[KLUG Advocacy] Re: [KLUG Members] The purpose of terrorism

[Adam Williams]

>>As I sit here at work this morning I am frightened by what I am hearing my
>>co-workers say.  Many of them are calling for total nuclear annihilation of
>>the middle east.  They want the body count to be even on both sides.
>I'm personally sick and tired of the media pointing fingers at
>everyone.  The US is currently getting an outpouring of support, and
>all blind finger pointing will do is alienate every country we do it
>to.  And trying to explain to some Americans the difference between
>Islam and Muslim is like trying to explain the difference between
>the decifit and debt.  Heck, in both cases, they'll just give you a
>one-liner back like "both of them are bad."
>And right now, Afganistan is probably the "big target" if we wanted
>to his a country.  Unfortunately, there is still no evidence that
>this was a Afgani-state sponsored act.  At least what has been
>released.

Well, to be fair there is no evidence they are showing us or telling us
about.  That doesn't mean there isn't any.  Of course,  that doesn't mean
there is either.  That is the whole reason for having "transparent"
government.

>>The funny thing is we are still unsure who caused this.  Sure the pundits
>>are quick to blame Osama bin Laden, he's quick, easy, and CIA trained.  But
>>keep in mind who caused Oklahoma City.   The purpose of terrorism is to
>>cause your enemy to panic, make quick decisions without thinking them out,
>>and above all make mistakes.  A car bomb there pulls security forces away
>>from here so you can set another bomb off here.

I think you've missed a very important reason for terrorism:  To prove to
the bully, that yes,  he can be hit.  A smart bully pulls back and thinks
"gee, why do these people hate me so much",  a dumb bully keeps swinging.

"Maybe the best way to attack an aircraft carrier is on a jet ski."

>As I've mentioned on other lists, I'm praying that:
>1.  Our intelligence community has or comes up with conclusive facts
>2.  Our leaders act upon those facts very surgically and decisively
>You must have faith in our intelligence community.  They are just

Why?

>like you and I.

No they aren't.  Someone like me would never go work for them.

>They know the wrongs that can happen with the wrong
>info, and they know what exageration of info can do (e.g., Vietnam
>-- we learned a lot in that war on how to *NOT* do things).  From
>there you must hope the President and others act as they should, in
>the best interests of America and the world.  I think they know a
>lot more than they are saying, for security reasons at this time.

This is always true,  them knowing more then they are saying.  Some poeple
view that as a problem.


>>In the days, weeks, and months that are to follow questions such as "Why?"
>>will stick out in our mind.  We may never know the answers to these
>>questions.
>Terrorism has several purposes.  In this case, no one is claiming
>responsibility.  That pretty much narrows down the purpose to one.
>This act of Terrorism was to drive fear and a belief in no security
>to a powerful nation where freedom rules supreme.  The terrorists

Whether freedom rules supreme or not is open to debate.

>want to see our nation turn on itself, as the government screams
>chicken little for more security as some of its citizens scream back
>chicken little before the government even acts against our freedoms.
>We must crush our fear.  We must band together.  We must not point
>fingers in our own society.  The citizens and its government must
>work together.

"Banding together" is the anti-thesis of a free society.  Division and
discord are the evidence of free society.

>I'm appauled at the number of privacy advocates that have taken this
>time to lash out at our security measures and their inability to
>prevent this from happening.  As much as I believe in some of these
>comments, now is *NOT THE TIME* to be discussing them.  We must be
>passive and then comment *ONLY* when we see our government taking
>away our freedoms -- *NOT* before.

Now and always is exactly the time,  later is too late.  This is the day
of automatic weapons, body armor, spy satellites, etc... There will never
again be the hope of people throwing off the bonds of a tyrannical
government so long as that government is well funded.  Tomorrow is the day
of face recognition techonlogy, exoskeletons, etc....  even more so.

>Privacy advocates must "pick their battles" not start a pre-emptive
>strike!  Otherwise, they won't be taken seriously when liberty
>really is at stake.  And then the terrorists have won.

Liberty is always at stake.  The terrorist will only have won when the
United States of America adopts a reasonable and fair approach to foreign
policy.

