"Let us not forget that the last significant terrorism attack before 9/11 was perpetrated by white men (though the FBI was looking for a Middle Eastern Muslim man), Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols."
I still think we need to define terrorism. This kept being talked about as a terrorist attack, but to me it was not. It was a criminal attack, but not a terrorist attack. The perpetrators of the Oklahoma City attack did not use the attack and threat of another attack as a means of terror. So to me while it was still awful, disgusting and the perpetrators got what they deserved, it was not a terror attack perpetrated by white men, it was a criminal attack. "It is fair (and NOT hateful) to say that there are undercurrents of racism undergirding the Bush Administration's (and even the Pawlenty Administration's) use of the war on terrorism to enact ever-stricter immigration laws and anti-privacy laws, to dubious effect" That is not fair (while maybe not hateful) nor is it accurate, it's just opinion. To throw out a red herring word like racism always will draw both sides away from a conversation and nothing will be accomplished. "The United States government has also sponsored/supported terrorists, including Saddam Hussein, and trains terrorists at the School of Americas (now the Western Hemispheric Institute for Security Cooperation) with taxpayer dollars at Ft. Benning, GA. This is relevant particularly as the United States continues to fund and support despots around the world. As a bumper sticker aptly stated, "We're creating enemies faster than we can kill them."" What terrorists are we supporting? Define terrorism? A tyrannical dictator killing his own people is terrorism? Military training with other countries is now training terrorists? I agree that our staunch support of Saudi Arabia is misguided, but the royal family are not terrorists, they may financially support some terrorists though. I agree that that Pakistan has a large Islamic fundamentalist base and is going to be a problem. I agree that Iran is going to be a problem. I agree that North Korea is going to be a problem. I agree that Indonesia is having some real Islamic fundamentalist terrorist problems. But, when these countries are helping us to a point, do we stop diplomatic talks and cooperation? When do we start the attacks on these countries? "As to whether or not a terrorist attack could happen in St. Paul---and back to listserv germanness---our President was unable to say whether or not a terrorist attack would happen even after receiving a daily briefing paper entitled "Al Quaeda determined to attack US," so it seems a bit beyond me how members on this forum could possibly know how vulnerable we are or are not to such attacks." Good point. No one but the terrorists know if, when and where they will strike. But to bury our heads in the sand and say that because no one can know, we shouldn't strategize or speak about possibilities, seems detrimental to safety. Discussing possibilities makes it more difficult for that possibility to occur. Knowing that one hijakced plane was taken down by passengers will probably make it much more difficult for bad guys to ever try that with a US passenger plane again. Discussing what we can do and how to react are good things to do. That's why I hope the School Board and other St Paul agencies are preparing a worst case scenario, because what if? Tom Thompson Como Park _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
