A good article to make you think. http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/attack1.htm -Stop the insanity here- September 11 was a day of sadness, anger and fear. Like everyone in the United States and around the world, I shared the deep sadness at the deaths of thousands. But as I listened to people around me talk, I realized the anger and fear I felt were very different, for my primary anger is directed at the leaders of this country and my fear is not only for the safety of Americans but for innocents civilians in other countries. It should need not be said, but I will say it: The acts of terrorism that killed civilians in New York and Washington were reprehensible and indefensible; to try to defend them would be to abandon one’s humanity. No matter what the motivation of the attackers, the method is beyond discussion. But this act was no more despicable as the massive acts of terrorism -- the deliberate killing of civilians for political purposes -- that the U.S. government has committed during my lifetime. For more than five decades throughout the Third World, the United States has deliberately targeted civilians or engaged in violence so indiscriminate that there is no other way to understand it except as terrorism. And it has supported similar acts of terrorism by client states. If that statement seems outrageous, ask the people of Vietnam. Or Cambodia and Laos. Or Indonesia and East Timor. Or Chile. Or Central America. Or Iraq, or Palestine. The list of countries and peoples who have felt the violence of this country is long. Vietnamese civilians bombed by the United States. Timorese civilians killed by a U.S. ally with U.S.-supplied weapons. Nicaraguan civilians killed by a U.S. proxy army of terrorists. Iraqi civilians killed by the deliberate bombing of an entire country’s infrastructure. So, my anger on this day is directed not only at individuals who engineered the Sept. 11 tragedy but at those who have held power in the United States and have engineered attacks on civilians every bit as tragic. That anger is compounded by hypocritical U.S. officials’ talk of their commitment to higher ideals, as President Bush proclaimed “our resolve for justice and peace.” To the president, I can only say: The stilled voices of the millions killed in Southeast Asia, in Central America, in the Middle East as a direct result of U.S. policy are the evidence of our resolve for justice and peace. Though that anger stayed with me off and on all day, it quickly gave way to fear, but not the fear of “where will the terrorists strike next,” which I heard voiced all around me. Instead, I almost immediately had to face the question: “When will the United States, without regard for civilian casualties, retaliate?” I wish the question were, “Will the United States retaliate?” But if history is a guide, it is a question only of when and where. So, the question is which civilians will be unlucky enough to be in the way of the U.S. bombs and missiles that might be unleashed. The last time the U.S. responded to terrorism, the attack on its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, it was innocents in the Sudan and Afghanistan who were in the way. We were told that time around they hit only military targets, though the target in the Sudan turned out to be a pharmaceutical factory. As I monitored television during the day, the talk of retaliation was in the air; in the voices of some of the national-security “experts” there was a hunger for retaliation. Even the journalists couldn’t resist; speculating on a military strike that might come, Peter Jennings of ABC News said that “the response is going to have to be massive” if it is to be effective. Let us not forget that a “massive response” will kill people, and if the pattern of past U.S. actions holds, it will kill innocents. Innocent people, just like the ones in the towers in New York and the ones on the airplanes that were hijacked. To borrow from President Bush, “mother and fathers, friends and neighbors” will surely die in a massive response. If we are truly going to claim to be decent people, our tears must flow not only for those of our own country. People are people, and grief that is limited to those within a specific political boundary denies the humanity of others. And if we are to be decent people, we all must demand of our government -- the government that a great man of peace, Martin Luther King Jr., once described as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world” -- that the insanity stop here.
fromobile: I agree with some of the sentiment in that article. But there's a difference. The US attacks with an explicit objective (with the exception of Viet Nam) that is not concerned with killing civilians. Civilians are killed incidentally, which is a tragedy. Is there a difference in the enormity of the event? No. Is there a distinction in culpability? Yes. BTW, it is said that pharmaceutical plant had produced a chemical that is only used to produce weapons. Incidentally, let me ask you a question: what if it is utterly impossible to spare civilians and effectively retaliate? That would be admitting utter and complete vulnerability. Note that I don't want a massive retaliation, and in fact, dread it.
i'm sorry but sitting back isn't gonna stop anything. others will see us as vulnerable and attempt even bolder attrocities. this isn't just about revenge. it's about deterrence.
And the best deterrence is unplanned, indiscriminate killing??? If you are suggesting this, then you deserve a kick in the head By such logic, the best ways to deter serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer would be to arrest and execute everyone in his apartment location (just as I keep hearing suggestions to bomb every person in Afghanistan) or do the same to every dorky white dude with glasses (just as I keep hearing suggestions that we kill every Muslim Arab). We need to get the people who are responsible AND ONLY the people who are responsible. Don't make the innocent suffer - such fear tactics will not bring back the deceased but will only breed the next generation of terrorists. Beat these f#*!heads with American ideals, not with medieval warmongering. Capture them alive, bring them into a world court, and give them a fair trial. If we show the world that we are more interested in justice than vengeance, then at least the dead will have not died in vain.
