We Are All Spaniards

Jay Honeck wrote:

Some
people have said that in a way Al Quaida has already won in the sad
sense, that much of the freedom that the US stood for (and freedom is
what these people hate most) in the past has vanished already.

That's nonsense. Let's not play up the hyperbole *too* much, okay?

Bush-haters would have you (and everyone else) believe that our basic
freedoms have been infringed upon in some demonic way, in order to root
out
Osama, and that America has already lost the war on terror. Nothing could
be further from the truth.

Let's step back for a moment, take a deep breath, and analyze what has
really changed in our day-to-day lives:

1. We now have to arrive at the airport 2 hours early when we fly
commercially. (Formerly it was 1 hour.)
2. TFRs pop up occasionally when the President travels.
3. Ah, um, hmm.... *Surely* there must be *something* else?

How about the fact that dissent has now become equated with treason. It is
now (apparently) once again justifiable to use force to break up lawful,
peaceful protest.

Or that government officials now can now get away with unprecedented secrecy
in all sorts of matters just by whispering "terrorist threat" three times.

I agree that sweeping statements such as the above a bit over the top. But
equally over the top are sweeping statements such as yours that suggest
that the everything is fine and anyone who thinks otherwise can be
dismissed as raving.



Not. Precisely NOTHING of consequence has changed. Those first two
items
impact a tiny, tiny percentage of our society. 99% of Americans don't
notice any difference between pre- and post-9/11 America -- because there
ARE no meaningful changes.

Behind the scenes, "power-to-investigate" kind of stuff *has* changed --
but
these don't effect most people in any but the most peripheral way. And
most of THAT impact is philosophical.

I know you're old enough to have seen what happens when the power to
investigate is abused. The lessons from J.Edgar come to mind.

The search and seizure type protections are there to protect the innocent.
(As are all our constitutional rights.) It's not enough, indeed it is
un-american, to justify removing protections on the basis that "most"
aren't affected. (Caution: Sweeping statement ahead.) None are free unless
all are free!


Yes, we all of the free societies must stand together to fight this
threat. But to believe that the threat of terrorism can be overcome by
increasing security and military action more and more will lead to the
destruction of precisely what we want to defend, the free society.

I take comfort from the fact that we were able to beat the Japanese in
World War II -- perhaps the single most warped, hateful, suicidal society
in the
history of the world -- and eventually become allies with them. Hell, if
*that* can happen, anything can.

In this war, the trick is to do PRECISELY what Bush has been doing --
fight
terrorists where *they* live.

I'm sure you think I'm a "Bush-hater", and to some extent you're right. But
it's not that I disagree with what he's done so much as I think he's
bungled it so badly.

If that means Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq,
or the entire Middle East, well, that scenario sure beats waiting until
the *******s put bombs on trains in Chicago, or kill a busload of school
kids in Des Moines.

Bottom line: When you're rooting out an insect infestation, you don't just
kill the roaches in your kitchen -- you go after the nest.

It's just too simplistic to think that if we can just kill another 10, 20
200, 5000 (or whatever number you think exist) terrorists we can all go
home, pat ourselves on the back, and have a beer. If it were true then we
should all feel safer now than 18 months ago. If it were true then West
Bank tourism would be on the rise.

We (the world) will only defeat terrorism if we treat it as a problem to be
solved rather than a war to be won. In some cases force will be effective.
In some cases humamitarian efforts will do more. In some cases we may have
to swallow some unpleasantness and do something we'd rather not. In all
cases we should be looking to measure the results to see if we really are
being effective.

--
Frank....H

C J Campbell wrote:


"S Green" wrote in message
...

The biggest difference that I can see is that the war for American
Independence took place in America.

So what of the native Americans. After all the so called Freedom fighters
were the colonialists. They secured independence and then began a
genocidal
assault on the native Americans.
Perhaps the raiding parties and attacks by the Indians were the natives
trying to secure their rights to live their lives in peace.

Maybe that does not count?



I know of no Americans who excuse what was done to the Indians. However,
your description of what happened is extremely simplistic, ignoring
efforts by European powers to arm the Indians and foment uprising by them.

Are you seriously arguing that Osama bin Laden and his ilk are fighting
for the independence of some country? Or that they are trying to institute
democracy among their people? Are you suggesting that the United States,
Spain, and other countries deserve to be attacked by terrorists?

The best example of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"
today is the whole Israel/Palestine mess. The Palestinians have many
legitemite beefs and in that respect are certainly fighting for their
freedom. But their message is largely lost by their continued use of such
deplorable tactics. Israel is just as culpable for stirring the pot, they
certainly understand that it is in their interests to keep that terrorist
label intact.

--
Frank....H

"Frank" wrote in message ...

The Palestinians have many legitemite beefs and in that respect
are certainly fighting for their freedom.


In what way are they fighting for their freedom?

"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote in message ...
Then I hope the terrorists are better informed than most people in
this group.

You are not really thinking this to be remotely possible, are you? The
average terrorist does not posess much more information about world
affairs than what his leaders choose to tell him. While OBL might be
aware of the political situation in Spain and the little support the
military involvement had already before the attack, his troops
certainly only "know" exactly what was stated above: The attack got the
spanish troops out of Iraq, because we frightened them proper. It was a
great victory for holy Islam.

