RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
John D Giorgis wrote: I disagree with this. Suicide bombings, hijackings, Oklahoma City-style bombings, etc. all strike me as fairly modern inventions. At 14:08 2003-07-31 -0400, you wrote: No, hijackings and truck bombings are modern inventions technologically but the targeting of civilian populations to incite terror can be traced back 2500 years to the writings of Xenophon, the Greek historian. He lived around 4 or 500 BC, I think. Just off the top of my head, some other examples of terrorism throughout history: The Crusades The Spanish Inquisition Robespierre's Reign of Terror (late 1700's) Klu Klux Klan (late 1800's) The Argentine 'Vanished' The PLO (post WWII) The Irish Republican Army And the Basque ETA was started in the 1960's, I believe. Jon Don't forget the corsair pirates: state sponsored terrorism. If exploding trucks are a modern invention, it is only because trucks didn't exist before. There is an equivalent in what is called in French a "brulôt". It's a burning ship or raft which may or may not be filled with gun powder, aimed at another ship or at a city's port. Jean-Louis ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:33:36 -0400 At 08:33 PM 7/29/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote: >I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Terrorism has existed >for recorded history. Don't forget that when they win, terrorists >are called "freedom fighters" or "revolutionaries". I disagree with this. Suicide bombings, hijackings, Oklahoma City-style bombings, etc. all strike me as fairly modern inventions. No, hijackings and truck bombings are modern inventions technologically but the targeting of civilian populations to incite terror can be traced back 2500 years to the writings of Xenophon, the Greek historian. He lived around 4 or 500 BC, I think. Just off the top of my head, some other examples of terrorism throughout history: The Crusades The Spanish Inquisition Robespierre's Reign of Terror (late 1700's) Klu Klux Klan (late 1800's) The Argentine 'Vanished' The PLO (post WWII) The Irish Republican Army And the Basque ETA was started in the 1960's, I believe. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
John D. Giorgis wrote: > >I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Terrorism has existed > >for recorded history. Don't forget that when they win, terrorists > >are called "freedom fighters" or "revolutionaries". > > I disagree with this. Suicide bombings, hijackings, > Oklahoma City-style > bombings, etc. all strike me as fairly modern inventions. I think his point is that these tactics have been used for ages to express political grievances and attempt a change in policy: attacks on non-combatants, disruption of servics, destruction of public property. And that the way the same are perceived differs from group to group. The Mughals considered the Marathas as terrorists, a lot of people thought they were freedom fighters. Chandrashekhar Azad and Bhagat Singh were terrorists to the British but we Indians called them revolutionaries then and martyrs today. The last 6 decades or so have seen a change in the nature of terrorism though - the targets are almost invariably non-combatants and modern technology grants them greater capabilities of destruction. > I firmly believe that the next 100 years are a crucial > opportunity to make > the world safe for democracy, as technology gives rogue > states ever greater > potential for destruction. Now is the time to do something about it, > before it is too late. The next x number of years have been crucial ever since the first atomic bomb exploded. And it is always going to be this way. What you say above is comfortable and laudable, but how do you propose to go about implementing it? Who defines rogue states? How do you ensure that they don't develop weapons? What do you do when each rogue state denies your claims and assertions? What organisations and instruments are you going to use to keep a check on what the rogue states are doing? How many pre-emptive wars are you willing to fight? And how many of these wars do you plan to fight in face of international opposition? How do you grade the two menaces of terrorism and rogue states in terms of danger and lethality? The last question is especially important as every pre-emptive war fought to contain a rogue state and make the world safer for democracy would also increase the support for terrorism. At least it will if the US government continues with its current modus operandi. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
John D. Giorgis wrote: > At 03:11 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote: > >I don't know. It is a scary proposition. We cannot defeat > every terrorist > >in the world. > > We cannot? Then why is it that suicide bombing is almost unheard of > almost everywhere in the world? It doesn't strike me that > this problem is > necessarily pervasive in humanity at all. Which problem doesn't seem necessarily pervasive? The suicide bombers or the terrorists? If you are talking about the former, then I can only be grateful that the idea hasn't found *too* many takers outside the mid-east. But if you are talking about terrorism as a whole, rather than a small subset of terrorists, then the problem is pervasive enough all over the world. In fact, it has been increasing continuously for the last 6 odd decades. India alone has been suffering from terrorism for more than two decades now. To go back to the first question though, no, you cannot possibly neutralise/kill every single terrorist in the world. There would always be someone crazy enough to hate to that degree and resourceful enough to access the weapons our species is so good at producing. What you *can* do is make it hard for the nut-cases to get the public support and funds they need to operate. And that is a life-long process. It is not something that would get over in a year or two or even a decade or two. And if this war-time emergency status continues within the US for that decade or two, with suspicion directed towards a group of your own people, public resentments simmering, chances are that you Merkins would be too busy with home-grown terrorism to worry overly much about international terrorism. > >We cannot stop every rogue state that wants to build a nuke > >or a biological bomb. > > I disagree with this as well. With intelligence, the US > armed forces are > likely to be able to launch successful preemptive strikes against any > likely such rogue state for the next 100 years. *chuckle* What kind of intelligence? The kind that talked of the WMDs in Iraq or the kind that alerted you to what the subcontinent was upto in the late 90s? TWAT lacks many a thing and the list of missing essential items includes realistic aims and objectives. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
