Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 15:44:55 +1100
Subject: Re: Different approach to terrorist threat


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_Mtqg+uwW4KkC37xN7vFfWA)

Steve, 

What resources can individuals bring to bear against terrorist assault today, tomorrow
next week, next month?

Are there individuals or groups who can persuade Blair or Bush, other Coalition leaders to 
change their plans?  

"Mass hysterical revulsion" is about as likely as transfer of State responsibility for protection their respective citizens to the United Nations. 

Nation states, democratic or dictatorial, have support or passive acquiesence of their citizens  The States can opt for action or non-action, at earliest or later dates.   Is there a better way to prevent possible imminent attacks?
 
In  democracies, Individuals and groups who dissent have the power to speak out in protest, sollcit funds, buy publicity, march in demonstrations.  How many would go to the polls and vote for new officials tomorrow, next week, next year?

In the meantime the U.S media provide terrorists the location of U.S. centers where bio-chem weapons are stored, emphasize vulnerability of persons in enclosed atmospheres
such as subways, terminals, auditoriums, malls, other large public places, and note that
a plane crash on the Indian Point atomic energy facility would have destroyed hundreds of thousands more than the attack on WTC


Best regards,

Hugh
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



  Hugh,

  How to respond, given that a response seems necessary to say why the supportive or at least accepting response towards the behavior, beliefs and ideologies of the government (which for you is the US govonment) but which for me would be the European governments, is wrong. It is in these very circumstances that people should scruntinise the behaviour of the local and more distant governments. We may be subjects of the state but that does not mean that we should support it when they respond in the psychotic fashion of the powerful responding to an event. It is impossible to plan for all  events tragic or not, and we should not consider that the state, which is something invented in a particular moment of history, (I personally think of it as a technology invented at the time of the first neolithic industrial revolution to control the suddenly exploding human population), as a 'good' it just happens to be there, and is fundementally reactive to the new and the unknown. 

  It is true that democratic debate is difficult in these circumstances, however it is at these moments that it is essential that negation, refusal is supported.

  The current evidence against Bin-Laden and the Taliban will not, I'm told, stand up as sufficient to find Bin-Laden guilty in a European Court. In the final analysis how will you respond when Bin-Laden is found to be 'not guilty' of the WTC events after he has stood before a non-USA court.... Which I have been told is a possible compromise...

  Only two decadesof terroism? (On a personal note Fascists tried to blow me up in the mid-70s in London) I am not an expert in these matters but terroist activity has been carried out ever since the modern concept was invented in the 19th C.

  If there was mass hysterical revulsion against state terroism I might be impressed by these events, but this unpleasent action against the Taliban and Bin-Laden will pass, and the best we can hope for is that not to many Afghanstan people will die in the process...

  As I type Blair is explaining the 'trap' around the Taliban is closing, that humanitarian aid for the Afghan people is being shipped volumes and so on... 'Military action will be proportionate and not aimed at the Afghanistan people...' Perhaps he believes this? Perhaps it is not an example of 'Cynical Reason' run riot, perhaps the introduction of Coca-Cola and McDonalds is really  the answer - but forgive me if I insist on doubt. I think it is disgusting that the G20/Blair are/is defining the future for the people of Afghanistan.



  regards#
  sdv

  hbone wrote:

