Hello Richard:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 14:55:00 +0200 (CEST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter)
wrote:
> Hi
> 18 Sep 2001, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>>> But we have to understand why they did it, so that we can prevent
>>> further attacks.
> SH> This is something that defies understanding.
> SH> I don't think it will ever be possible for us to understand why the
> SH> terrorists who attacked the WTC and the Pentagon did what they did.
> SH> I don't think we will ever understand why Hitler and his followers in
> SH> the SS did what they did.
> This is not necessary.
> Hitler was a madman, the terrorists are as well.
> But among the millions of followers Hitler had, there were very few
> mandman.
> And it's the same with the hatred against america in arab countries.
> There are excelent documentaries, which describe why it was possible for
> Hitler to attract such huge masses of people.
I have seen many such documentaries and I have read many books on
the subject. Still there are many aspects of the Hitler phenomena
that I cannot understand. One thing I do understand is that it is
easier to unite people to fight AGAINST a perceived common enemy
than it is to unite people to strive FOR a common positive cause.
> And exactly this has to be done for america as well.
> Example:
> Germany and France allways hated each other ... now they cooperate, and
> everything is fine.
> Their economies are so close to each other, that a war is no longer
> possible. (it would ruin the countries own ecenomy, too)
> SH> I don't think we will ever understand why Jack the Ripper and and the
> SH> Milwaukee Cannibal did what they did.
> There are excelent people at the FBI who do exactly this.
> So it's possible. (they helped our government, with the letter bombing case
> here, a few years ago.)
What does this have to do with anything I said? I think you have
confused what I have said with something that somebody else said.
> SH> The only way I can see to prevent further attacks is to improve
> SH> security and intelligence gathering.
> my 2 cents:
> Absolutely impossible.
> You can NEVER prevent a madman to smuggle some kilos of lethal bacteria
> into a town, and blow this infectious load into the air.
> NEVER ... this is absolutely impossible.
Sad as it is, I think you are correct.
> It is still easy to hijack planes. (at the moment not that easy, but in 1
> year this will be manageable again easily.)
> (and there are many, many other scenarios, which can hardly/never be
> prevented)
Airport security will be greatly strengthened. The terrorists will
never again find it so easy to hijack an airliner.
> Your second argument is also bogus in my point of view: (at least what the
> communications part is concerned)
> Terrorists will never use phones, unencrypted email, fax ....
I did not make any mention of communications security in my post.
I think you have confused my post with something somebody else wrote.
> A 'college' of bin laden was killed by the soviet, while he was phoning via
> a GSM mobile phone. They traped his communication, and launched a rocket at
> the position they got ...
It has always been easy to triangulate very accurately on a radio
signal, even since long before WWII. The technology required is
very simple.
> And to ban cryptology is also a bad idea.
> to quote Phil Zimmermann:
> "If cryptology is outlawed, only outlaws will have cryptology"
This is true, but I have said nothing about cryptology in any
of my recent posts to the Arachne List.
> SH> The problem with this approach is that it would encroach upon
> SH> personal privacy and it will create considerable inconvenience and
> SH> annoyance and unjust accusations and suspicions against the innocent.
> And it is against basic human rights.
> (there are some of this thoughts too in germany.
> Most of them are by politicians, who don't understand what they speak
> about. Crypto regulations will only strike innocent people.)
This is very true. I have never advocated any prohibitions against
the use of any kind of crypto technology.
> SH> Nowadays any kid caught carrying a pocket knife to school is expelled
> SH> for carrying a dangerous weapon.
> Thanks god that this is not the case here ...
> but we also hardly have pupils shooting at other pupils with weapons ...
The policy concerning the prohibitions against the possession of
utility pocket knives among students is totally unreasonable. I know
of a case in Prince Georges County, Maryland, in which a student was
expelled from high school for a year just because he was reported for
having an ordinary pocket knife that happened to have fallen out of his
coat pocket as he was taking off his coat and folding it up to put it
into his locker at school. It was the same coat that he had worn on
a Boy Scout camping trip over the weekend. He explained to the school
authorities that he did not deliberately violate the rules. He said
that he didn't know the pocket knife was still in his pocket. They
refused to accept his excuse under their "zero tolerance" policy
against such so-called "weapons". There is not a general problem in
this country of knife stabbings and slashings among students. Such
incidents are exceedingly rare.