>>We have the technology to make the entire Middle East one
>>large hole, but what will that solve?
>
>Nothing.  The strike will be surgical, but decisive and massive if
>the violators are so numerous.  You can quote me on that.
>>Would our military give warning to the countries we
>>bomb, let them move their families to safety before our
>>bombs hit, thus proving we are better than terrorists?
>Yes, the policy of the United States is to never "sneak attack."  We
>may not be "specific" when we warn, but we will warn them one way or
>another.  Most of the time, the leaders or organizations are so
>arrogant, they fail to realize that we know exactly where they are,
>and exactly what we are doing.  And that is their mistake.
>Of course that won't stop media criticism.  They'll always complain

Criticism is the media's job.  Personally I think they do a pretty half
baked job.

>and second guess, no matter what we do.  My favorite was the bombing
>of the retreating Iraqi military from Kuait.  The media was saying
>that was "barbaric".  The fact of the matter is that it was war,
>there was no cease fire, and you don't let your enemy regroup back
>into a stronger force.

War is barbaric.  Maybe neccesary,  but the execution of a murderer is no
more glorious or noble than the execution of an innocent man.

>>Or will our bombs fall in the middle of the night while they
>>are asleep?
>Nope.  When we know, you will be told.  It might be as the air
>strikes are happening, and the warning was "private", but it will be
>made.  And I don't think this qualifies as a "sneak attack" as it is
>well out in the open.

I remember missles into Afghanistan to try and get Bin Laden once before.
That wasn't a sneak attack?  Or the Pharmecutial plant in Sudan,  the
middle of the night as I recall.

>>I am not saying we as a country need to be complacent and allow
>>this to happen without incident but skill, grace, and style is
> needed now not midnight paramilitary raids.
>The paramilitary raids will come later.  I predict that 6 months

Unfortunately,  your probably right.

>down the road, the US special forces will start raiding all know
>terrorist encampments "behind the scenes" and without the approval

Or those encampments we deem to be terrorist.

>of their harboring governments.  I think Bush's stance on taking
>issue with the harboring governments will be used to our advantage
>later on.


Yes,  the people who hate us now,  will hate us more then.

>I can see it now ... "Since you are promoting terrorism by harboring
>known terrorists, we would feel justified in bombing the shit out of
>you.  But instead, we will be civilized, we will infiltrate your
>country and take them out for you.  If you have a problem with that,
>go ahead and complain publicly that America is invading your country
>and killing well-known terrorists--er, I mean citizens, in it and
>leaving afterwards."
>Again, most of this will be unreported in the media months from now.
>>Remember Ghandi who said "An eye for an eye will only make the
>>whole world blind."
>Ghandi said that in the context of forcing an issue, their issue of
>freedom.  So forcing an issue should always be done passively, to
>show that you are on higher ground.

Ok,  how about troubling yourself with the speck in your brothers eye when
you have a plank in your own?

>Unfortunately, someone else said forced their issue quite actively.
>People are dead, and .  A passive response will only give them
>incentive to do it again.

Yes,  people have been dying since the dawn of civilazation.  An "active"
response will kill more.  The storm rolls on....

>But that response must be against those responsible, surgical and
>with a point that those who kill Americans in their homeland will be
>hunted and prosecuted.  Let us hope we show the world we are willing
>to try them like citizens at the same time we destroy their ability
>to make war.

That would be a nice change of pace.

>I have confidence in our intelligence and our leadership.

I don't,  and I guess that changes one take on everything.  If you want to
see the "responsible" party,  visit the white house.

>And let
>us hope this who incident gets our government to refocus on those
>powers granted by the Constitution, and not the "Great Society" it
>does not.  I, for one, fear the powers granted to the government in
>the "Great Society" more than a strong national and secure defense
>as allowed by our Constitution.  But now is not the time to argue
>such issues (sorry, didn't mean to start on my soapbox).
>We all should realize that a free society provides a level of
>national security that no agency or policy can match.  But that

Exactly.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ximian GNOME, Evolution, LTSP, and RedHat Linux + LVM & XFS
-----------------------------------------------------------