Re: Re(2): New York City

From: Karen R Heckert (heckertr@juno.com)
Date: Sun Sep 16 2001 - 16:14:49 PDT


Diane:
>
> exactly!! - yes. i am feeling, certainly afraid, but i still feel i
can disseminate terrorism as an attack on civilians - not to say anyone
is innocent, but that an understanding of terrorism involves thinking
beyond the US... gracia.

This is one of the major points. Terrorism is not just an attack on any
one country or group of people. It is an attack on the whole political
and social structure of the world. That structure may have serious
flaws, but it is a great deal better than anarchy. When only the gun
rules, you better believe it's the masses of people in any country who
are the ones who die and suffer.

> you know, on tuesday, in much confusion, i wrote that the hijackings
and attacks amounted to an act of war - and you are right - it exceeds
our understandings of current foreign policy.

On the contrary, bin Laden is doing precisely what he threatened to do.
Terror as foreign policy - and domestic policy too - has a long history.
We just didn't realize that "it could happen here."

> this is confusion to me - he will, of course, denounce the attacks...
but does that absolve his involvement?
> i don't know.

Bin Laden did NOT denounce the attacks. He made it very plain to
journalists that he was quite pleased. And of course he's not going
openly take responsibility. Nor has he for other acts which are
traceable to his group.
>
>
> i'm no republican, but i have to admit, thus far, Bush has done
nothing to indicate his incompetence - America votes for a paternalistic
 leader, and Bush has played the role of the father, daddy, very well.
frankly, i am not convinced of his incompetence, yet.

Whoa, there. Bush LOST the popular vote by 300,000 people (including, of
course, me). That means more than half of the people who voted preferred
Gore. And nobody in the US I've talked to really thinks of Bush as a
paternal figure.

> i can't imagine - and this is my limitation - how any act of war can
have moral implications...

If you're not a pacifist, and you believe that a particular war is
necessary in self-defense, or defense of human rights, you may feel an
obligation to fight, but there is also an obligation to fight in such a
way that non-combatants suffer as little as possible. In a century, we
have gone from wars where the majority of casualties were soldiers to
wars where the vast majority of dead and wounded are civilians - men
women and children who were not bearing arms. Check out the conflicts in
central Africa and Yugoslavia. In the present, that means probably going
into Afghanistan on the ground, (with all that means in terms of American
miiltary casualties), linking up with the surviving groups that oppose
the Taliban, and targeting bin Laden and Taliban installations and groups
using satellite positioning and such, avoiding populated areas and
civilian casualties. And once the Taliban are gone, the next Afghani
government will no doubt accept all the aid the American government will
be willing to supply, in contrast to the Taliban who are letting their
own people starve rather than risk "pollution" by "infidel" influences.
 
> oh dear. i admit that for me a pacifist position involves
understanding, not reciprocative violence - it is never okay for anyone
to die, and i think phil graham expressed this - one act of madess does
not legitimize an equal act of madness, does it?

We are not talking revenge. Self-defense is not madness. Children were
killed on those planes and probably in the WTC. We are talking about
preventing criminals from committing more crimes.

>
> i envy your conviction, frankly. perhaps i am a coward. i just don't
think hatred and blaming and finger-pointing is going to make a
difference a this point.

Being appalled by violence does not make you a coward. On the contrary,
it shows you have good sense. The problem is that whether I hate the
terrorists or not, they are still going to try to kill me, you and the
nice Muslim lady down my block - and her children. Personally, I think
we at least have an obligation to protect our children. When
negotiations will work to prevent further violence, you negotiate. The
men who rammed two jets into the WTC weren't listening. It's hard to
negotiate when the only communication offered is spilled blood.

Diane, I'm not trying to be rough on you, but this is not just "a
different game." When I was growing up the adults around me had
experienced World War II - as soldiers, as refugees, or as civilians in
this country. It's hard to grasp that someone wants to kill you without
ever having known you exist as an individual. Bin Laden has said that it
is a religiously worthy act to kill all Americans - civilians - wherever
they are in the world. Think about that.

Rachel



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 10 2001 - 15:49:17 PDT