> SH> A fellow list subscriber, Or Botton of Israel, has made the same
> SH> observation. He says that his government is ineffective in trying
> SH> to suppress terrorism simply by killing off some known terrorists.
> SH> He says others will always soon pop up to take their place and the
> SH> slain terrorist leaders become martyrs for the cause.
> yes ... and exactly because of this the ROOT of the problems has to be
> addressed.
> With isreal and the palestinensians (sp?) it's not easy.
The solution will of course will not be easy. That is not to say
that a highly ageeable solution is not possible.
> If many families lost a member, than it's hard to hear on reason.
> (and so the wheel of terror continues ...
> 3 isrealis killed by snipers - 10 palestinensians killed by isreali
> revenge - 12 isreali killed by a terror attack - 20 palestinensians ......
> You got it.
> Hardliners on both sides make the situation even worse.
> In the light of the terror attack on the US, Arafat proclaimed a cease
> fire. (and palestinensians should even not shoot in self defense)
> We will see if there is a chance of peace.
> Isreal when heared this, also proclaimed cease fire.
> But this is only a little step.
Every little step that goes somewhere in the right direction is a
giant step.
> The big problem will be Jerusalem, and the many religious symbols there.
> Both sides want it ... and I see little chance, that they can share it ...
>>> Why does somebody hate the US so much, that he will kill himself,
>>> only to kill US citizens.
> SH> Some people say that the terrorist has been deluded into thinking
> SH> that if he dies while killing some evil-mongering infidels (i.e.
> SH> Americans) he will go directly to heaven and he will wake up the
> SH> next instant in a pleasure palace with 40 virgins to serve him.
> If you lead a good live, than you will not believe in such things ...
> if you have nothing to loose, than ...
>>> The attackers have to be punished ... no question.
> SH> They don't care if they are punished. They have a religiously
> SH> motivated persecution complex. The more punishment they suffer
> SH> for their righteous cause in the present life, the greater their
> SH> reward in the hereafter.
> so what to do ?
>>> And massive bombings will only worsen it.
>>> Thanks god that it now looks much better.
>>> The US has cooled down a bit, and can now thibk out some strategies,
>>> that will hurt the terrorists. (bombing up some tents does not
>>> impress them, but if the people behind, supporting them are
>>> scared/imprisoned/whatsoever this will hit them very hard.)
> SH> In order for any measures to be effective, they have to hit them so
> SH> hard that they will begin to question the validity of their religious
> SH> beliefs.
> In my point of view EXACTLY the way that will lead to WW3.
> You can't do that.
In speaking of "them" I was referring only to those who subscribe
to the cults of the terrorists, not to those who believe in the
legitimate and traditional religion of Islam, to include all of its
various peace-loving sects. I'm sorry if I had failed to make this
point clear.
> Either they are all dead (and millions of innocent arabs as well)
> or the remaining people will say that they allways knew that america was
> the real satan ...
I am very strongly against the philosophy of "Kill them all.
Let God sort it out".
> The other way is a wise foreign politics.
> Bush has the world behind him.
> If he shows the UN evidence who did the cruelties in america, than the
> world will help the US to catch them.
> And it would be very hard for any government not to help also.
> The quotes above show pretty much what I think.
> Starting a war will be easy, and americans seem to support it.
> But it will only worsen the situation.
> Acting wisely will be much harder ... but it will have long term effects.
> === Begin file ===
> Anger...fear...aggression. The dark side of the Force are they.
> "Is the dark side stronger?"
> "No...no...no. Quicker, easier, more seductive."
> === End file ===
>>> If Bush makes things all right, he has even the majority of arabs
>>> behind him. (most of them are as shocked about the attack as the
>>> rest of the world) (on the other hand one of Bush's well known "slip
>>> of his" tongue can ruin that support)
> SH> Bush's "slips of the tongue" are a result of his Texas heritage
> SH> and a carryover arising from his respect for the ways of his
> SH> cowboy ancestors who lived according to the "Code of the West",
> I did not speak about these new ones.
