History is filled with “what ifs?” What if the Normans hadn’t invaded England? What if Columbus hadn’t sailed across the Atlantic? What if England had included the colonies in Parliament?
We really don’t know how much different actions would have gotten quite different results. Several authors have written speculative fiction describing outcomes quite different from actual history. One example is an author who wrote several books on what if the South had won the Civil War.
I don’t really know how things would have turned out if only…, but bear with me as I join the speculators.
Lincoln went to war against the Confederacy because he felt that an un-United States would have left the States open to foreign intervention. It wasn’t so much that he wanted to free the slaves, but the South did fear the North taking away its slaves. Lincoln did take away the slaves, but that left so much resentment that “blacks” still are treated as second class citizens in much of the South, to say nothing of the murders committed against blacks in the South (and in the North too).
If the South had successfully seceded, with or without a war, would the slaves eventually be freed? Probably not. For example, textile mills in New England would be eager to buy slave-picked cotton from the South. And manufacturers in the North would be eager to sell all kinds of labor-saving machinery to the South. Would that machinery be more efficient than slaves? Thereby reducing the market in slaves? We really don’t know.
In Europe empires grew to embrace many people of quite different languages and interests. The empires in turn were distrustful of each other and made treaties with “friendly” empires to protect themselves against “unfriendly” empires. They thought a balance of power would create a balance of peace. Then “one leg of the chair” collapsed. With a single assassination, one group of empires felt the need to attack another group of empires.
If there had been an alliance of all the nations of Europe to settle disputes in a more peaceful manner, would there have been “The War to End All Wars”? We do know that most of those countries are now at peace with one another.
But at the end of World War I, some victors wanted to punish the losers. This punishment had two different serious consequences.
In Europe, the injustices perceived by the Germans led to the rise of Adolph Hitler. Millions died because they were “other” and millions died because of the wars Hitler started. Consider that not all these deaths were caused by Hitler and his Japanese allies. The number of innocent people killed in the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are far greater than the number of people killed in a decade of “Islamic” terrorism.
In the Middle East the Ottoman Empire was broken up willy-nilly without any consideration for the people of the various countries created. Then oil was discovered and buying countries wanted to make sure they had stable supplies. It didn’t matter what the form of government was or the what the wishes of the people were. The buyers supported non-democratic leaders with nary a blink of an eye. In fact, if a democratic leader tried to change oil contracts to be more beneficial to his country, the buyers sought to overthrow him and replace him with an autocrat. Remember Mosaddegh and Reza Pahlavi? Is it any wonder that the ayatollahs took over and had so much animosity to the U.S.?
Then George W. Bush and company decided that they had to do something about Saddam Hussein because of 9/11. How many Iraqis died because of this war? It was far more than had died in any number of terrorist attacks before. And the easy victory that the Bush administration predicted resulted in chaos that still hasn’t settled down either with a stable democracy or a firm dictator.
Into the vacuum came equally hard-nosed militants who believed Allah was on their side. I find it strange that Allah isn’t booming down from heaven the same message to the rest of us. And strange that God isn’t booming the same message that George W. Bush received.
All of this religiosity seems to ignore the more gentle wisdom that is in both the Bible and the Koran: do unto others as you would have them to do you, blessed are the peacemakers, the sins of the fathers are passed on to the sons, yea unto the seventh generation, and many more.
“Yet it is in fact militarization that is the cause of the problem in the first place.” - Ben Norton
If you have an hour to spare, read Ben Norton’s “Our Terrorism Double Standard: After Paris Let’s Stop Blaming Muslims and Take a Hard Look at Ourselves”, Salon, 2015-11-14 at
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_terrorism_double_standard_after_paris_lets_stop_blaming_muslims_and_take_a_hard_look_at_ourselves/ The article doesn’t take an hour to read, but you will want to read many of the related articles in the sidebar.
After the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush is infamously quoted as advising Americans to “Go shopping.” I think it was a misguided attempt to ask people to act normally. My advice to Americans after any of these catastrophes is “Go vote”. Too often the militant vote and the peacemakers stay home.
Also published in the Reader Weekly, 2015-11-19 at
http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/11/18/6257_do_we_reap_what_we_sow
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
The myths of fighting terrorism
President George W. Bush used “War on Terrorism” over and over again, and, like many before and after him, thought that military might from air or ground could stop the terrorism. But these actions only foment more terrorism. In fact, these actions in and of themselves are terrorism.
Just what is terrorism? Governments generally define it as lethal attacks on civilians or governments, often perpetrated by a small number of people. Terrorism really is any act by any group, government or not, meant to reinforce an agenda. Torture by any government is terrorism. Invasion of one country by another that leads to the deaths or injuries to the unarmed civilians is terrorism. Pilots deliberately crashing airplanes is terrorism. Gunmen shooting people on buses or in theaters is terrorism. People blowing up mosques, churches, or temples are terrorists. Governments dropping bombs on civilian populations is terrorism.
