Re: Bin Laden: Yes, I did it

[Jeff wrote:]
>Here's an article from today's Telegraph
>(http://news.telegraph.co.uk). Now that he
>has confessed, we can move past the arguments
>how our defensive response is unfair and
>based on flimsy evidence, etc etc.

If this is authenticated, it is an important piece of evidence. It
does not, however, absolve the U.S. from considering civilian deaths
that result from its bombing policy.

If we abhor bin Laden's B.S. excuse for hitting civilians in the WTC,
it is all the more important that we not emulate him.

JdL

> From: John A. deLaubenfels <jdl@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2001 2:27 PM
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: Bin Laden: Yes, I did it
>
>
> [Jeff wrote:]
> > Here's an article from today's Telegraph
> > (http://news.telegraph.co.uk). Now that he
> > has confessed, we can move past the arguments
> > how our defensive response is unfair and
> > based on flimsy evidence, etc etc.
>
> If this is authenticated, it is an important piece of evidence. It
> does not, however, absolve the U.S. from considering civilian deaths
> that result from its bombing policy.
>
> If we abhor bin Laden's B.S. excuse for hitting civilians in the WTC,
> it is all the more important that we not emulate him.
>
> JdL

I was watching BBC World News on PBS the other night,
and was very saddened to finally see the results, from
the perspective of Afghan civilians , of American bombing.
We don't see any of this on our regular network TV news.

There's a 7-year-old boy in Kabul who will probably
end up losing both of his eyes, because they were damaged
in a bomb blast and there is no eye doctor at the Kabul
hospital where he was taken.

Is our government (and apparently millions of supporters)
so hell-bent on revenge and Taliban-destruction that
this "collateral damage" doesn't matter?

love / peace / harmony ...

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In metatuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
<snip>
> I was watching BBC World News on PBS the other night,
> and was very saddened to finally see the results, from
> the perspective of Afghan civilians , of American bombing.
> We don't see any of this on our regular network TV news.
>
> There's a 7-year-old boy in Kabul who will probably
> end up losing both of his eyes, because they were damaged
> in a bomb blast and there is no eye doctor at the Kabul
> hospital where he was taken.
>
> Is our government (and apparently millions of supporters)
> so hell-bent on revenge and Taliban-destruction that
> this "collateral damage" doesn't matter?
<snip>

Joe, there are probably hundreds of heart wrenching cases like this.
Unfortunately, there is no way to avoid civillians being hurt and
killed when you are fighting people who live among civilians. I am
sure that the US military is taking extraordinary precautions against
this sort of thing, if simply to avoid the bad press that it brings.
In this war, good press is extremely important, because it is Bin
Laden's goal to incite more moderate Muslims to follow his program and
topple the governments of "friendly" Muslim countries. If the US can
be painted as a baby killing monster, he may well be able to achieve
his goal, thereby gaining access to nuclear weapons.

Revenge may be a factor for many, but for me it is a prophyllactic
measure to destroy him, his organization, and all other terrorist
organizations that have the destruction of western civilization as a
tenet. Some civilians will be killed and maimed, and the destruction
will be horrible. This doesn't mean that these deaths don't matter to
me, but I truly believe we will save lives hundredfold by neutralizing
him and his ilk. Unfortunately, I don't think the Bush administration
has this as their prime goal. They are too deeply entrenched in the
oil business, and too deeply involved in the corruption of middle
eastern governments to do this job honestly.

John Starrett

"John Starrett" wrote:

> Joe, there are probably hundreds of heart wrenching cases like
this.
> Unfortunately, there is no way to avoid civillians being hurt and
> killed when you are fighting people who live among civilians. I am
> sure that the US military is taking extraordinary precautions
against
> this sort of thing, if simply to avoid the bad press that it
brings.
> In this war, good press is extremely important, because it is Bin
> Laden's goal to incite more moderate Muslims to follow his program
and
> topple the governments of "friendly" Muslim countries. If the US
can
> be painted as a baby killing monster, he may well be able to
achieve
> his goal, thereby gaining access to nuclear weapons.
>
> Revenge may be a factor for many, but for me it is a prophyllactic
> measure to destroy him, his organization, and all other terrorist
> organizations that have the destruction of western civilization as
> a tenet.

