Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 10:56:56 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> Cc: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@neomedia.it>, Konstantinos Konstantinidis <kkonstan@duth.gr>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: helping victims of terror Message-ID: <3BB216E8.89F3419@mindspring.com> References: <1001447850.3bb0e1aa11dfc@webmail.neomedia.it> <20010925222900.A71817@lpt.ens.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > > Sorry for the pessimism. Am I missing something? > > Yes, you're missing a *lot* by apparently characterising the general > population of Afghanistan as "cavemen". I've also seen your argument > about "they'd have done this anyway" elsewhere. It's bullshit. Every > society has its share of fringe lunatics: America has its Jerry > Falwell too. But in a normal society these people stay in a fringe > where they belong. It's only at times of repression and difficulty, > when a noticeable chunk of the population is feeling unjustly dealt > with and getting desperate (these are mild words, read about these > countries sometime) that the violent fringe can actually gather a > following. Even now, Bin Laden has only a few thousand in his fold. > The other 23 million or so in Afghanistan are victims; they are > literally starving to death, and in between they are trying to escape > the violence. The unstated assumption here is that it is possible to please all such people simultaneously, and therefore wend a safe path through the human socio-political minefield, without offending anyone. Even if the U.S. were to completely ignore its own national best interestests, and cringe in fear while rushing to placate every potential terrorist before they become angry enough to attack, pleasing everyone would be impossible. Trying to do this would put the U.S. in the position of the battered spouses, who blame themselves for the beatings they receive from their partners. I maintain that it's not possible to both support Israel to keep the Israeli's from feeling abandoned, and germinating their own terrorists, and to not support Israel, so that the current terrorist fundamentalists are satisfied and thus they do not engage in future attacks. In other words, to not act is also an action, and there are factions who believe that there is no such thing as a middle ground. Therefore, the U.S. has no choice but to take the path that its conscience dictates, and deal with the consequences that being true to itself brings. Perhaps, as you argue, the attack was a consequence of U.S. foreign policy. If so, then the path is clear: and it does not include permitting others to dictate foreign policy. > Remaining history is more recent. The Iraq thing was provoked by > Saddam Hussein, who invaded Kuwait, and Bush Sr had the support of > most of the Muslim world in liberating them. Where the US went wrong > was in the continued bombings and embargo on Iraq for ten years > afterwards, which did not hurt Saddam at all, caused untold suffering > on his people, and convinced most Arabs that the US does not value > Arab lives at all. The embargo does not extend to food or medical supplies. If Iraq has chosen to redirect permitted aid, such that it does not reach its intended destination, then the suffering of their people is on their own head, not that of those participating in the embargo. You might as well blame the U.S. for the famine in Ethiopia, where the ruling military frequently takes relief supplies intended for the population of Ethiopia, and redirects them to military personnel and/or sells the supplies to neighboring countries, and then uses the funds to purchase military equipment and munitions. > The Afghan Mujahedin were, as we already > discussed, funded by the CIA, and then dropped by them, as were the > Pakistan military, leading a Pakistani general to be quoted recently > as saying "The US thinks we are like a condom: they can just use us > and then throw us away." The roots of this present militancy are as > much as in the extremist elements in Pakistan as in Afghanistan. I have heard other Indian nationals claim that the Taliban were merely puppets of the Pakistani government. I think that India's long standing conflict with Pakistan must color these views. The problems between India and Pakistan started with the end of British colonialism, when the two countries started self-segregating along religious boundaries, for no reason other than religious intolerance on both sides. This self-segregation has continued to the point where the countries are now sharply divided upon religious lines. > And, of course, there's America's consistent "right or wrong" > support and immense financial aid to Israel, an issue I won't > even bother getting into. Good, then we won't have to talk about the fact that Israel was established as part of reparations for the crimes of World War II, or justify the U.S. keeping true to its agreements, even if other countries do not. > In short, it is this sort of thing, accumulated over years and years, > which gives the violent fringe lunatics their chance at gathering a > following and converting their talk to action. It is only a desperate > people who would think of such a horrendous thing as the September 11 > events. And, as I've said earlier, it looks like the upcoming US > actions are going to follow the same pattern. Please don't attempt to predict the U.S. until you understand it. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3BB216E8.89F3419>