Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:45:49 +1000 From: Stephen McKay <mckay@thehub.com.au> To: Technical Information <tech_info@threespace.com> Cc: chat@freebsd.org, mckay@thehub.com.au Subject: Re: Another article, from the "other side" Message-ID: <200109271345.f8RDjn116287@dungeon.home> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010927003714.01819658@threespace.com> from Technical Information at "Thu, 27 Sep 2001 05:10:36 %2B0000" References: <20010926072915.A30655@blackhelicopters.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20010924170815.0180aee8@threespace.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010924191808.0227cf28@threespace.com> <3BAFD532.6ED7A320@duth.gr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010926015428.01814630@threespace.com> <20010926125046.C1370@lpt.ens.fr> <20010926070519.A30531@blackhelicopters.org> <20010926132021.E1370@lpt.ens.fr> <20010926072915.A30655@blackhelicopters.org> <4.3.2.7.2.20010927003714.01819658@threespace.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, 27th September 2001, Technical Information wrote: >I don't think any Americans have a problem asking the question "How could >this man have gotten to the point of doing such a horrible thing?" (Quite >the contrary, the news here is chock full of stories about the history of >bin Laden and al Qaida.) Do they discuss the earlier American funding for bin Laden and American funding of the Taliban (as recently as May this year)? I'm genuinely curious. I'm not trying to argue any particular point here. I'm quite interested in how much (or how little) the American public is being manipulated. >When bin Laden metes out his own brand of justice against the U.S. for >occupying Saudi land, you say "The U.S. should seriously look at the >policies that led to this attack." Yes they should. I'm an outsider (and I still think there is an "outside" to this situation, despite what my government tells me), and I've seen the US interfere in sovereign countries all over the place. I believe that only a radical change in US foreign policy has any chance of reducing anti-American attacks. I think only olive branches can succeed. >When the U.S. lines up to mete out it's justice against those who >perpetrated the act, you cry Foul! and call us hotheaded. The two just >don't jibe. Hit just the perpetrators, and the world will cheer, and me with everyone. This is likely to be a couple dozen people, at most, and best done in a court. But the most likely scenario is that thousands more innocent civilians will die, and a few US politicians will pat themselves on the back, because war is good for votes. If I thought there was any chance that justice could be done with a military campaign, I would feel a lot better. Or are you suggesting that it's just "an eye for an eye" after all? >Personally though, while I think it's possible to condemn U.S. foreign >policy and terrorism against the U.S., I feel like I'm reading far too much >of the former and far too little of the latter. As I said, I think the only way to reduce terrorism is to change your foreign policy. That might be why you read about it so much. Others have said the same as I have. Of course, many nations should change their aggressive foreign policies, but the US could be the leaders. I rate the chances low, unfortunately. Regards, and sympathy, Stephen. 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?200109271345.f8RDjn116287>