Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
>But it is folly to think that those three items are the radical >Islamic fundamentalists only "gripe" with the U.S. MTV, VH1, >McDonalds, Disney, and the Internet -- yep, those are all destablizing >influence. They know it, and hate it, and might even bomb us for it. I see. I happen to suspect that you hate French. You never said that, but I know your kind. This makes you a legitimate target for preventive maintenance.
Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 10:01:35AM -0600, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote: > Baloney. The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe with > the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with trade, the > American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that Americans supposedly > enjoy. It has everything to do with US troops stationed in nearly every > country in the world (specifically, Saudi Arabia), meddling in Middle Yes, we know that. Bin Laden's three points (from pre-911 interviews) were U.S. out of Arabia, end of military aid to Israel, and end of military sequestration of Iraq. Our continued pursuit of those goals gives bin Laden excellent PR ammo against the West, especially the U.S. But it is folly to think that those three items are the radical Islamic fundamentalists only "gripe" with the U.S. MTV, VH1, McDonalds, Disney, and the Internet -- yep, those are all destablizing influence. They know it, and hate it, and might even bomb us for it. Don't fall for the PR. -Declan
Re: CDR: Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
"Kevin S. Van Horn" wrote: > > John Kelsey wrote: > > > No policy toward anyone isn't possible once there's any kind of > > contact. There are terrorists who'd want to do nasty things to us for > > simply allowing global trade, or for allowing trade with repressive > > regimes like Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, or for selling weapons to > > countries with bad human rights records. Osama Bin Laden might not > > hate us, but *someone* would. > > Baloney. The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe with > the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with trade, the > American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that Americans supposedly > enjoy. Right. THIS group of terrorists has made ITS beef plain. But one thing you learn about Terror with a capital T, which I've been studying since 1974, is that it has its own ideology completely separate from and independent of the nominal Cause. That is, a "Muslim" terrorist has more in common with a "Marxist" terrorist than with a rank-and-file Muslim, which explains the fact that diverse terrorist groups with seemingly irreconcilable ideological differences readily collaborate when it is to mutual advantage. By the same token, schisms in terrorist groups invariably occur based on disagreements over tactics and strategy - NOT ideology (though ideological justification is often found and proclaimed post facto). Appeasement definitely will not bring an end to terror - quite the opposite, in fact. So to the extent that Western governments pursue genuine anti-terrorist measures, they should be supported. When they implement the terrorists' own agenda by abridging the freedom of their own citizens, they must be opposed. Marc de Piolenc
Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
-- On 18 Jan 2003 at 10:01, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote: > The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe > with the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with > trade, the American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that > Americans supposedly enjoy. It has everything to do with US > troops stationed in nearly every country in the world > (specifically, Saudi Arabia), That was one indictment of many. Another indictment was the crusades. Bin Laden seemed most strongly upset about the reconquest of of what we call Spain, but which muslims call by another name. In the most recent communique (which may not be Osama Bin Laden but his successor pretending to be him) he gave a Leninist rant that the arabs are poor because the rich countries are rich, espousing the Marxist argument that simply being a citizen of a wealthy country is a crime deserving of death. This makes me suspect that the original Bin Laden is now a grease smear on some Afghan rocks, since the original Bin Laden was a Heideggerean, and would spit on any Marxist unless that Marxist was dying of thirst in the desert. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG sV5AglG+l7RX7GtAdr2sqFU4waW0+YXAMUKk12Nm 4LvMyqqmmLejQafyYLGOpTioRrPohNzS4GFkFqk6Y
Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
At 09:38 AM 1/16/03 -0800, Major Variola (ret) wrote: At 03:20 PM 1/15/03 -0800, Petro wrote: ... [Question of whether we could have avoided 9/11 and such things by not having an activist foreign policy] >Secondly, other groups would have been just as pissed off at us for >*not* helping them. Not if the USG had no policy towards anyone. One more time, George, for No policy toward anyone isn't possible once there's any kind of contact. There are terrorists who'd want to do nasty things to us for simply allowing global trade, or for allowing trade with repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, or for selling weapons to countries with bad human rights records. Osama Bin Laden might not hate us, but *someone* would. And once we start allowing our foreign policy to be changed in response to terrorism, we're truly f*cked, since a lot of people would like to exert control over how the world's most powerful military is used, whom we trade with, etc. Even if we were just an economic giant with little foreign policy, we'd still have an impact by which countries we chose to trade with, and if someone could improve their fortunes by several billion dollars a year by finding a few gullable guys to strap dynamite to themselves and blow up shopping malls and such, I'm sure they'd do just that. I agree we'd be better off with a much less interventionist foreign policy, few well-chosen allies (e.g., we're not going to be cool with people invading Canada), and free trade with almost everyone (I'd like to see us not trade with countries with really bad human rights records, though that's not exactly the direction we're heading in now). ... --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
John Kelsey wrote: No policy toward anyone isn't possible once there's any kind of contact. There are terrorists who'd want to do nasty things to us for simply allowing global trade, or for allowing trade with repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, or for selling weapons to countries with bad human rights records. Osama Bin Laden might not hate us, but *someone* would. Baloney. The terrorists have made it pretty clear what their gripe with the U.S. Government is, and it has nothing to do with trade, the American lifestyle, or the elusive freedoms that Americans supposedly enjoy. It has everything to do with US troops stationed in nearly every country in the world (specifically, Saudi Arabia), meddling in Middle Eastern conflicts (the never-ending Israeli-Arab feud), and the steady stream of Arab corpses that Clinton and the Bushes have produced over the last ten years or so (thousands of Afghani civilians killed by US bombs in the last year or so; the bombing of Iraq that has stretch uninterrupted from the beginning of the Persian Gulf War to the present day). Neutrality and noninterventionism work spectacularly well as a foreign policy. Just take a look at Switzerland: seven centuries of peace and freedom, with the exception of a few years during the Napoleanic era, and never a problem with terrorists. Even if we were just an economic giant with little foreign policy, we'd still have an impact by which countries we chose to trade with How about "Friendship and free trade with all, entangling alliances with none," to quote Thomas Jefferson? A trade policy that doesn't choose favorites avoids any problem of others wishing to influence U.S. trade policy.
Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 02:18:52PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: > > Perhaps we should try it and see? Ah well. But remember, it just might be > that OBL and Co are not just half a dozen guys in a Pakistani cave. Perhaps > there are thousands who are almost equally angry, Thousands? Gimme a break -- try "millions", eh? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
Tyler Durden wrote: > John Keley wrote... > > "Osama Bin Laden might not hate us, but *someone* would." > > Well, perhaps we fucked with the wrong guy. "Fucked with". "Trained up and fucked over". Whatever. > BTW...a Muslim co-worker sardonically stated recently that our new war > with Iraq is just a way to show more smart missle "advertisements" to > the petty dictators we peddle our stuff to. Can't they just drop leaflets instead? It'd be so much nicer.
Re: Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
John Keley wrote... "There are terrorists who'd want to do nasty things to us for simply allowing global trade, or for allowing trade with repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, or for selling weapons to countries with bad human rights records." Hummm...kind of an odd argument, don't you think? Should it still be called "terrorism" if there exist those that oppose a world-wide oppressive and corrupt regime that in turn props up any petty dictator that smells as rotten as we are? "Osama Bin Laden might not hate us, but *someone* would." Well, perhaps we fucked with the wrong guy. In other words, its one thing to piss off a small number of people, but if you keep stomping around the globe screwing people over and spouting tired rhetoric, you're bound to attract the attention of someone with enough money, networks, determination and religious zealotry who makes it their mission in life to take you out. Perhaps its no big coincidence that OBL is Saudi and that we've supported and propped up the repressive Saudi regime for years. (He's also stated many times that one of his goals is to topple the corrupt Saudi regime and to remove American control.) It's funny...but I think I just understood what "infidel" means... "Even if we were just an economic giant with little foreign policy, we'd still have an impact by which countries we chose to trade with, and if someone could improve their fortunes by several billion dollars a year by finding a few gullable guys to strap dynamite to themselves and blow up shopping malls and such, I'm sure they'd do just that." Perhaps we should try it and see? Ah well. But remember, it just might be that OBL and Co are not just half a dozen guys in a Pakistani cave. Perhaps there are thousands who are almost equally angry, and every time the Israelis use one of our whiz-bangs to kill their kids, we add a few more to the roster of those willing to strap dynamite to themselves. BTW...a Muslim co-worker sardonically stated recently that our new war with Iraq is just a way to show more smart missle "advertisements" to the petty dictators we peddle our stuff to. -TD _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Petro's catch-22 incorrect (Re: citizens can be named as enemy combatants)
At 03:20 PM 1/15/03 -0800, Petro wrote: >On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 09:15:57AM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >> On the other hand, if the US were following the traditional model >> for defense rather than having a standing army stomping around the world, >> it's highly unlikely that somebody like Al Qaeda would have attacked >> the World Trade Center, because they wouldn't have had their grievances >> about the US infidel forces stationed in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia. >> They *might* have attacked Exxon headquarters because of Exxon mercs >> stationed in the Holy Land. > >Bullshit. > >First off, the same groups would have been torqued off that we were >guilty of "cultural imperalism" by allowing (or assisting) american >companies to push product over there. They would simply have had a social-boycott or a government-imposed ban. Both are used in the US. (Only the government-imposed one uses force, but its generally invisible bureaucratic violence by Customs workers at borders.) >Secondly, other groups would have been just as pissed off at us for >*not* helping them. Not if the USG had no policy towards anyone. One more time, George, for Petro: Trade with all, make treaties with none, and beware of foreign entanglements. -George Washington I guess RTFF: RTF Fatwa
