Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 00:34:21 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> Cc: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@neomedia.it>, Konstantinos Konstantinidis <kkonstan@duth.gr>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: helping victims of terror Message-ID: <3BB427FD.61AE3E6A@mindspring.com> References: <1001447850.3bb0e1aa11dfc@webmail.neomedia.it> <20010925222900.A71817@lpt.ens.fr> <3BB216E8.89F3419@mindspring.com> <20010926202630.C10954@lpt.ens.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
> > The unstated assumption here is that it is possible to please
> > all such people simultaneously,
>
> I don't think there was any assumption there about pleasing anyone.
> My point was that bin Laden and his crowd are a minority, even among
> the middle Eastern population; and, if America had not been a
> prosperous country and if people had been starving, faced with foreign
> occupation, and suffered a general sense of injustice all the time,
> someone like David Duke would have a much greater following than he
> does today: probably greater than bin Laden does today, and he would
> be advocating much more extreme violence than he does right now, being
> toned down only by fear of US law.
>
> That paragraph was not a direct reference to America, only a reference
> to conditions in which such fanatics can arise.
The problem is that no matter what a nation does or does not
do, someone somewhere will feel wronged by the action or
inaction.
I think that U.S. citizens generally realize that bin Laden
and his crowd are a minority. I also think they realize
that, although we have released photographs of 14 of the
people suspected of having committed the attack of the 11th,
and we have other evidence in our posession, including the
arrest of someone who provided several of those persons with
phony identification, we haven't come right out and stated
that the act was bin Laden's work. On the other hand, we
are not about to mistake bin Laden for Shirley Temple, and
as a terrorist organizer himself, we are unlikely to be so
willing to tolerate him or anyone like him as we have been
up to the time before the attack.
> > Even if the U.S. were to completely ignore its own national
> > best interestests, and cringe in fear while rushing to placate
> > every potential terrorist before they become angry enough to
> > attack, pleasing everyone would be impossible.
>
> There is no question of placating. Just don't meddle in their
> affairs, they don't concern you. That is the only message here.
The problem is that they consider the destruction of Israel
to be one of their affairs, and the U.S. was one of many
countries involved in the creation of the state of Israel
as reparations for World War II. So it _is_ our business,
and their claim to those affairs being private is specious
and generally unjustifiable.
> Of course, now that they have struck, the US is more or less obliged
> to strike back, but it should be done *extremely* carefully. But
> it's a good time for the US to reconsider its involvements with other
> shady regimes and other internal problems all over the world.
Of course history is written by the victors, so no matter what
you might think of a particular regime now, it is up to history,
not you, to judge its character.
> > Trying to do this would put the U.S. in the position of the
> > battered spouses, who blame themselves for the beatings they
> > receive from their partners.
>
> Except that the US is not the spouse of the middle east. Except,
> perhaps, for Israel.
Get this straight: the attacks of 11 September were the
responsibility of the attackers. I don't care if the U.S.
was dropping pallets of war materials to one side or the
other of some country, or if they were refusing to drop
pallets of war materials. Nothing justifies the attacks.
The analogy to the "battered spouse" was to someone who,
when attacked, did nothing, except consider the attack as
resulting from their own behaviour.
This abdicates the personal responsibility of the attackers,
and no matter who presents this idea, or how many times it is
presented, the attacks were not the fault of the U.S..
> > I maintain that it's not possible to both support Israel to
> > keep the Israeli's from feeling abandoned, and germinating
> > their own terrorists, and to not support Israel, so that the
> > current terrorist fundamentalists are satisfied and thus they
> > do not engage in future attacks.
>
> But the Israel thing doesn't seem to have been uppermost on Osama's
> mind.
It was certainly on his mind earlier this week, when he sent
his fax to the Packistani newspaper. And it was on his mind
when he sent the warning of an attack, last month, to the
Arabic language paper in London.
> Why must the US continue to meddle in all those other
> countries?
If you want to put me in the position of a U.S. appologist,
at least give me precise, concrete instances, so that I can
give you my understanding of why the U.S. has involved itself,
on a case by case basis.
> (You're also making some shocking implications above --
> ie, that the US feels it necessary to support Israel in all
> circumstances regardless of moral positions, and that the US feels
> that if it does not support Israel, Israeli terrorists will attack the
> US, so it's an emotional blackmail involved. But I'm not sure I want
> to find out more on this.)
No. My implication is merely that the U.S. is acting correctly
in its historical support of the continued existance of Israel,
and to do otherwise would be to renege on a promise made which
dates from the end of World War II.
The other statement is based on _your_ idea that the U.S. is
in fact engaged in the creation of terrorists through -- your
word -- "meddling" in the affairs of other countries. I merely
point out that to not act is also a form of "meddling", and
thus, no matter what the U.S. does, it is engaging in what
someone, somewhere will claim is "meddling". If your premise,
that such "meddling" is so intolerable that it in itself thus
_creates_ terrorists -- well, no matter what we do or don't do
must then necessarily result in terrorists.
> > Perhaps, as you argue, the attack was a consequence of U.S.
> > foreign policy. If so, then the path is clear: and it does
> > not include permitting others to dictate foreign policy.
>
> In that case, why is the US seeking to gain the support of
> countries all over the world now?
