Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 20:56:56 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Different approach to terrorist threat




Hugh

The flight security measures that are required have existed elsewhere 
for sometime. I believe, according to the press here, that the US 
congress did not pass the necessary laws because it was either a) not 
acceptable to the airports/airlines due to the loss of revenue or b) an 
infringement of personal freedom.

The former is perfectly understandable but unacceptable. The latter is 
an extraordinary misrepresentation of what constitutes freedom and 
personal liberty.

regards
sdv

hbone wrote:

> >What imminent attacks? - what evidence is there that with sensible 
> precautions they >could not have been prevented from carrying out the 
> acts of the 9/11. Moreover since we >know that the coalition states 
> will have killed already, and will cause the deaths of many >more 
> people than terroists can possibly achieve it is absurd to consider 
> that this in >anyway justifies military attacks on Afghanistan.
>
> We can "believe" in imminent attacks or "dis-believe" in imminent 
> attacks.  The passage of time does not, per se, increase the 
> probability of attack, but increases its imminence
>
> as the date of execution approaches.
>
>  
>
> Before 9/11, warnings were given, but evidence was sketchy.  With 
> sufficient evidence, sensible precautions would have meant arrest and 
> detention of the 19 perpetrators.  With firm belief ot imminent attack 
> but zero knowledge of identity of the attackers, sensible precaution 
> wuld have meant implementation of flight security measures such as 
> those now contemplated.
>
>  
>
> Best,
>
> Hugh
>
>  
>
>  
>
>     Hugh
>
>     The problem is that it is the 'democracies' aka G8/14/20 who are
>     in the forefront of the developments which most of time you are so
>     against, but which suddenly you have become ambivilant about.
>      Sometime back we exchanged emails about the ownership of
>     information, copyright etc am I correct in assuming that you have
>     suddenly discovered that totally free access to information is
>     dangerous? That some information should be 'owned' that
>     biological, genetic, nuclear information, the way to make a bomb
>     should not be freely available?
>
>     If you believe it is necesscery to support the US state in its
>     current intention to declare war on the people of Afghanistan with
>     a gun in one hand and a bag of flour in the other, then you need
>     to justify this. You need to explain why the US state and its
>     corporations deserves to be supported to a greator extent than the
>     people of Afghanistan who have spent most of the colonial and
>     post-colonial era being instructed in the  inoperative nature of
>     there communities.
>
>     This is not the place to discuss the meaning and limits of
>     democracy. Later perhaps.
>      
>     hbone wrote:
>
>>     Are there individuals or groups who can persuade Blair or Bush,
>>     other Coalition leaders to
>>
>>     change their plans? 
>>
>     Yes - Charter 88, Amnesty, Oxfam, the anti-globalisation movement
>     - add your own US based list.
>
>>      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?
>>
>     What imminent attacks? - what evidence is there that with sensible
>     precautions they could not have been prevented from carrying out
>     the acts of the 9/11. Moreover since we know that the coalition
>     states will have killed already, and will cause the deaths of many
>     more people than terroists can possibly achieve it is absurd to
>     consider that this in anyway justifies military attacks on
>     Afghanistan.
>
>>      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?
>>
>     I wasn't aware that the USA was a democratic state. I thought you
>     could only vote for the status-quo or abstain which is what most
>     people do... Let me quote Peter Singer "When we consider how
>     serious it is to take a life, we should look, not at the race,
>     sex, or species to which it belongs, but at the characteristics of
>     the ndividual being killed, for example its own desires about
>     continuing to live, or the kind of life it is capable of
>     leading....' The g8 states are plainly not functioning within the
>     shadow cast by Singer's statement and as such should not be supported.
>
>     regards
>
>     sdv
>

HTML VERSION:

>What imminent attacks? - what evidence is there that with sensible precautions they >could not have been prevented from carrying out the acts of the 9/11. Moreover since we >know that the coalition states will have killed already, and will cause the deaths of many >more people than terroists can possibly achieve it is absurd to consider that this in >anyway justifies military attacks on Afghanistan.

We can "believe" in imminent attacks or "dis-believe" in imminent attacks.  The passage of time does not, per se, increase the probability of attack, but increases its imminence

as the date of execution approaches.

 

Before 9/11, warnings were given, but evidence was sketchy.  With sufficient evidence, sensible precautions would have meant arrest and detention of the 19 perpetrators.  With firm belief ot imminent attack but zero knowledge of identity of the attackers, sensible precaution wuld have meant implementation of flight security measures such as those now contemplated.

 

Best,

Hugh

 

 

Hugh

The problem is that it is the 'democracies' aka G8/14/20 who are in the forefront of the developments which most of time you are so against, but which suddenly you have become ambivilant about.  Sometime back we exchanged emails about the ownership of information, copyright etc am I correct in assuming that you have suddenly discovered that totally free access to information is dangerous? That some information should be 'owned' that biological, genetic, nuclear information, the way to make a bomb should not be freely available?

If you believe it is necesscery to support the US state in its current intention to declare war on the people of Afghanistan with a gun in one hand and a bag of flour in the other, then you need to justify this. You need to explain why the US state and its corporations deserves to be supported to a greator extent than the people of Afghanistan who have spent most of the colonial and post-colonial era being instructed in the  inoperative nature of there communities.

This is not the place to discuss the meaning and limits of democracy. Later perhaps.
 
hbone wrote:

Are there individuals or groups who can persuade Blair or Bush, other Coalition leaders to

change their plans? 

Yes - Charter 88, Amnesty, Oxfam, the anti-globalisation movement - add your own US based list.

 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?

What imminent attacks? - what evidence is there that with sensible precautions they could not have been prevented from carrying out the acts of the 9/11. Moreover since we know that the coalition states will have killed already, and will cause the deaths of many more people than terroists can possibly achieve it is absurd to consider that this in anyway justifies military attacks on Afghanistan.

 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?

I wasn't aware that the USA was a democratic state. I thought you could only vote for the status-quo or abstain which is what most people do... Let me quote Peter Singer "When we consider how serious it is to take a life, we should look, not at the race, sex, or species to which it belongs, but at the characteristics of the ndividual being killed, for example its own desires about continuing to live, or the kind of life it is capable of leading....' The g8 states are plainly not functioning within the shadow cast by Singer's statement and as such should not be supported.

regards

sdv