"We need to get the people who are responsible AND ONLY the people who are responsible. " No the point is to eliminate terrorists and the countries (and individuals) who support them. Of course we will destroy whoever had a hand in this operation but the objective of the plan will be to eliminate all terrorists, wheter they were involved in this or not.
I do think that NATO needs to react. I would like it very much if NATO stood united and if all members participated in whatever reaction needs to take place. Whoever did this will have to pay for it. It is a huge dilemma. This kind of thing can be planned and done by a group of less than 50 people. Even if you go and completely bomb and disarm states like Iraq or Afghanistan, there will always be small groups of people who will be able to carry out such attacks. And the worst thing is, the more you bomb them, the more fanatic will the remaining ones be. BUT - we, the civilized world, cannot back down from the terror. We have to react, and it has to be a strong reaction.
That guy is a feel-good idiot. Don't send your kids to UT!!!! It is not typically a US policy to lay waste to innocents. It may happen but as part of the tragic collateral damage and not the intended damage. His friend Bill Clinton bomed an aspirin factory to deflect news headlines away from his philandering. What a man! This country has done more FOR the world than every other country combined. They do almost NOTHING for us. Yes, there have been mistakes made, but to focus on the mistakes is to be stupid and naive.
What a load af garbage. Undoubtedy, there have been times in the past where there have been "indescriminate" attacks on civilians, but lets be realistic - they are the exception, not the rule. The examples offered up by the author are inexact, inappropriate and misleading. Has deliberately targeted civilians or engaged in violence so indiscriminate that there is no other wasy to understand it except as terrorism. BIG difference Iraqi civilians killed by deliberate bombing of an entire county's infrastructure? Please - America was at war with Iraq. While inocent people got killed for sure, there is nothing indiscriminate about the war waged on Iraq. America plays wars by the rules, most other Countries do not - tell Saddam not to put weapons facilities next to hospitals and schools. To lend any credibility to this sort of dribble, the author needs to a) give specific examples of these horrendous attacks he is accusing the US leaders of b) Not group a number of purported acts together and generalize them with such damning accusations, when some are so obviously wrong - it debases his point.
You know what? The U.S. did nothing and were bombed and people were murdered. This guy doesn't want the U.S. to do anything? Ok. Tell him not to be upset when more and more Americans are murdered. The same guy who did this had already murdered close to 600 Americans. Now he has killed well over 20,000 people. This has to be stopped. And for this freak to downplay it by saying that the U.S. is actually WORSE terrorist makes my stomach turn. He can go over and live in the Middle East if he wants, if he thinks the U.S. is so bad. People were murdered Tuesday, plain and simple. And somebody's going to pay.
Don't lay this at the feet of Clinton because he is democrat. George Bush did things like that to by accident, but things like this had to be done. It didn't have anything to do with politics, these presidents are doing what has got to be done. The same way people are saying Clinton bombed the factory to deflect the news headlines are the same way people are saying Bush is saying that the Air Force One and White House were targets to deflect news from him. I doubt if either one is true.
What's that saying? "The pen is mightier than the sword." Articles like that make me think that some targeting of certain civilians isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I bring up the Clinton example because he is a pig not because he is a Democrat--- although he is also a jackass! He called for an unnecessary and idiotic air strike to divert attention away from his own self-inflicted problems-- more than once. I can't believe that you want to compare that to the diversion of Bush's AF1 away from Washington. Apparently, there was hard credible evidence that the WH and/or AF1 were also targeted. Even without that evidence, no government in their right mind would return their leader to their capitol when any such attacks had taken place anywhere near the capitol.
No I just don't see why people get off ripping into Clinton. And did I say I wanted Bush back in the White House? Actually in another post I said he did the right thing because the CIA said it wasn't safe. What I'm saying is that you claiming that Clinton bombed those factories "to get the headlines off of him" is no different then people accusing Bush of talking about threats to AF1 and the White House "To get the headlines off of him" for not going back. What I'm saying is that the Clinton thing IS YOUR OPINION! Do you actually think the House would allow him to do that!? They have to give the go ahead to do that, and most of the house were Rublicans. But Clinton isn't even president anymore, why bring it up now!?
Froman, amen. A very well written and argued piece. I might add that those of us who opposed our war in Kuwait and Iraq argued at the time that more aggressive sanctions were preferable to invasion. Partly because we felt that the US invasion would lead to terrorism against the US. According to CBS News Bin laudin? turned against the US when we launched the Iraq War. Violence begets violence. We need to bring those responsible to justice. This should be treated like a crime against humanity rather than just another war. We also for our own safety as well as justice need to do this in a way that reflects well on our country. It is a a great opportunity to show that we really are different from the terrorists. This should be done in the Hague. Those who think brute force alone, without concern for the humanity of the Arab peoples, can create security when combatting terrorism should examine just how much less safe Israel is now after they elected the type of leader who has engaged in and espouses the extreme tactics the hardliners on this bbs urge. The extreme repression that many in the Arab World have suffered at Western hands has contributed to the fact that there are apparently long lists of Arab youths ready to volunteer to be suicide bombers. To ignore their demands, many of which are just, is to be unjust ourselves and put our own future safety and economic resources at risk.