In the best of all possible worlds, the best of all possible governmentswould promptly execute pre-determined procedures to ameliorate a tragicevent and prevent a recurrence.On September 11, firemen and police ran into a hellish conflagration, savedthousands of lives, lost hundreds of their own.Six days after the event, Sontag meditates on history and the future whilean anguished citizenry prays for deliverance from impending horror.Democratic debate in a burning town hall is impossible.Two decades of terroist  disasters, from the failure of Carter, the liveslost in Beirut by an inept  Reagan Administration, civilians killed inhi-jacked planes, kidnapped hostages held for years in the mid-east, and thedocumented disasters under Clinton,  were insuffcient to arouse the publicto demand action.One hour on September 11 changed the equation.The public demands prevention now.  Changing t
he U.S. global presence andlong-term policy in the manner intimated by Ms. Sontag will have to wait.Her courageous advocacy against the State terrorism of Milosevic was timelyandcontributed to a solution.September 11 commenced a new conflict, absolute conviction of vulnerability,a terrible urgency.  The government we have is our only weapon, we mustsupport it.Hugh Bone>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let's Look Reality in the Face. By Susan Sontag
Monday, September 17,2001
(Le Monde )For a terrified and sad New Yorker, America never
seemed to befurther
awayfrom recognizing reality than facing the monstrous
dose of reality of
Tuesday, September 11.The gulf which separates what occurred and what one
shouldunderstand,on
one hand, and the sheer deception and self-satisfied
nonsense peddledby
practically all the leading public figures of
American life, and its
television commentators, is stupifying and
depressing.
The voices authorized to keep track of the events
seem to be joinedina
campaign aimed at treating the public like children.
Who hasacknowledged
that it wasn't a matter of "cowardly" aggression
against"civilization,"
or"freedom," or "humanity," or the "free world," but
an aggressionagainst
theUnited States, the self-proclaimed world superpower,
an aggressionwhich
isthe consequence of specific American actions and
interests? How many
Americans know about the continuation of American
bombings in Iraq?And
since we're using the word "cowardly," shouldn't it
be applied tothose
whokill from high in the sky, out of the range of
possible reprisals,rather
than to those who are willing to die in order to
kill others?
As for courage -- a morally neutral virtue --
whatever one can say of
thosewho perpetrated Tuesday's slaughter, they were not
cowards.
At all costs American leaders want to make us
believe that everythingis
allright. America is not afraid. Our resolve is not
broken. "They" willbe
hunted down and punished (whoever "they" might be).
We have a
robot-president who assures us that America always
has its head heldhigh.
A whole range of public personalities, vigorously
opposed to theforeign
policy of this administration, apparently feel free
to say nothingbut: we
are all united behind president Bush.We've been reassured that everything was going along
well, or closetoit,
even on a day marked by the stamp of infamy, and
even if America wasnow
atwar. Yet all is not well. And this isn't Pearl
Harbor. Considerable
reflection is going to be necessary, maybe it's
being done now in
Washingtonand elsewhere, on the colossal failure of American
intelligence and
counter-intelligence, on the possible options for
American foreignpolicy,
in the Middle East in particular, and on what
constitutes anintelligent
program for military defense.But those in charge of official functions, those who
wish to be andthose
who have been in the past, have decided -- with the
willingcomplicityof
the major media -- not to ask the public to bear too
great a part ofthe
burden of reality. The complacent and unanimously
lauded platitudesofa
Congress composed of one Soviet-like party appeared
contemptible. The
unanimity of moralizing rhetoric, aimed at masking
reality, pouredoutby
leading Americans, and the media, in recent days is
unworthy of amature
democracy.Leading American figures, and those who would like
to be, have let usknow
that their duty is only one of manipulation: to
impart confidence and
managethe pain. Politics, the politics of democracy-which
involvedisagreements
and encourage sincerity-have been replaced by
psychotherapy. Let'ssuffer
together. But let's not be stupid together. A little
historicalconscience
can help us understand exactly what happened, and
what might continueto
happen."Our country is strong", they keep telling us. For
my part, thatreally
doesn't console me. Who can doubt that America is
strong? But America
shouldnot be only that. --- hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net> wrote: > For what
it may be worth,
Harry Browne writes on the subject, moreinstallments to follow.http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24787Hugh
____________________________________________________________Do You Yahoo!?Send a newsletter, share photos & files, conduct polls, organize chat
events. Visit http://in.groups.yahoo.com



--Boundary_(ID_Mtqg+uwW4KkC37xN7vFfWA)

HTML VERSION:

 

 

 

Hugh,

How to respond, given that a response seems necessary to say why the supportive or at least accepting response towards the behavior, beliefs and ideologies of the government (which for you is the US govonment) but which for me would be the European governments, is wrong. It is in these very circumstances that people should scruntinise the behaviour of the local and more distant governments. We may be subjects of the state but that does not mean that we should support it when they respond in the psychotic fashion of the powerful responding to an event. It is impossible to plan for all  events tragic or not, and we should not consider that the state, which is something invented in a particular moment of history, (I personally think of it as a technology invented at the time of the first neolithic industrial revolution to control the suddenly exploding human population), as a 'good' it just happens to be there, and is fundementally reactive to the new and the unknown.

It is true that democratic debate is difficult in these circumstances, however it is at these moments that it is essential that negation, refusal is supported.

The current evidence against Bin-Laden and the Taliban will not, I'm told, stand up as sufficient to find Bin-Laden guilty in a European Court. In the final analysis how will you respond when Bin-Laden is found to be 'not guilty' of the WTC events after he has stood before a non-USA court.... Which I have been told is a possible compromise...

Only two decadesof terroism? (On a personal note Fascists tried to blow me up in the mid-70s in London) I am not an expert in these matters but terroist activity has been carried out ever since the modern concept was invented in the 19th C.

If there was mass hysterical revulsion against state terroism I might be impressed by these events, but this unpleasent action against the Taliban and Bin-Laden will pass, and the best we can hope for is that not to many Afghanstan people will die in the process...

