibilities (possible outcomes) and assess their probabilities. Then, one must analyze whether possible solutions may or may not improve on the probabilities.

For example, one current debate is global warming. Many scientists believe the CO_2 we're producing is directly causing the global warming. (There are also many, as in thousands, who don't agree.) But, even among those who agree on the CO_2 factor, feel that the amount generated by humans may contribute no more than 20% of the CO_2 found in the atmosphere. So, is it worth the possibly billions of dollar in costs to possibly drop the amount of CO_2 produced by a miniscule amount? It is worth it? Or might we just try to adapt to living in a warming environment?

Things must be measured on an economic basis, and not on an emotional basis.

I'd say those who evaluate based on emotion are the selfish ones. They, too, want something. And they want it without regard to cost and benefits. Those who evaluate based on economics know that it is impossible to provide 100% guarantee on anything, and know that there is a diminishing return as one tries to get closer to the 100%. It becomes a selfish act to ask for something impossible.

It's not a matter of slowing down my vacation, by the way. The best way to improve air travel is for the airlines to remove phantom flights from their schedule. Many airlines over schedule flights (claiming twenty flights from SFO to LAX per day, say) and then lump people from one flight with another if there are not enough going on the earlier flight (excuse: technical problems). By removing these fake flights off the schedule, they will make the check-in process easier as there will be more room at the airports to get check-ins done properly.

[Inquartata]

edew, I don't think that the current mood of the nation will allow it's government to get the job done through cat's-paws or mercenaries. The need for vengeance is palpable, and no one wants the dish served cold in this particular instance. Nor do I think that there're enough Mossad agents to go around ( though I'm sure there are plenty of out-of-work KGB men to be had for a song ).

But no, I think death is enough. It's is the most effective deterrent available for the persons killed, and if each death spawns an avenger, well---how many terrorists, or potential terrorists, are there, all told? We've got a military establishment alone numbering in the millions. I daresay they'll run out of avengers before we do.

As Sean Connery said in "The Untouchables", "If he uses a knife, you use a gun; if he sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's how you get" Bin Laden & Co. Each innocent civilian killed on Tuesday should mean a minimum of three terrorists or their accomplices dead...

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by its_me_mango:
<STRONG>An unselfish person doesn't care about those sorts of things, they realize that the greater good (read John Stuart Mills) is better than their own selfish needs.</STRONG>

mango, I trust that you're just venting. "The greater good", taken to its logical extreme, results in things like the Cultural Revolution in China, the purges in Russia, the "Final Solution" in Germany. Because, you see, it's never John Q. Public who gets to define what "the greater good" is...

The idea of Sky Marshals appeals to me, too, but I can still see the possible drawbacks to such an expanded police presence. Try not to be quite so convinced that you're always right and anyone who disagrees is a "selfish" moron, huh? It's not the sign or a well-ordered mind...

[edew]

As long as you keep it to the terrorists and direct accomplices. The vagueness of the "harboring those terrorists" wording may kill some innocents there, and, I'm afraid, that those casualties will be the very spark for the next round of terroristic acts. I mean, you either have to kill them all, and that's possibly 15 million to 30 million people, or you just excise the terrorists. Frankly, I don't think we have the capability to kill 15-30 million, neither militarily or politically. The global community will not accept a 15 million to 10,000 trade-off.

How else did this whole thing started anyway? They, for some reason or another, felt we (the US) did something wrong to them, perhaps an innocent person or two were harmed or killed. That escalated to some terrorist acts here which were responded to, and so forth. I mean, why did they choose the US, as opposed to, say, Italy or Germany? It's not as though it's a helluva lot easier to commandeer US commerical airlines, or that there aren't any skyscrapers in those countries. They chose the US because they perceive some wrong done by the US to them. (Whether that perception is matched to a reality, and to the proper degree is certainly debatable.) So, if we wage a war where more innocent civilians on their side are killed, you will most certainly see an escalation of terroristic acts in the US. Those (former innocent)people who weren't willing to die for them will voluntarily join them to blow themselves up to take out a building or a stadium. Certainly we have plenty of people here who are feeling this way right now; how hard is it to believe they won't feel the same way when their loved ones are unjustly (in their mind) killed?

[Inquartata]

Well, I am sure that the genesis of terrorism are too complex to be understood, certainly without an understanding of very different value systems and cultural imperatives. But I don't think that terrorists' true motives really have all that much to do with identifiable perceived past injustices or wrongs anymore, if indeed they ever did. It may be no more ( at least at the level of the leaders ) a cynical game of power; certainly it becomes that for many who do not start out that way...not unlike politics in that regard, I daresay.

But in all candour I am not at all interested in understanding what motivates them, nor in "feeling their pain". One doesn't try to understand a killer plague, one just gets to work to eradicate it.

