| From: | shadowrn@*********.com (Bira) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | in defence of the devil |
| Date: | Fri Sep 14 10:55:08 2001 |
Iridios <iridios@********.net> wrote:
> Let's go back the the 'Bully' analogy everybody likes to use. Many in
> the mideast consider America to be a bully, and consider themselves the
> victim of the bully. Due to their lack of size they use covert tactics
> and mobility to defend themselves. The only problem with this is the
> victims of bullies do not attack the little sister of a bully because
> that would bring down the bully's wrath. Attacking civilians using
> terrorism is like attacking the bully's defenseless sister.
>
> If they had attacked only military targets in America, there wouldn't
> have such an outcry. Nor such a demand for the heads of all involved.
> If they had attacked military targets in their own country(s) then there
> wouldn't have been any real outcry, and there may have been calls for
> our withdrawl.
If they attacked only military targets, there would still be a lot of angry cries
for revenge... "They killed our brave soldiers, we must kill them too!".
And there might also be the possibility that this rage is just what the
perpetrators wanted. It's a very well known fact that any attack against US installations,
be they military or civilian, causes public outrage and extreme demands for bloody
retaliation. The perpetrators might have been fanatical and mad, but they weren't stupid.
In fact, they had to be very smart to pull this off, more than smart enough to see what
would the reaction be.
It's just a theory, of course, and perhaps a tad too imaginative. But it makes
some sense, as much as the other theories flying around about Palestinians, Iraqis and bin
Laden. None of them are supported by hard evidence yet, and I'm glad there's a serious
investigation going on.
>
> But they do have the quiet support of the governments of the country
> they stay in. Otherwise those governments would kick the terrorists
> out. If every legitimate government in the world would aggresively push
> the terrorists out, they would have no where to go and cease to exist.
Well, if this was an easy thing to do, most governments would have done it
already. Terrorists wouldn't stay free or alive long enough to put their plans into
motion.
What you're saying is the rough equivalent of saying the US government quietly
supports, say, the Mafia, otherwise they would kick them out of the country. Of course
this affirmation is false, and I'm sure the US government and law enforcemente agencies
would happily wipe the Mafia out if they could. But it's not easy. You can't just point to
someone and say "he's a mafioso, let's arrest/kill him", and it's the same with
terrorists. They hide well, and finding evidence enough to convict them is hard.
There may be _some_ places that really support terrorists, but not as many as most
people think.
> Dropping the first bomb killed only several thousands of lives, as did
> dropping the second bomb. Truman dropped the bombs as an alternative to
> a costly invasion.
But it was still an A-bomb, and it still killed several thousands more people than
were in the WTC and Pentagon. And the rationale you used to "justify" it might
very well have been used by the perpetrators. "We can't invade them (we're not even
an army, just a bunch of idealists), so we use the alternative."
It doesn't justify the attack, not by a long shot, and I think everyone here
agrees that it doesn't. But _the_perpetrators_ could easily think that it did. No one here
is trying to really defend them, in spite of the subject line, only trying to look into
their motivations. By doing that, it's possible to prevent future attacks more easily.
>
> > my problem is that when americans represent
> > the UN they should wear pale blue helmets at the time and
> > the uniform of the UN without any other markings, their
> > machines of war should likewise be UN colours
>
> I believe it's against the law for American soldiers to wear the
> uniforms of any other military force, whether they are friend or foe.
But it's UN regulation, isn't it? If you are members of the UN, you should abide
by their regulations.
>
> There was no jump to combat terrorism then because Israel asked to be
> allowed to take care of it themselves. Much as we want to do. And you
> must remember, weapons are only tools. How they are used is the
> responsability of the user.
The average Palestinian probably thinks Israel wouldn't be so agressive and
territorial if they hadn't stocked up so much on the hardware. From what I can glimpse
from the news, they have the reputation of being the local bullies, and, going back to the
analogy, the local school bullies are being supplied with brass knuckles by the students
of that big university over by the next continent.
The bully would still be a bully without brass knuckles, but he's much worse with
them. If you fight him a lot (for a number of reasons), after feeling those brass knuckles
on your face for too long some of your anger is going to transfer to the university
students who supplied them.
It's not hard to see why the Palestinians would be angry at the nations who supply
Israel with weapons, just as it's not hard to see why you would be angry at a terrorist
attack such as this.
> they have i believe proven exactly
> > what resolve is , did anyone call kamikaze pilots cowards ,
>
> They were attacking military targets at sea, it's a different situation.
And they were alone in their planes...
>
> And if the nations had acted to oust or at least identify the terrorists
> and their camps, they would have their names cleared. "The only thing
> needed for evil to prevail, is that good men do nothing."
As I said before, this might not be as easy as it seems.
--
Bira -- SysOp da Shadowland.BR
http://www.shadowland.com.br
Redator de Shadowrun da RPG em Revista
http://www.rpgemrevista.f2s.com