Yea ,we all know how well economic sanctions work with iraq Look....iraq invaded a neighboring country,who was friendly with the US.Do you really think economic sanctions would have had any effect ? It still has no effect to this day ! Saddam would still be in Kuwait City with his feet propped up,laughing at the rest of the world,if we didn't take action.
Thank God that most of us are willing to protect your right to write such horribly slanted garbage. So, you just sit back and watch as the USA and the rest of the civilized world wipes out Terrorism. Then you can whine about how it was done at a later date. Some people are men of action, others like this person, like to read about the accomplisments of others from the safety of their couch. Sure the US has made mistakes, but we did not kill millions of innocents, the people in those countries themselves did that. We can not stop every gruesome act that goes on in this world, but it is clear from this point forward that we can not turn the other cheek either. DaDakota
Since the great "perfesser" and author of the article was citing historical precedents, I just thought to bring it up because I'm quite sure based on what I read that he would have been a Clinton supporter. It may be "my opinion," but I think it is a widely held one. Why did Clinton select that particular day? Why not the day before or the day after. He did this at least twice that I remember. Too precise for a mere coincidence. Bush was diverting his desination for his safety-- legitimate beyond questions. Clinton was diverting our attention to minimize political damage-- illegitimate in my opinion... or can be say that objectively?!
As a freshman in his Journalism class, I want to stick up for my professor. The guy is a very intelligent man, and the way he teaches class makes us all smarter because of it. Im not saying I necessarily agree with all of his viewpoints, but it is important that we learn and hear different points of view. Also, it is true if we dont try to understand this act, we will be making a big mistake, as our attempt to prevent future attacks will likely fail if so. Likewise, the media has done a crappy job of giving information to the American Public: Yes, it is important to show compassion and want to retaliation, but the job of the media is to ask those "tough" questions that people normally are afraid to ask, not just be a spokesperson for our gov't. But, it saddens me that I realize when I become a sportscaster, that the media nowadays is used for entertainment not knowledge based purposes, when there should be a mixture of both. Overall, for those who want to blow the Middle East off the map today, without even trying to understand the logistics of the situation: I hope this was a wakeup call, never react without knowing all the facts. In conclusion, Im proud to be a student of this professor and if you feel sorry we have to hear these views, DaDakota and Rich Rocket(I am damn proud to be going to the University of Texas at Austin and a student of this professor, who presents his material in a good way and makes us think critically about issues-its the 1st step about being truely informed citizens and in my case, a good reporter),and others, maybe its you not us, who are being deprived and need a REALITY check about the whole situation-not just what story the media wishes to portray .
Great post glynch. BTW, we're all lying to ourselves if we seriously discount the laundry list that this guy has laid out for us. We have killed the innocent. I guarantee everyone here that the Pentagon brass is more concerned with how you perceive them killing innocent people than they are whether or not those people are killed. It's called having an objective. If our objective was to show utter and complete power, then we dropped nuclear warheads on civilian targets in Japan. Civilian targets. I realize that we've all been enculturated to beg the question that "we were at war", so this attrocity is okay. Somehow I think Osama Bin Laden has the same mindset. If {{whomever: assume Bin Laden}} has the same objective... to show power or to get the US out of Israel.... I'm not sure he has a better template to follow than the killing of the innocent in Japan. Evoke mass hysteria (i.e. "turn the entire Middle East into a parking lot"), cripple our economic stability (no planes are flying, does the NYSE even exist anymore?). But you say, "we were at war!". Uhhhh... this just in... we have policies in place that are starving Muslims. We, in a glorious display of "might is right", have secured our access to their resources at a nice steady state price. But we "freed" them. Ummm... were they free before? Kuwait sounds like it was a blast before we got there!!! I bet that most people outside of the US, see pre-Kuwait and post-Kuwait as what it was: our securing access to resources. It doesn't hurt that Kuwait was friendly to our needs. Nigeria is the most violent place on the planet. When exactly did we go there to liberate the people from the military dictatorship? Oh yeah, we didn't have to, the military dictatorship never threatened access to the oil. They were at least concious of capitalistic needs (and their brand of Islam never has seemed as hardline). So, if you were a Muslim... and you felt that we had fought a war w/ Muslim people to gain access to their resources... I would think that you felt the guantlet had already been cast. If you were a small force like Osama's and you wanted to stop the war I'd think that you'd strike as hard as you could w/ what you could. Have any of you guys seriously questioned our intent in Israel b/c of that little dingey explosion? I seriously question our role in Israel b/c of the WTC. This is a descriptive process; if killing innocent people is okay when completing an objective... you've just rationalized Osama Bin Laden's terrorism... if killing innocent people is bad.... then we should stop doing it.