Terror has been a part of our country from the beginning. During the Revolution, mobs of “Tories” or “Patriots” would tar and feather and ride out on a rail those they suspected of supporting the other group. The tar was very hot and the rails were triangular; the victims were probably made to sit with the triangle facing up.
Slaves knew the terror of being whipped by a ruthless owner or overseer for the slightest infraction. If that weren’t enough, many owners justified the whippings with verses from the Bible.
The end of slavery didn’t end the terror for former slaves or their descendants. The Ku Klux Klan hung those they disagreed without any benefit of trial. Others were “lucky” to “only” have crosses burned in front of their houses. The Klan made “Christianity” just another example of a violent religion.
The Klan and its ilk have not been eradicated, but their influence has been greatly diminished by a more just civil society.
Unfortunately, civil society has been under attack since the writing of the Constitution. Slavery was permitted in the Constitution with the onerous counting of slaves as three-fifths of persons. Slavery was further strengthened by the Second Amendment, “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms”. For many, the purpose of this was to protect slave owners if the Federal government threatened to take away their slaves. Civil society is also under attack by those who want to consider corporations as “persons”.
Terror by “civil society” continued after the abolition of slavery with the forced relocation or slaughter of aboriginal peoples. The U.S. Army wiped out several villages including women and children. The Cherokee and others, successful farmers who dressed the same as their neighbors, were forced off their land and told to move to Oklahoma. Many did not survive the trip.
I could go on with several other instances of the U.S. being involved in violence against the populations of other countries, but I don’t have space to examine the pros and cons of these interventions. But, there are many people who remember these interventions and still hold grudges about them.
Let’s examine one chain of events that got us to the messes of today.
The Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan to protect the Communist-led government. Afghanistan, being the tribal country it is, had many who attacked the Soviet occupiers. The United States, being engaged with its own battle with “godless Communism”, aided and abetted the resistance. One of the most deadly weapons the U.S. arsenal was Stinger missile. The U.S. supplied Stingers to the mujahedeen fighting Soviet helicopters, the deadly Hinds. The new weapons turned the battle around and the Soviet Union eventually left. But many of the Stingers did not return to the United States.
Then the United States decided to take on Saddam Hussein when the latter invaded Kuwait. As part of the military arrangements, Saudi Arabia allowed the U.S. to base troops in their country. A big mistake to make. Many Muslims consider Saudi Arabia a holy place that should not be “overrun” by an infidel army. One of these objectors was an Arab who had been very active in helping the mujahedeen repel the Soviet invaders: Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden decided to make a big theatrical demonstration of his displeasure, the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York after some practices in the Gulf of Aden and other places. George W. Bush fell into bin Laden’s trap and escalated the conflict, invading both Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing “freedom and democracy” to both countries. Both countries may have “elected” officials, but the fighting still goes on and has brought in a third party: the Islamic State in Syria. ISIS or ISIL or IS has thousands of Muslims, traditional or new converts rushing to join their cause.
The United States, under a President who wanted to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is sending jets to attack ISIS in Iraq. Do you not think there are a few Muslims who are thinking of ways to attack the U.S. for its “attack on Islam”? On top of this, thousands of those fighting to expel ISIS from Tikrit have withdrawn because of the U.S. attacks. Can the jets occupy Tikrit? I think it is Sunnis who have withdrawn; Tikrit is a predominantly Sunni city.
What frosts me is that the U.S. gives billions of aid each year to both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but neither has put much effort in expelling ISIS from Iraq. Saudi Arabia has probably put more effort into Yemen than it has into Iraq.
And now we have a Congress that wants to spend even more money on the “defense” of its world view while protecting the “rights” of our home-grown terrorists.
Pete Seeger’s lament is still relevant: “When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?”
Also published in the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/04/01/5049_the_myths_of_fighting_terrorism.
Just what is terrorism? Governments generally define it as lethal attacks on civilians or governments, often perpetrated by a small number of people. Terrorism really is any act by any group, government or not, meant to reinforce an agenda. Torture by any government is terrorism. Invasion of one country by another that leads to the deaths or injuries to the unarmed civilians is terrorism. Pilots deliberately crashing airplanes is terrorism. Gunmen shooting people on buses or in theaters is terrorism. People blowing up mosques, churches, or temples are terrorists. Governments dropping bombs on civilian populations is terrorism.
Terror has been a part of our country from the beginning. During the Revolution, mobs of “Tories” or “Patriots” would tar and feather and ride out on a rail those they suspected of supporting the other group. The tar was very hot and the rails were triangular; the victims were probably made to sit with the triangle facing up.
