Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:39:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gary E Davis <gedavis1-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: HAB: Reasonable Response & Anti-Americanism


--- "E.Pavlov" <epavlov-AT-mail.ru> wrote:
> [Gary] 
> > Does this mean, then, that you are much less interested in being
> > effectively persuasive than you are interested in reassuring
> yourself
> > about what you believe? You earlier postings have asserted views,
> but
> > not argued anything reasonably.
> 
> [Evgeni]
> I am sorry if I sound anti-american, I guess that is your
> understanding
> of my posts since it is in the subject line. 

No, I don't believe you're anti-American. But subject lines should
change as the drift of content changes. 


> 
> [Gary] 
> > How many Albanian casualties justify NATO action against Serbian
> > fanaticism? 
> 
> [Evgeni]
> My point was this - in order to pursuade the public to approve the
> bombings, the numbers were overstated. 

So, what? 

> If NATO wanted to act
> against "Serbian fanaticism" it did not have to do it, simply
> act...
> 

I don't get your point. Isn't it good that NATO seeks to act
justifiably, not just act? 


> > [Gary]  ....Your kind of attitude
> > here "argues" for Fred's reaction to your earlier postings. 
> 
> [Evgeni]
> I don't quite understand what you mean by my attitude,....

You wrote:

> there are no evidences of bin Laden involvement, and there probably
won't be, because to start a war you don't really need it - simply
show NY destruction and then bin Laden in the next episode and
American public will support whatever war US gov. is going to start. 


[E] I simply say what I think, and if I am not correct I will
> gladly listen to you or Fred, but until this point I was indirectly
> called pro-terrorist and anti-american...
> 
> [E] 
> > > What [is the proof]
> > > that bin Laden is responsible? 
> > 
> > [G] That's a fair question. Are you open to a fair answer? 
> 
> [Evgeni]
> Yes, I am.

I knew this. 


> 
> [Gary]
> > The U.S. did not bomb these nations; they bombed a pharmaceutical
> > plant in Sudan and training camps in Afghanistan. You must
> > distinguish the facts of action from interpretation of action.
> Osama
> > bin Laden and his network allegedly operated from the two tiny
> > locations that were precisely bombed. 
> 
> [Evgeni]
> Allegedly? I thought that those who commanded to bomb the plant 
> in Sudan were quite sure that it was connected with bin Laden? 


Yes, they were sure. But I know that this was questioned by many. It
turned out that Osama's tribe wasn't at the camps bombed, and there
was no later evidence of chemical warfare drugs at the Sudan
facility. But the issue is quite complex. I believe that the bombing
was with good cause. But I acknowledge the strong questionability of
U.S. action. My point was that those were targeted bombings IN
harboring states, not aggressions against those states. 


> And how does this bombing fights
> the crime? 

It militarily asserted the policy that is now overt: Harboring
regions are fair targets. 

> If bin Laden was responsible for this crime and US knew
> about his location (Afg.) then why not go and get him, like this
> time?

Afghan terrain and lack of U.S. public support for likely casualties.



> 
> [Gary]
> > How about thoughtful interventions that will satisfy victims
> > worldwide and kill the prospect of terrorism becoming biological
> and
> > nuclear?
> 
> [Evgeni]
> Yes, I am against terrorism, and I am open to discussion.
> I don't try to simply announce my views without any intention
> for reasonable response - I appreciate your response and will
> gladly follow any other discussions. My only point was this: US
> needs to fight terrorism, not announce a war of good and evil where
> good would be represented by US and NATO, and evil by "islamic
> terrorism" - quite offensive term, don't you think? how about a
> term "crusade" that I heard on TV the other day?

It's good to recognize that the range of public relations is global.
It's plausible that verbal sabre rattling will be heard clearly
enough in Afghanistan that Osama will be ejected from Taliban
territory. Islamic fundamentalists understand the rhetoric of Good
and Evil, which is their idiom. "Monumental" campaign suits the
preceding Islamic rhetoric of jihad. 

It's also good to recognize that military rhetoric in the U.S. has
been secondary to diplomatic action. I am confident that, in the end,
the U.S. will set a good example of what it means to fight terrorism
that depends on state sponsorship and underground finance systems. 

Regards,


Gary






__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/


     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---