Because the U.S. tends to pay for everything, and forgive all
war debts, and it would be nice to have the approval of other
nations, if we are to engage in a long term campaign to eliminate
terrorista, and it would be nice if there were some assurance
that other nations were also committed to the idea, since it is
a hard row to hoe alone.
[ ... embargo of Iraq against a government which has used
poison gas on its own citizens as part of an attempted
"ethnic clensing" ... ]
> > The embargo does not extend to food or medical supplies.
>
> Excuse me. It included trade, and that includes trade in medicines
> and food. There was/is a UN "food for oil" scheme, but the US fought
> tooth and nail to prevent countries (including India) from using it to
> trade with Iraq. India had the food, and wanted the oil, and did
> trade, but it involved plenty of nastiness. Iraqi officials may also
> have pilfered what food did reach Iraq, but that is not the whole
> story at all.
India wanted to trade above the level needed to alleviate
any unnecessary suffering of the civilian population in Iraq,
which is tantamount to ignoring the embargo entirely.
> Even if it was,
>
> > If Iraq
> > has chosen to redirect permitted aid, such that it does not reach
> > its intended destination, then the suffering of their people is on
> > their own head, not that of those participating in the embargo.
>
> That is precisely the attitude that gets the US so widely disliked.
> "I'll embargo you, but I'll give you some bags of rice on humanitarian
> grounds, now if your people starve it's your fault." I dislike it
> enough coming from US bureaucrats, but I absolutely detest it coming
> from an ordinary American; I really hope you're not representative.
Realize that the U.S. is currently free from outside rule
because of a revolutionary war, in which "ordinary Americans"
gave their lives in order to throw off the yoke of a nation
which, at the time, was opressing them.
I think that the basic issue that you are not understanding is
that, given its origins, it is almost unimaginable for average
U.S. citizens that someone starving to death because corrupt
government officials are selling off relief supplies would not
rise up, and similarly, give their lives to throw off the yoke
those corrupt government officials.
This explains, at least in part, why U.S. citizens on average
have a less than symapthetic view for people who, rather than
fighting against their opressors in their own country, and
instead, come to the U.S. and demonstrate (as is their right in
the U.S. to do, without fear of retribution), wanting the U.S.
to send its sons and daughters to die opposing the regime that
they themselves were unwilling to stay and fight themselves.
If Sadaam's people are starving -- Yes, it's Saddam's fault.
And the U.S. has sent more aid than all other nations combined
to combat the famine in Ethiopia (I guess that they're just
born "meddlers"...); it has helped very little, overall, as
the military government there continues to sell relief supplies
to neighboring countries -- who are part of the problem: they
buy them -- in exchange for funds that they use to then buy
weapons and equipment to continue the oppression of their own
citizens.
> > I have heard other Indian nationals claim that the Taliban were
> > merely puppets of the Pakistani government.
>
> Some do claim that; they, in their present form, are undoubtedly
> *creations* of the Pakistan government, which is now the only country
> to continue to recognise them. How much control they have is hard to
> say.
Good to know that there is someone at fault in your universe,
other than the U.S. government, or its agency, the C.I.A....
> > I think that India's
> > long standing conflict with Pakistan must color these views.
>
> Whose views? The puppet view, or the condom view, or my views in
> these emails?
Your statements regarding Pakistan, in these emails.
> > The
> > problems between India and Pakistan started with the end of British
> > colonialism, when the two countries started self-segregating along
> > religious boundaries, for no reason other than religious intolerance
> > on both sides. This self-segregation has continued to the point
> > where the countries are now sharply divided upon religious lines.
>
> Ah, now you're trying to know more about India than I do. As a matter
> of fact, India has more muslims than Pakistan does,
What about as a percentage of the population, rather than as
a raw count? Here's the answer:
India Hindu 81.3%
Muslim 12%
Christian 2.3%
Sikh 1.9%
other groups including Buddhist, Jain, Parsi 2.5%
Pakistan Muslim 97% (Sunni 77%, Shi'a 20%)
Christian, Hindu, and other 3%
And FWIW:
Afghanistan Muslim 99% (Sunni 84%, Shi'a 15%),
other 1%
> and on the whole there is no more trouble (far less, indeed) than
> there is between, say, Catholics and Protestants in the UK.
"Less worse" != "Better".
> India has always rejected
> the "two-nation theory" (the theory that Hindus and Muslims can't get
> along) and with good reason. In fact the head of the Indian missile
> programme is a Muslim (Abdul Kalam). So are any number of other
> prominent people, in all walks of life, including many journalists;
> I can point you to writings by some of them if you like. Also plenty
> of Christians, Sikhs and others.
Note: I am not saying that ethnic division is a governmental
policy, I'm stating that it is happening.
I'm well aware of the theory; I'm also well aware that, despite
the theory, the self segregation has occurred to the extents
noted in the percentages quoted above. Historically, the two
countries populations were much more balanced than they are
today.
It seems to me that the closer to a majority any group moves,
the worse it is for everyone. I myself spent a good portion of
my childhood in an area where ~65% of the population were of a
single religion, and yes, people who were not that religion
suffered socially and occasionally physically as a result of that.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3BB427FD.61AE3E6A>