Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
First of all I do apologize for posting this off topic note, but given the
earlier notes I felt I had to write these things down. Most of it really boils
down to one thing:
There is no good or evil, only people with different points of view.
I realize that some people will feel an urgent need to call me anything from a
fascist moron to a goddamn liberal commie bastard. I would prefer that you give
some real arguments on why you don't agree. (So tell me why something is wrong,
rather than merely proclaiming: "but that's different!")
Jeroen
This remainder of this note is split up in three sections. I wrote the first
one, the second and third ones I copied from elsewhere.
The first section is meant as food for thought on:
Bombing states that harbored terrorists.
What is terrorism?
The cowardly attacks.
The partying Palestinians.
The second section contains a proposal for an amendment to the constitution to
protect against terrorism. (If you want to know where this proposal came from,
send me an offlist mail and I'll tell you.)
The third section is an essay on war and weapons of mass destruction, written
in 1998.
================================================================
SECTION 1:
Bombing states that harbored terrorists:
Imagine the following situation:
A particularly nasty attack, involving a car-bomb delivered by a terrorist from
another state, has killed 187 people. The government of the state decides under
public and moral pressure to do the only thing they can think of to prevent
further such attacks: they bomb the capital of the state that raised and
harbored the terrorist, to teach them respect. They request help from all other
states, subtly suggesting that anyone that does not agree must then agree with
the bombing.
The entire nation proceeds to bomb New York for raising and 'harboring'
Timothy McVeigh. The citizens of New York, after weeping over the tens of
thousands of family and friends that have been killed, suddenly gain a new
respect and love for Oklahoma that stays with them for the rest of their lives.
Hmm.. maybe there's a flaw somewhere in this scenario.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
What is terrorism?
One definition of terrorism is:
'The use of violence in an attempt to force a country to change its behavior
out of fear of further violence.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
The cowardly attacks:
More than once in the past few days the attacks on the 11th have been called
'cowardly'. Which of the following two attacks would you call 'cowardly':
A Someone tries to kill you, facing certain death in the attempt.
B Someone fires a missile at you from 5000 miles away.
Giving your life for your beliefs is something most cultures (including the US]
praise highly. While we do not agree with the beliefs in this case, these
people died for their cause. That is anything but cowardly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
The festive Palestinians:
In the media, images have been shown depicting Arabs cheering and partying
after they heard the news of the attacks on the US.
Most of these images were filmed in Palestinian refugee camps Sabra and Chagila
in southern Lebanon. Over 3000 people (no exceptions for women and children) in
these two camps were killed by Lebanese troops on 16-18 september 1982. Israeli
troops, under the command of general Ariel Sharon were stopping people from
fleeing the camps while this happened. There are indications that this was a
joint operation between the Israelli army and the Lebanese groups involved.
Since then, the United Nations has voted a few times to pass a resolution
condemning the massacre, and the role Israel played in it (actively or
passively). Every single time this happened, the US vetoed the resolution.
There were no three minutes of silence for these people, no condolences, and
not even the recognition by the international community that what had happened
to them was wrong - because it was blocked by the US every time it came up.
Imagine how you would feel about France if it vetoed a UN resolution condemning
the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.
===============================================================
SECTION 2: An amendment to the constitution to protect people from terrorism.
The following has been proposed as an amendment to the Constitution:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
If public safety and order [..] are materially disturbed or endangered, the
President may take the necessary measures to restore public safety and order,
and, if necessary, to intervene with the help of the armed forces. To this end
he may temporarily suspend, in whole or in part, the fundamental rights
established in Articles [... of the constitution]
[...] In virtue of [the amendment of the] Constitution, the following is
decreed as a defensive measure against [terrorism]:
Sections [...] of the Constitution [..] are suspended until further notice.
Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of
opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right
of
association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and
telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for
confiscation as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond
the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
================================================================
SECTION 3: An essay on war and weapons of mass destruction.
Finally, an essay by a rather well known person, who has been described as a
dangerous, incoherent lunatic:
(ESSAY BEGINS)
The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or
biological weapons ("weapons of mass destruction") - mainly because they have
used them in the past. Well, if that's the standard by which these matters are
decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has
stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims
that this was done for deterrent purposes during its "Cold War" with the Soviet
Union. Why, then, is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence)
- with respect to Iraq's (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its
neighbor Iran?
The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past. We've
all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from
the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen these photos juxtaposed
next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki? I suggest that one study the
histories of World War I, World War II and other "regional conflicts" that the
U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of "weapons of
mass destruction." Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What
about the big ones - Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S.
killed at least 150,000 non-combatants - mostly women and children - in the
blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks, or months to die.)
If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges
against him and his nation, whey do we not hear the same cry for blood directed
at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" - like
those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?
The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling
and use of weapons of mass destruction. Hypocrisy when it comes to the death of
children?
In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a
day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies
which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet when discussion shifts to
Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes "a
shield." Think about that. (Actually, there is a difference here. The
administration has admitted to knowledge of the presence of children in or near
Iraqi government buildings, yet they still proceed with their plans to bomb -
saying that they cannot be held responsible if children die. There is no such
proof, however, that knowledge of the presence of children existed in relation
to the Oklahoma City bombing.)
When considering morality and "mens rea" (criminal intent) in light of these
facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians? Yet another example of this nation's
blatant hypocrisy is revealed by the polls which suggest that this nation is
greatly in favor of bombing Iraq. In this instance, the people of the nation
approve of bombing government employees because they are "guilty by
association" - they are Iraqi government employees. In regard to the bombing in
Oklahoma City, however, such logic is condemned. What motivates these seemingly
contradictory positions? Do people think that government workers in Iraq are
any less human than those in Oklahoma City? Do they think that Iraqis don't
have families who will grieve and mourn the loss of their loved ones? In this
context, do people come to believe that the killing of foreigners is somehow
different than the killing of Americans?
I recently read of an arrest in New York City where possession of a mere pipe
bomb was charged as possession of a "weapon of mass destruction." If a
two-pound pipe bomb is a "weapon of mass destruction," then what do people
think that a 2,000-pound steel-encased bomb is? I find it ironic, to say the
least, that one of the aircraft that could be used to drop such a bomb on Iraq
is dubbed "The Spirit of Oklahoma." This leads me to a final, and unspoken,
moral hypocrisy regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction. When a U.S.
plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction to a foreign people, this
nation rewards the bombers with applause and praise. What a convenient way to
absolve these killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave in
their wake. Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not so superficial. The
truth is, the use of a truck, a plane, or a missile for the delivery of a
weapon of mass destruction does not alter the nature of the act itself. These
are weapons of mass destruction - and the method of delivery matters little to
those on the receiving end of such weapons.
Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally, of the bombing
of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you are approving of acts morally
equivalent to the bombing in Oklahoma City. The only difference is that this
nation is not going to see any foreign casualties appear on the cover of
Newsweek magazine. It seems ironic and hypocritical that an act as viciously
condemned in Oklahoma City is now a "justified" response to a problem in a
foreign land. Then again, the history of United States policy over the last
century, when examined fully, tends to exemplify hypocrisy.
When considering the used of weapons of mass destruction against Iraq as a
means to and end, it would be wise to reflect on the words of the late U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. His words are as true in the context of
Olmstead as they are when they stand alone: "Our government is the potent, the
omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its
example."
Sincerely, Timothy J.
McVeigh (ESSAY ENDS)
--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]