Hi Stefan,

> Are you sure that the Taliban planned and executed the hijacking
> of the four airplanes and the following destruction of the WTC and
> partial destruction of the Pentagon? Right now the incidence for
> this is quite weak.

No, it isn't Stefan. I'll send you, if you want, and if you're not
cross-eyed already from overload of information, gobs of supporting
information on this (I'd send it privately so as not to bother other
listmates). There's no question in my mind that Bin Laden, the Taliban,
and others closely connected are responsible for this.

It's a trickier problem, though, because the problem is that Bin Laden,
the Taliban, Hussein, many, many other radical fundamentalist muslims
(who really shouldn't be called muslims - they are loathed and feared by
peaceful muslims) have said that if they DIDN'Tdo this, they would have,
and they are happy it was done. And that "they predict more." Of course
they are not stupid enough to say "we did this"  - but in effect they
either did, or funded, or helped to plan, or will help to plan, or are
complicitors in, this vast, formless "web" of people who hate me, you,
and as Bin Laden said yesterday, every Christian and Jew. Or, to put it
more broadly, every human who is not a fundamentalist radical muslim.

That is what the problem is.

Has the United States helped to create this problem? Yes, in the sense
that we are the biggest, most visible embodiement of the being on the
lucky end of capitalism.

Obviously greed, the thirst for power, and racism are the real root
causes of the problem. Does the United States have policies which foster
greed, power grabbing and racism? Yes we do, as does every single other
nation around the world.

But the United States, and your country Germany, and many other
Democratic countries, have values which are VERY different from the
values espoused by Bin Laden and radical fundamental Islam. And they
HATE our values, and believe we should be wiped out, that that is the
only solution to the problem of how to make the world one of radical
fundamentalist Islamic values instead of Democratic values. They don't
believe girls shoudl go to school. They kill a man if his beard is not
long enough. They do not believe in religious pluralism - they don't
accept or tolerate any other religion than radical fundamentalist Islam.
So they burn books. They do not allow television - because television
corrupts, or allows the people to see other ways and other points of
view and have access to information which might change their minds away
from radical Islam fundamentalism.

Now Stefan, do YOU want to live like that? Bin Laden wouldn't allow you
that choice, because he hates you for being a Westerner, and wants you
dead. But if you COULD choose, can you honestly tell me you would choose
such a world? I don't think you would. I'm speaking here for you, but
you and I have now known each other through these email groups for
what - some seven years? From what I know of you, I think you DO in fact
feel strongly about people's right to choose how they want to live. To
choose their own religion (or atheism if they want). To be able to read
books - any books - that they want. To watch TV, use the internet, get
information about the world if they want it. To grow a beard or shave a
beard without fear of being killed for this. To have their daughter and
mother and sister go to school, if they want. I think you like having
these freedoms.

Well, Bin Laden doesn't believe you should. And he will stop at nothing
(which is the problem) to destroy what has been created to allow you to
have these freedoms.

There are two issues: one is answering the question of the moral grounds
for fighting - what are we fighting for (which I've tried to answer
above);

The other is HOW to fight this enemy. That is so much harder. Because it
is an ephemeral enemy. It's not just one country (although Iraq and
Hussein could make life easier by screwing up and giving this ephemeral
enemy a face). There are radical Islamic fundamentalists who are
infinitely patient, and quiet, and infinitely hateful, and live in and
among us in every country around the world.   And the "enemy" consists
of people who are sitting and watching - confused about right and wrong
and what they believe in and who to believe - and these people can be
turned into terrorists if things fall the wrong way.

What I would love help with is in thinking about the how part. The
"whether" or "why" part is clear to me.


> >Perhaps there are public buildings to be destroyed, I hope
> >lots of them, and perhaps it can be done at night when they are
> >unoccupied. The American public wants retribution, we have promised
it,
> >and it is consistent with the deterrent need to make the reprisal for
> >killing our people hurt plenty.
>
> I hear "revenge" and "war". "Retribution" is just a nicer word for
> that. Personally I think revenge/retribution is something that charac-
> terizes mentally sick people. Revenge tends to be endless. The other
> side will take their revenge too and so on.

You and I agree, our hearts are the same here.  I use the word
retribution not as a euphemism, but to be precise about my meaning. I do
believe that two things must be done - the ugly thing, and the humane
thing following immediately after. Humanitarian aid should be
coordinated, the more I think about it, by the UN so as not to have a
reenactment of what happened in Somalia when US tried to provide aid.

But we need to strike back, somehow. If there are buildings to raize, or
power lines and electric plants that sustain their training camps, or
gas lines, bridges, I don't know. If these things can be taken out,
without loss of human life, of course that would be best. Of course.

There are articles, and pieces you can read about the culture in that
area. And they live in a different world than we do here in the US. Most
of us here don't have respect for the "eye for an eye"  philosophy. Even
those of us here who grew up in the mean streets, and believe in
tough-guy "you touch my sister I break your nose" kind of philosophy
(that would be me) - even those of us who think that way, really see
that line of thinking as a lower, morally inferior way to handle things.
What we really value here is "turn the other cheek."   That is NOT the
way things are viewed, or "felt" would be the better word, in
Afghanistan. The culture there is just different. The "eye for an eye"
philosophy of dealing with problems - where retribution is THE key
currency - is highly respected, seen as morally right, superior.  To not
respond with retribution is seen as cowardly, shameful, irresponsible,
wrong.

So retribution is important in that sense because we are "speaking" to
each other in our acts and symbolic gestures. We are carrying on a
conversation with that world.

But more importantly, if we DON'T stop them - somehow - nothing will.
There is no specific grievance that they have, that can be answered and
then they will cease terrorist attacks on our culture. The grievance is
that they don't want Western culture and values to exist in the world.
They want to wipe you off the face of the earth, and your mother, and
your uncles, nieces, best friend, me, my kids, all our books and our art
and music, and Orthos.  They will not stop until this is accomplished.
So we have no choice but to stop them. You may feel more strongly after
some terrorist strike in Germany, which there will most certainly be.


>
> That would be a positive approach to the whole thing and something
> I would like to see implemented. The first action to be taken would
> be more support for Israel and the palestinian (sp?) people to make
> peace after all those years of battling (IMHO of course).


Yes I agree Stefan. This area is a flash-point.


> Sounds nice but one should ask the afghanian people before doing that.
> I am not sure if they got the government they deserve: Taliban
fanatics.
> It doesn't seem so I admit. Lots of afghanians seem to wish the
Taliban
> away. But how much of them support the religious fanatics?



Afghan is an awful place. Every group there is as brutal and
bloodthirsty as the next. Pakistan today or yesterday is saying exactly
that - begging us not to take down the Taliban and then leave Pakistan
vulnerable to the resistance fighters in that norrhteast corner that are
just exactly as ferocious as the Taliban. In Afghanistan there is a
long, long, long history of what they proudly call "warriors" - and of
course we would like to think of "warriors" in the proudest way, as
brave, good men fighting with courage, heroes, and so on. But from
everything I read, stories writting by Afghanis, old books and stories
from that part of the world, it is not a pretty history. It's a history
of vicious, barbaric, murderers.  Not warriors fighting for goodness,
simply warriors fighting for power over enemy tribes. It is not a place
you would want to move to, to live a peaceful life.


I apologize for the rambling, disorganized nature of this post. I'm
banging out words here - too fast - too many thoughts and I havent'
fully formed them yet.

But I appreciate your friendship, and the connection with other people
on this list that I've now know for a few years, and I hope we can help
each other to think clearly now.

I look forward to your reply.

Love Liza
[log in to unmask]