As I type Blair is explaining the 'trap' around the Taliban is closing, that humanitarian aid for the Afghan people is being shipped volumes and so on... 'Military action will be proportionate and not aimed at the Afghanistan people...' Perhaps he believes this? Perhaps it is not an example of 'Cynical Reason' run riot, perhaps the introduction of Coca-Cola and McDonalds is really  the answer - but forgive me if I insist on doubt. I think it is disgusting that the G20/Blair are/is defining the future for the people of Afghanistan.



regards#
sdv

hbone wrote:

In the best of all possible worlds, the best of all possible governments
would promptly execute pre-determined procedures to ameliorate a tragic
event and prevent a recurrence.

On September 11, firemen and police ran into a hellish conflagration, saved
thousands of lives, lost hundreds of their own.

Six days after the event, Sontag meditates on history and the future while
an anguished citizenry prays for deliverance from impending horror.

Democratic debate in a burning town hall is impossible.

Two decades of terroist  disasters, from the failure of Carter, the lives
lost in Beirut by an inept  Reagan Administration, civilians killed in
hi-jacked planes, kidnapped hostages held for years in the mid-east, and the
documented disasters under Clinton,  were insuffcient to arouse the public
to demand action.

One hour on September 11 changed the equation.

The public demands prevention now.  Changing t
he U.S. global presence and
long-term policy in the manner intimated by Ms. Sontag will have to wait.

Her courageous advocacy against the State terrorism of Milosevic was timely
and
contributed to a solution.

September 11 commenced a new conflict, absolute conviction of vulnerability,
a terrible urgency.  The government we have is our only weapon, we must
support it.

Hugh Bone>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's Look Reality in the Face. By Susan Sontag

Monday, September 17,
2001

(Le Monde )

For a terrified and sad New Yorker, America never

seemed to be
further

away
from recognizing reality than facing the monstrous

dose of reality of

Tuesday, September 11.

The gulf which separates what occurred and what one

should
understand,
on

one hand, and the sheer deception and self-satisfied

nonsense peddled
by

practically all the leading public figures of

American life, and its

television commentators, is stupifying and

depressing.

The voices authorized to keep track of the events

seem to be joined
in
a

campaign aimed at treating the public like children.

Who has
acknowledged

that it wasn't a matter of "cowardly" aggression

against
"civilization,"

or
"freedom," or "humanity," or the "free world," but

an aggression
against

the
United States, the self-proclaimed world superpower,

an aggression
which

is
the consequence of specific American actions and

interests? How many

Americans know about the continuation of American

bombings in Iraq?
And

since we're using the word "cowardly," shouldn't it

be applied to
those

who
kill from high in the sky, out of the range of

possible reprisals,
rather

than to those who are willing to die in order to

kill others?

As for courage -- a morally neutral virtue --

whatever one can say of

those
who perpetrated Tuesday's slaughter, they were not

cowards.

At all costs American leaders want to make us

believe that everything
is

all
right. America is not afraid. Our resolve is not

broken. "They" will
be

hunted down and punished (whoever "they" might be).

We have a

robot-president who assures us that America always

has its head held
high.

A whole range of public personalities, vigorously

opposed to the
foreign

policy of this administration, apparently feel free

to say nothing
but: we

are all united behind president Bush.

We've been reassured that everything was going along

well, or close
to
it,

even on a day marked by the stamp of infamy, and

even if America was
now

at
war. Yet all is not well. And this isn't Pearl

Harbor. Considerable

reflection is going to be necessary, maybe it's

being done now in

Washington
and elsewhere, on the colossal failure of American

intelligence and

counter-intelligence, on the possible options for

American foreign
policy,

in the Middle East in particular, and on what

constitutes an
intelligent

program for military defense.

But those in charge of official functions, those who

wish to be and
those

who have been in the past, have decided -- with the

willing
complicity
of

the major media -- not to ask the public to bear too

great a part of
the

burden of reality. The complacent and unanimously

lauded platitudes
of
a

Congress composed of one Soviet-like party appeared

contemptible. The

unanimity of moralizing rhetoric, aimed at masking

reality, poured
out
by

leading Americans, and the media, in recent days is

unworthy of a
mature

democracy.

Leading American figures, and those who would like

to be, have let us
know

that their duty is only one of manipulation: to

impart confidence and

manage
the pain. Politics, the politics of democracy-which

involve
disagreements

and encourage sincerity-have been replaced by

psychotherapy. Let's
suffer

together. But let's not be stupid together. A little

historical
conscience

can help us understand exactly what happened, and

what might continue
to

happen.

"Our country is strong", they keep telling us. For

my part, that
really

doesn't console me. Who can doubt that America is

strong? But America

should
not be only that.
 --- hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net> wrote: > For what

it may be worth,

Harry Browne writes on the subject, more
installments to follow.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24787


Hugh

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send a newsletter, share photos & files, conduct polls, organize chat

events. Visit http://in.groups.yahoo.com