As to the probability that for each terrorist killed seven will spring up to take his place, well, that's their biggest defensive boast and threat. I think it's a hollow one, ultimately. Their numbers simply cannot support it, for they cannot draw from the entire pool of Muslim humanity, only from a relatively small subset of fanatics and mentally unstable dupes. Which will suffice, it is true, to make things very difficult in the beginning. But as long as we do not allow this coming conflict to be characterized as a war against Islam itself, I think that eventually the supply of would-be terrorists will dwindle and die from attrition, if not by deterrence...

Everything else has been tried. I think we have no choice. And this is not an opinion born of the Tuesday atrocities, either---it's vintage the 1970's, at the least, as I've been thinking it at least that long. Perhaps there is at last the will to make the attempt.

[edew]

Originally posted by Inquartata:
<STRONG>

Everything else has been tried. I think we have no choice. And this is not an opinion born of the Tuesday atrocities, either---it's vintage the 1970's, at the least, as I've been thinking it at least that long. Perhaps there is at last the will to make the attempt.</STRONG>

Everything else has been tried? I find that claim most incredulous.

As for your killer plague analogy, we most certainly try to understand it. Eradicating it without understanding the vectors involved in its propagation will only allow it to resume once again in the future. And like a plague, terrorism (or fanatics willing to do weird, extreme things) will never disappear. It may mutate into different forms, but like a plague, we should acknowledge its permanent existence in the world and deal with controlling and understanding it.

Try not to be too simplistic in your approach to things in life. It's like making straight attacks again and again to the same line, believing that since it worked once, it will work forever.

[Foil Girl]

Originally posted by Mergs:
[QB]

Foil Girl, sorry to burst your bubble sweetie, but welcome to the real world of adults that have to make difficult decisions and choices that affect the lives of many people. We disagree and we argue, but when we have to, we listen to all sides and then make a decision. And then pray to God that we have made the right one. Be glad that you are able to sit back and watch this happen in this microcosim of society. It's called democracy at work. Its tough to see how the duck really swims.
QB]

I've read the whole topic now, and semi-agree with you. But I am also not just a naive little girl, so don't adress me as such. Just because I'm not an adult yet, and just because I haven't served in the military doesn't mean I don't know anything. Plus, I think it's better to seek God's will in the situation, than to pray to Him that you've done the right thing afterwards.

[Mergs]

I know that I had said that I was bowing out this discussion, however Foil Girl has made it necessary for me to make one more post.

I am distressed that she chose to quote a private message I sent her on the public thread. Her decision unfortunately only points out the immaturity that was evident in her previous posts. I am sorry for that, just as I am sorry about having exercised what has turned out to be bad judgement for my initial post.

You will all deal with this in your own way, just as I will deal with it in mine, which is to keep my own counsel.

Mergs

[Foil Girl]

I was NOT quoting a private message, Mergs. Anyone can check back in the second page of this thread And find your message where it said that. It says it just two posts after my original posting on this thread. I'd like to know what you consider immature about my previous posts? I answered a public post with a public post.

I'm not claiming to know war, I'm not claiming to know what it is like to have to make these decisions that effect a nation- I don't want to. I admire and sympathise with those who have to do that line of work... I don't want to be enemies merg, I just don't like being treated that way, that's all. I agree we all cope differently, and I agree we should be talking this out, I take back that point in my original post. You don't have to answer me on here if you bowed out, I respect that, but please PM me, because I'd liek to know.

[its_me_mango]

nice jump edew, but do you see everyone wearing a gunbelt?
[i feel like getting my tongue peirced in protest]

[its_me_mango]

one more ting: where is this 'i don't feel like an american' stem from? ah, i know where, from the vietnam protests, but it's okay, i was around for that one, when columbia and berkely went nuts and everyone took to the streets, but that was a good thing, the thing we don't really know is what our parents and grandparents know, and that is what they went through the nazi occupation and during the pacific conflict. sorry guys it was real close, hitler started the whole thing, he trained young people to hate minorities and sent them into homes and apartments with german shepard dogs and hauled them out and stuck them onto trains and brought them into camps and gassed them, then the emperor of japan (sorry folks again, but...)thought it looked pretty good and an opportunity, and he went for it, but the whole thing collapsed because it was all based on shinto-sim and hitler stole teachings from india and they both twisted up everything, and that's how it all came about. sort of, naturally it's more complicated than than, but that's what it boils down to.

[its_me_mango]

sorry, i went nuts again. you're all entitled to your opinion, however, i feel mine is best. (naturally)

[its_me_mango]

i'm real sorry people, but i've never felt so completely nuts about anything before, (just ignor it and carry on, i'll simmer down),

[Mergs]

To all on this thread, especially Foil Girl.

She is right and I am wrong, I did include that passage in my long post on page 2. I appologize.