> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 11:08 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words > > --- David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Since his actions are producing the conditions for > > MORE terrorism rather than less, this is asking a > > bit much. > > THERE IS NO WAR ON TERROR. The United States has > > fewer than > > 10000 casualities, civilian and military, since > > September 2001 > > or whenever. Sorry, but we have not been hurt > > enough to > > justify treating this as a war. Having Bush call it > > a war > > does not make it one. > > > > ---David > > Maybe you think so. I lived two blocks north of the > World Trade Center site for a year. Let's just say > that I have less than no sympathy for any such view. > Let's see how many New Yorkers think we're not at war.
We're at war. No doubt in my mind. > How many of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. > How many diplomats dealing with daily security > threats. How many people in Homeland Security seeing > the threats we face every week. > AFAIK, we haven't exactly heard much from Homeland Security about said threats to be able to evaluate them. We don't know *what* they've had to deal with except vague warnings. > As for the argument that his actions are bringing us > more terrorism, not less - let's see: > In 2001 they killed 3000 Americans in the center of > the two most important cities in the United States. > > In 2002 they killed several hundred Australians in > Indonesia, a Third World Muslim-majority country. Australians. Ugh. It hasn't appeared in my box yet, but I'd bet I wrote 'Americans' in my last post. *sigh* Sorry! > > In 2003 Al Qaeda's most important operation has been > killing a few Muslims inside Saudi Arabia. > > If that's _more_ terrorism, well, I can handle that. > > The Bush Administration's cordon sanitaire has been > rather astonishingly effective. To play devil's advocate: we don't know if *any* major terrorist attacks against our country have been foiled in the last couple of years. How can you term it 'astonishingly effective' if we've had no success rate established? >The noose seems to be > tightening with extraordinary effectiveness. Had you > told me, on September 12th, that _no_ significant > terrorist attack on the United States would be > launched in the one and a half years after the attack, > I would have told you that such a suggestion was > absurd. Why? The 9/11 attack had been carefully planned months in advance. How can you simply assume we'd be attacked again immediately? There's really no evidence to support (nor reason to believe other than fear) that we would. > No Administration could possibly act with the > skill and resolution necessary to make such a thing > possible. Except one did. There have been measures put in place which we hope will be effective in the event of a terrorist attack. We have no evidence that one has been attempted and it's folly to declare victory before your precautions have been put to the test. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