The fact that this will literally never be possible highlights the
futility of this war. Bin Laden is not the problem, yet all this
destruction is geared towards killing him. Do we really think anti-US
sentiment will just go with bin Laden to the grave? US-directed anger
is world-wide, and the plan to just systematically kill-off any
person who expresses such anger is the very condition for another
Holocaust. The thousands of Muslims as well as the many others of 2nd-
and 3rd-world origin who are angered by 1st-world imperialism, are
not just pathologically bent on destroying western civilization -
their anger is quite literally the effect of US global domination.
Call me a pacifist, but shouldn't we seek to understand the causes of
their anger instead of just wiping them off the planet?

> Some civilians will be killed and maimed, and the destruction
> will be horrible. This doesn't mean that these deaths don't matter
> to
> me, but I truly believe we will save lives hundredfold by
> neutralizing
> him and his ilk. Unfortunately, I don't think the Bush
> administration
> has this as their prime goal. They are too deeply entrenched in the
> oil business, and too deeply involved in the corruption of middle
> eastern governments to do this job honestly.
>
> John Starrett

In a message dated 11/12/01 12:28:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
acarp@... writes:

> The fact that this will literally never be possible highlights the
> futility of this war. Bin Laden is not the problem, yet all this
> destruction is geared towards killing him. Do we really think anti-US
> sentiment will just go with bin Laden to the grave? US-directed anger
> is world-wide, and the plan to just systematically kill-off any
> person who expresses such anger is the very condition for another
> Holocaust.

There is no such fact. What is highlighted is that the future is scary and
unpredictable. One can have negative feelings about the world's super power,
but one does not have to destroy innocent people, and then rationalize that
they deserved it in proxy. If nothing is done, more will happen, not less.

Re Joe Monzo's response to a poor innocent child, I have the same reaction he
does. It is a horrible situation. One could become blindsided by the
empathy that each innocent deserves. Children, unfortunately, area bit part
of the propaganda wars. Recall the millions of children "killed" by the U.S.
in Iraq. Witness the many Palestinian children killed in the Intifada, so
many more than expected so as to make one think the Israelis are hunting down
children and ignoring adults. Once again, it is horrible that innocents
should die. Even triage is ugly, but it is the first level of self-defense.
And we are under attack.

The thousands of Muslims as well as the many others of 2nd-
> and 3rd-world origin who are angered by 1st-world imperialism, are
> not just pathologically bent on destroying western civilization -
> their anger is quite literally the effect of US global domination.
> Call me a pacifist, but shouldn't we seek to understand the causes of
> their anger instead of just wiping them off the planet?
>

Well, I would say that we are all thinking deeply about the causes of their
anger, but regardless, there is terrible anger, DIRECTED at us.
Unfortunately, we are forced into this situation through the very callous
destruction of innocence that we all decry. Even if the U.S. changed all its
policies, there seems little evidence that there would be more peace in the
world.

Johnny Reinhard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

One can have negative feelings about the world's
> super power,
> but one does not have to destroy innocent people, and then
> rationalize that
> they deserved it in proxy.

sounds like you're describing what we're doing to Afghanistan: destroying
innocent civilians and then rationalizing it as "collateral damage".

of course you're right Alex, but a large percentage of the US population is
made up of people with child-like mentalities who are unable and unwilling
to understand this. Its much easier for them to see us as the "good guys"
and them as the "bad guys", wave the flag and sing america the beautiful,
than it is to understand how the foreign policy behavior of the US
government over the last 20 or 30 years has led to the present situation.