> But this is not really relevant now.
> (only to quote a satire:
> clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman"
> bush: "I did not push the bombing button" )
> For most europeans it was really very hard to believe how a person with
> such lack of knowledge and sensitivity can be elected.
> (I have seen an interview with him before the election, and I personally
> did not know if I should laugh or cry ...)
> But this is only my personal point of view ...
> SH> In his anguish Bush sometimes loses sight of the fact that we are no
> SH> longer living in those bygone times.
> again a personal comment:
> to loose sight, you will first have to FIND sight.
> SH> He has his able advisors standing by to remind him of that and to
> SH> tell him about how things are in the present era.
> THANKS GOD !!!!
> This prevented another huge catastrophy.
> But how long will he listen ??
> SH> You need not worry about what Bush will actually do,
> Whole europe does ...
He isn't going to DO anything rash. Sometimes he might go
off half-cocked in some of the things he SAYS. You need to
look more closely at what he DOES rather than at what he SAYS.
> Most europeans are MUCH more conserned by americas reaction, than they are
> that a terror attack hits europe.
> Most think that bush is absolutely unpredictable ...
I think he is very calculating and predictable insofar as to what
he might adopt as an overall strategy. He will keep the world
informed as to what he is generally going to do. Specific operational
mission plans will of course be kept secret for security reasons.
> And to be honest I'm one of them who think so.
> (and many questions on the news sound like:
> "Will america use the atomic bomb ?"
> "What is the propability that Bush's actions lead to WW3?"
No we will not use the atomic bomb. The media is talking about
using the atomic bomb only for the purpose of developing sensational
stories to sell more newspapers. There will be no WW3 as long as
most nations will continue to support the US.
> I don't think that any of the above scenarios is very likely, but it shows
> about what people here are concerned.
> SH> Such are common among cowboys and they like to laugh with each
> SH> other about these things while sitting around the old camp fire.
> no problem with that ...
> But why have the republicans chosen him as presidential candidate ?
Mainly as a reaction against the extreme liberalism of Bill Clinton
and Al Gore and also because of the popularity of the elder Bush, a
former president and the father of the current president. They
believe in the old adage, "like father, like son". Also the
Republicans see in G.W. Bush a person who seems to reflect traditional
American values and moral principles. No one needs to have the gifts
of oratorial eloquence nor does one require any outstanding academic
background or experience in the affairs of the world in order to do
that. All one needs to do is to be able to know what our traditional
standards are when it comes to distinguishing right from wrong
according to those standards. Whether our traditional moral standards
are better than our liberal and upstart new standards is another issue
that should not be discussed here. To do so would only result in
starting a lot of flame wars.
> He may be a great cowboy (I don't know, neither do I care ...)
> but according to many wise people, he does not have the
> knowledge/sensitivity to deal with such situations.
> (and this was ABSOLUTELY clear after his TV interview ...)
He does have enough sense to listen to his wise and capable advisors.
You should not expect him to know as much as they do about the world
situation. He is not experienced in international politics. I do
not see that as a problem as long as he has good advisors and he
continues to listen to them.
> I was expecting that the would withdraw he candidancy (?) after questioned
> about the MOST BASIC things, and NOT KNOWING THEM !!!!!!!!!
You know a lot of things that you consider very BASIC that I don't
know about. Similarly, I know a lot of things that I consider very
BASIC that you don't know about.
> THis is like asing what's your name:
> Aehh .. ehm ... aee .. wait ... i know ... i think ...
> hmm ... did it start with a "B" ???
No, it is not like asking him his name. It is like asking him
something that he doesn't know about and something you should not
even expect him to know about when you consider his background and
experience. Anybody can ask any political leader about some
political situation that he doesn't know about. Anybody can ask me
some question about computers that I don't know about. If I hem
haw and say that I have no idea of what the right answer might be,
that does not mean that I am a computer illiterate.
> But this is all not relevant at the moment:
> fact g.w. bush is president.
> And he has to deal with the situation.
> Let's hope that he and his advisors do it very cleverly ...
Sam Heywood
-- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