I don't know... maybe they read the papers?

I think you can safely bet that Al-Quaeda operatives are highly
trained, intelligent people. WTC wasn't done by brute force. It's nice
to think that the enemy is crazy and attacks randomly and is
illiterate. It's difficult to accept that an intelligent person would
have a motive to kill hundreds of inocents. Of course, a motive valid
for him, in his frame of reference. The problem is precisely this:
understanding their frame of reference. What I see here is that people
don't want to do the effort. So they accept whatever their government
tells them (WMD) in order to rationalize the vengeance they feel they
have a right to (and I'm not saying they don't).

But some people stop and try to get a broader perspective, to rise
above the hatred and thirst of vengeance. Maybe if enough people do
that, then this madness can stop. I think the Spaniards have done just
that. They were brave enough to put an end to it, even when they could
have reacted with violence the way the US did. They did the right
thing and I admire them for that.

I only wish Jay's subject line were true.

What makes you think, that if someone is a target, it definitely means,
he deserves it???
If you are shot by a criminal, you obviously deserve it?? Now that's a
strange kind of logic.

Of course not. I don't think innocent people deserved to be killed.
But I do think the US governments have done great harm to people
throughout the world, and that they are now recieving a reaction to
some of it. That doesn't mean that the US deserved WTC. Only that
there may be a logic (however sick) behind it.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
.net...

"Frank" wrote in message ...

...there is nothing good here, indeed.

So what were the Spanish supposed to do? On the one hand we acknowledge
that
the real reason they voted out the incumbent is they were dissatisfied -
which, of course, is just democracy in action. On the other hand we
believe
the terrorists preceive the election results as a victory for their
side.

Seems like the only alternative left would be for the Spanish to vote
for
a
government they didn't want.


The government voted out had a substantial lead in the polls prior to the
attack.


As did Dean before the primaries. What's your point? We should appoint
politicians based on polls?

"Alex" wrote in message
om...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:D8r6c.36932$Cb.563433@attbi_s51...
I am not by any means trying to justify terrorism, I am only trying
explain what I percieve is a very narrow and self-centerd view of what
is happening. and that this view is causing more harm than good.

Okay, Alex, please explain how, in your view, the U.S. has created the
Islamic terrorists. What have we done, as a nation, to foment terror?

I didn't say the US has created the terrorists; they are responsible
for their own actions. But I believe the US has given them a motive.
I'll repeat my earlier attempt to explain myself:

The US has been interfering with governments all over the world for
many decades. Some very exceptional and highly publized interventions
end up well (WW2). But most of them lead directly or indirectly to
poverty, famine and general misery (Lat.America).

Don't even have to leave the country. Look at the fine job we have done
with the American Indians.

(Alex) wrote

I hope so. What I don't know, is whose freedom will eventually win.

pac sez:

Yes, this is the question. Do the ragheads have the freedom to be
left alone in their own countries in their own caves to torture
victims, rape women, burn books and kill media reporters? Not if our
bleeding heart liberals and lawyers have anything to say about it.
This is more than just a fight about religion. It's a fight about
keeping Western ideas out of the new "iron/sand" curtain of Islam. Al
Quieda is just using religion to add steam to the jihad. It's also a
fight about pussy. Over here you essentially have to buy it; over
there you grab it and make it afraid of you. If that doesn't work,
relax, you'll get more virgins than you know what to do with when you
die. It's also a fight against the "haves." International
corporations have been screwing those peasants for years by exploiting
labor for a dollar a day without offering any employment benifits
whatsoever. But don't feel exploited by the U.S. and it's
unscrupulous captains of international industry (like Cheney.) You
can always quit your job and move into the sand. Tyranny was a lot
worse in the Brittish and Roman Empires. You didn't get any choice
there.

What I don't understand is why are we wasting money rebuilding Iraq?
We're just going to have to go back and bomb it in a few years from
now anyway. Those Bathist control freaks are just fading into the
crowd until we leave. The day we're gone, they'll pop out of the
woodwork, burn US flags and crank up the mass grave backhoes again.

Freedom Alex, is exactly what the sole remaining superpower says it
is. Unlike most Americans, I don't believe that everyone deserves it.
I think a population has to be brave enough to overthrow their own
despots. I think Jay is right about random bombers. Kill them all.
Issue a new deck of terrorist cards and make those cards redeemable
for large amounts of compensation when they are returned along with
said terrrorist's head in a sack.

The rest of the world hates us anyway because we have a very high
standard of living here and we are truely free to enjoy life, liberty,
and the pursuit of flying little airplanes. I shutter to think what
would happen to me if I wrote the above in downtown Tehran. (which is
the next place we need to take off the map.)

pacplyer - out

They are fighting for the freedom to control Jerusalem again.



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
.net:


"Frank" wrote in message ...

The Palestinians have many legitemite beefs and in that respect
are certainly fighting for their freedom.


In what way are they fighting for their freedom?

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...

As did Dean before the primaries. What's your point? We should
appoint politicians based on polls?


The previous poster said the real reason the incumbent party was voted out
was because the Spaniards were dissatisfied with them. But the incumbent
party had a large lead in the polls just prior to the attack, so that seems
unlikely. That's the point.

"Judah" wrote in message
...

They are fighting for the freedom to control Jerusalem again.


So their goal is conquest then.