At 08:33 PM 7/29/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote: >I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Terrorism has existed >for recorded history. Don't forget that when they win, terrorists >are called "freedom fighters" or "revolutionaries". I disagree with this. Suicide bombings, hijackings, Oklahoma City-style bombings, etc. all strike me as fairly modern inventions. >> >We cannot stop every rogue state that wants to build a nuke >> >or a biological bomb. >> >> I disagree with this as well. With intelligence, the US >> armed forces are >> likely to be able to launch successful preemptive strikes against >any >> likely such rogue state for the next 100 years. > >So, are you saying that this "war" is going to last 100 years? I'm >not sure I like that idea... Sometimes you choose the mission, and sometimes it chooses year. I firmly believe that the next 100 years are a crucial opportunity to make the world safe for democracy, as technology gives rogue states ever greater potential for destruction. Now is the time to do something about it, before it is too late. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
> From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > At 03:11 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote: > >I don't know. It is a scary proposition. We cannot defeat > every terrorist in the world. > > We cannot? Then why is it that suicide bombing is almost unheard of > almost everywhere in the world? It doesn't strike me that > this problem is necessarily pervasive in humanity at all. Suicide bombing may not be terribly of but terrorism certainly isn't. Suicide bombing was almost unknown 20 years ago. But now a large number of people seem to think it is a good strategy. Perhaps it will spread. Perhaps it won't. (Personally, I think it is a very bad strategy but obviously there are a number of people in the Mid-East who would disagree.) I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Terrorism has existed for recorded history. Don't forget that when they win, terrorists are called "freedom fighters" or "revolutionaries". > > >We cannot stop every rogue state that wants to build a nuke > >or a biological bomb. > > I disagree with this as well. With intelligence, the US > armed forces are > likely to be able to launch successful preemptive strikes against any > likely such rogue state for the next 100 years. So, are you saying that this "war" is going to last 100 years? I'm not sure I like that idea... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > We would then be at war for at least a decade. Does > that mean we can't criticize bush or the gop for > that long? Golly Which, of course, no one is saying, except those making indefensible criticisms and they trying to hide their partisan motivations behind a smokescreen of protested innocence. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
In a message dated 7/25/2003 10:22:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > 1) The establishment of a secure, viable and independent Palestine > alongside Israel. > > 2) Regime change in Iran, Syria, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, > Egypt, and the DPRK We would then be at war for at least a decade. Does that mean we can't criticize bush or the gop for that long? Golly ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
At 11:22 PM 7/25/03 -0400, John D. Giorgis wrote: At 08:09 AM 7/21/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote: >Perhaps we are at war, but under that definition, I'm having a very hard >time imagining that we will ever NOT be at war. We are not going to remove >evil from the world, I'm quite sure. Some likely conditions; 1) The establishment of a secure, viable and independent Palestine alongside Israel. 2) Regime change in Iran, Syria, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the DPRK >If this is not the future we want to create, then shouldn't we return to >normal political discourse, in which one is not branded a traitor for >questioning the leadership. If we can't question and criticize our leaders >today, what is going to change to allow us to question them tomorrow, or in >20 years? I don't think that we created the terrorist threat. Unfortunately, they (= the ones we call terrorists) do. They think they are defending their way of life against The Great Satan in the only way possible, given that The Great Satan is the world's only superpower and has overwhelming power both economically and militarily. We may not agree with that analysis or think that their way of life (keeping their populations subjugated in a culture which is several hundred years in the past) is worth defending, but that is how they feel. --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
At 03:11 PM 7/24/2003 -0500 Horn, John wrote: >I don't know. It is a scary proposition. We cannot defeat every terrorist >in the world. We cannot? Then why is it that suicide bombing is almost unheard of almost everywhere in the world? It doesn't strike me that this problem is necessarily pervasive in humanity at all. >We cannot stop every rogue state that wants to build a nuke >or a biological bomb. I disagree with this as well. With intelligence, the US armed forces are likely to be able to launch successful preemptive strikes against any likely such rogue state for the next 100 years. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