This kind of mentality is, of course, no different from the mentality of the
islamic fundamentalists who are the "enemy". Both are trapped in a "us and
them", "good and evil" "black and white" view of things that ignores the
complexity of global situations. Both the US airforce pilot that
"accidentally" drops bombs on civilians, and the Mohammed Attas of the
world, are utterly convinced that they are on the side of righteousness and
what they are doing is just. I think both of them are insane, in the truest
sense of the word. This is not, however, a very popular view these days
among all the flag wavers.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Carpenter [mailto:acarp@...]
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 12:26 PM
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: Bin Laden: Yes, I did it
>
>
> "John Starrett" wrote:
>
> > Joe, there are probably hundreds of heart wrenching cases like
> this.
> > Unfortunately, there is no way to avoid civillians being hurt and
> > killed when you are fighting people who live among civilians. I am
> > sure that the US military is taking extraordinary precautions
> against
> > this sort of thing, if simply to avoid the bad press that it
> brings.
> > In this war, good press is extremely important, because it is Bin
> > Laden's goal to incite more moderate Muslims to follow his program
> and
> > topple the governments of "friendly" Muslim countries. If the US
> can
> > be painted as a baby killing monster, he may well be able to
> achieve
> > his goal, thereby gaining access to nuclear weapons.
> >
> > Revenge may be a factor for many, but for me it is a prophyllactic
> > measure to destroy him, his organization, and all other terrorist
> > organizations that have the destruction of western civilization as
> > a tenet.
>
>
> The fact that this will literally never be possible highlights the
> futility of this war. Bin Laden is not the problem, yet all this
> destruction is geared towards killing him. Do we really think anti-US
> sentiment will just go with bin Laden to the grave? US-directed anger
> is world-wide, and the plan to just systematically kill-off any
> person who expresses such anger is the very condition for another
> Holocaust. The thousands of Muslims as well as the many others of 2nd-
> and 3rd-world origin who are angered by 1st-world imperialism, are
> not just pathologically bent on destroying western civilization -
> their anger is quite literally the effect of US global domination.
> Call me a pacifist, but shouldn't we seek to understand the causes of
> their anger instead of just wiping them off the planet?
>
>
> > Some civilians will be killed and maimed, and the destruction
> > will be horrible. This doesn't mean that these deaths don't matter
> > to
> > me, but I truly believe we will save lives hundredfold by
> > neutralizing
> > him and his ilk. Unfortunately, I don't think the Bush
> > administration
> > has this as their prime goal. They are too deeply entrenched in the
> > oil business, and too deeply involved in the corruption of middle
> > eastern governments to do this job honestly.
> >
> > John Starrett
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

In a message dated 11/12/01 1:47:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dante.interport@... writes:

> One can have negative feelings about the world's
> > super power,
> > but one does not have to destroy innocent people, and then
> > rationalize that
> > they deserved it in proxy.
>
> sounds like you're describing what we're doing to Afghanistan: destroying
> innocent civilians and then rationalizing it as "collateral damage".
>
>
>
>

Yes, it sounds like it. But I have described triage, where one goes for the
best chance of the living, risking those at most risk. Afghanistan is a an
abused nation. The fix may require loss of innocents, but it may be saving
many, many more.

I wonder, Dante, if you think I am simple minded, as well. Johnny Reinhard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I wonder, Dante, if you think I am simple minded, as well.
> Johnny Reinhard

I hadn't really thought about it. I assume you are sophisticated enough to
realize its not a simple good-guys/bad-guys issue. In my opinion its a
bad-guys/bad-guys issue, with alot of innocent people getting caught in the
crossfire, both here, in the middle east, and Afghanistan.

Dante

In a message dated 11/12/01 2:56:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
dante.interport@... writes:

> I hadn't really thought about it. I assume you are sophisticated enough to
> realize its not a simple good-guys/bad-guys issue. In my opinion its a
> bad-guys/bad-guys issue, with a lot of innocent people getting caught in the
> crossfire, both here, in the middle east, and Afghanistan.
>
>

And it is a wonderful thing that you can feel this way and express your
feelings over the Internet, and elsewhere. The same is not true in
Afghanistan, or for much of the world. Dante, are you saying you see no
difference between the innocents (around 1000 or so) killed in Afghanistan,
and the deliberate massacre of innocent people in "free" countries? To me,
this situation is unique and does not follow with old approaches to the
world, including self-hating.

Johnny Reinhard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>Dante, are you saying you see no
> difference between the innocents (around 1000 or so) killed in
> Afghanistan,
> and the deliberate massacre of innocent people in "free"
> countries? To me,
> this situation is unique and does not follow with old approaches to the
> world, including self-hating.
>

and what would that difference be? That it's less reprehensible to kill
Afghani children by "accident" than it is to kill investment bankers by
design? Anyway, self-hatred is not the problem, hating others is. They hate
us, we hate them. "but wait" you say, "we only hate them because they hated
us first and killed our stockbrokers". "But wait", they say, "we only hated
you because you killed thousands of Iraqi children". "but wait" you say....
and on and on it goes. This situation is not unique, its the same fucking
shit thats been going on on this planet since the beginning of recorded
history, and probably before. This planet has a huge population of
sleepwalking people of extremely limited intelligence, so its not really so
surprising what a mess it is.