Nick Arnett wrote: > > > If this is not the future we want to create, then shouldn't > > we return to normal political discourse, in which one is > > not branded a traitor for questioning the leadership. If we > > can't question and criticize our leaders today, what is > > going to change to allow us to question them tomorrow, or in > > 20 years? > "Horn, John" wrote: > > Why is this any different than during World War > III (as some are calling the Cold War)? You answer that question in your own post, below. > The leadership was certainly criticized. Except > during the Vietnam Conflict, I don't recall anyone > being branded a traitor just for questioning the > leadership of the country or the direction it is > going? You seem to be forgetting Sen. McCarthy and his ilk, who were able to blacklist people on the most tenuous chains of logic to a political party calling itself "Communist". Besides, Why should such branding even be allowed now? Don't start with the crap line about this being wartime, and such questions as "what is our purpose in this war?" and "what, exactly are our goals and motivations?" are "hindering the war effort" and "costing lives". So far, there is no announced goal or purpose other than something vague like "make the world safer" or "we'll be finished when we're finished". This needs to be hashed out in public debate, has not been resolved (or even defined well for that matter), and what little that has been offered for motivation and/or purpose is not *all* holding up to scrutiny. What I sense in the right-wing's refusal to examine these issues is that, afterward, the only reasons left (while staying positive) will be that we invaded Iraq in an attempt to remove the brutal regime from the Iraqi people. That alone, as a reason to go to war, is simply not enough of a motivation for many Americans, with a high percentage considering themselves "conservative". > The consequences for the United States > during the Cold War were certainly greater than > those now. There was a better defined enemy who had (we thought) comparable resources and so on. In a way, having terrorists as the enemy-of-the-moment is an ideal situation for those wishing for a police state. -- Matt ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
At 08:09 AM 7/21/2003 -0700 Nick Arnett wrote: >Perhaps we are at war, but under that definition, I'm having a very hard >time imagining that we will ever NOT be at war. We are not going to remove >evil from the world, I'm quite sure. Some likely conditions; 1) The establishment of a secure, viable and independent Palestine alongside Israel. 2) Regime change in Iran, Syria, Lybia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the DPRK >If this is not the future we want to create, then shouldn't we return to >normal political discourse, in which one is not branded a traitor for >questioning the leadership. If we can't question and criticize our leaders >today, what is going to change to allow us to question them tomorrow, or in >20 years? I don't think that we created the terrorist threat. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
> From: Nick Arnett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > How does this end? Can anyone offer a definition of the conditions > necessary for us to return to peacetime, or whatever one > might properly call 'normal' conditions? It ends when the US has dominated all the other countries in the world, I guess... I don't know. It is a scary proposition. We cannot defeat every terrorist in the world. We cannot stop every rogue state that wants to build a nuke or a biological bomb. > Am I going to wake up 20 years from now to more reminders > that we are living in a state of emergency because the > evil-doers have not yet been wiped off > the face of the earth? Tell me why not, please. I know that this is not a world I want to live in either. Unless I missed it, I don't believe it has been responded to. And I'd love to see the answer, too! > If this is not the future we want to create, then shouldn't > we return to > normal political discourse, in which one is not branded a traitor for > questioning the leadership. If we can't question and > criticize our leaders > today, what is going to change to allow us to question them > tomorrow, or in > 20 years? Why is this any different than during World War III (as some are calling the Cold War)? The leadership was certainly criticized. Except during the Vietnam Conflict, I don't recall anyone being branded a traitor just for questioning the leadership of the country or the direction it is going? The consequences for the United States during the Cold War were certainly greater than those now. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words)
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 10:09 AM Subject: When does it end? (RE: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words) > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > > John D. Giorgis > > ... > > > No, we are at war because September 11th caused this President to > > recognize > > that we had long since been at war in a way that we had not previously > > recognized.Moreover, 9/11 caused this President to realize that the > > commoditization of WMD-technology was rapidly creating a very dangerous > > future for the United States unless we attacked to prevent that dystopia > > from happening. > > Perhaps we are at war, but under that definition, I'm having a very hard > time imagining that we will ever NOT be at war. We are not going to remove > evil from the world, I'm quite sure. > > How does this end? Can anyone offer a definition of the conditions > necessary for us to return to peacetime, or whatever one might properly call > 'normal' conditions? The "Watchmen" Gambit. But its nothing like normalcy. xponent Alan Moore Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