Slaves knew the terror of being whipped by a ruthless owner or overseer for the slightest infraction. If that weren’t enough, many owners justified the whippings with verses from the Bible.
The end of slavery didn’t end the terror for former slaves or their descendants. The Ku Klux Klan hung those they disagreed without any benefit of trial. Others were “lucky” to “only” have crosses burned in front of their houses. The Klan made “Christianity” just another example of a violent religion.
The Klan and its ilk have not been eradicated, but their influence has been greatly diminished by a more just civil society.
Unfortunately, civil society has been under attack since the writing of the Constitution. Slavery was permitted in the Constitution with the onerous counting of slaves as three-fifths of persons. Slavery was further strengthened by the Second Amendment, “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms”. For many, the purpose of this was to protect slave owners if the Federal government threatened to take away their slaves. Civil society is also under attack by those who want to consider corporations as “persons”.
Terror by “civil society” continued after the abolition of slavery with the forced relocation or slaughter of aboriginal peoples. The U.S. Army wiped out several villages including women and children. The Cherokee and others, successful farmers who dressed the same as their neighbors, were forced off their land and told to move to Oklahoma. Many did not survive the trip.
I could go on with several other instances of the U.S. being involved in violence against the populations of other countries, but I don’t have space to examine the pros and cons of these interventions. But, there are many people who remember these interventions and still hold grudges about them.
Let’s examine one chain of events that got us to the messes of today.
The Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan to protect the Communist-led government. Afghanistan, being the tribal country it is, had many who attacked the Soviet occupiers. The United States, being engaged with its own battle with “godless Communism”, aided and abetted the resistance. One of the most deadly weapons the U.S. arsenal was Stinger missile. The U.S. supplied Stingers to the mujahedeen fighting Soviet helicopters, the deadly Hinds. The new weapons turned the battle around and the Soviet Union eventually left. But many of the Stingers did not return to the United States.
Then the United States decided to take on Saddam Hussein when the latter invaded Kuwait. As part of the military arrangements, Saudi Arabia allowed the U.S. to base troops in their country. A big mistake to make. Many Muslims consider Saudi Arabia a holy place that should not be “overrun” by an infidel army. One of these objectors was an Arab who had been very active in helping the mujahedeen repel the Soviet invaders: Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden decided to make a big theatrical demonstration of his displeasure, the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York after some practices in the Gulf of Aden and other places. George W. Bush fell into bin Laden’s trap and escalated the conflict, invading both Afghanistan and Iraq, bringing “freedom and democracy” to both countries. Both countries may have “elected” officials, but the fighting still goes on and has brought in a third party: the Islamic State in Syria. ISIS or ISIL or IS has thousands of Muslims, traditional or new converts rushing to join their cause.
The United States, under a President who wanted to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is sending jets to attack ISIS in Iraq. Do you not think there are a few Muslims who are thinking of ways to attack the U.S. for its “attack on Islam”? On top of this, thousands of those fighting to expel ISIS from Tikrit have withdrawn because of the U.S. attacks. Can the jets occupy Tikrit? I think it is Sunnis who have withdrawn; Tikrit is a predominantly Sunni city.
What frosts me is that the U.S. gives billions of aid each year to both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, but neither has put much effort in expelling ISIS from Iraq. Saudi Arabia has probably put more effort into Yemen than it has into Iraq.
And now we have a Congress that wants to spend even more money on the “defense” of its world view while protecting the “rights” of our home-grown terrorists.
Pete Seeger’s lament is still relevant: “When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?”
Also published in the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2015/04/01/5049_the_myths_of_fighting_terrorism.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Quote of the day - civilian control out of control
"[T]he notion of civilian control of the military became meaningless, since civilians were the leading militarists."
- Michael Mann, "Incoherent Empire", quoted by Andrew J. Bacevich in "The New American Militarism".
This was in reference to the reaction to 9/11. Same section states that military felt it failed to protect country against attack, but is it the military's job to stop criminals?
- Michael Mann, "Incoherent Empire", quoted by Andrew J. Bacevich in "The New American Militarism".
This was in reference to the reaction to 9/11. Same section states that military felt it failed to protect country against attack, but is it the military's job to stop criminals?
Saturday, April 06, 2013
Quote of the day - Diplomatic Imperialism
Remember when George W. Bush said that you're with us or against us?
Fareed Zakaria wrote "Washington ... has not yet figured out that diplomatic imperialism is a luxury that the United States can no longer afford."
- The Post-American World, Release 2.0, pp. 258-259
He concludes his book with the idea that we are an open, welcoming country but that our foreign policy is narrow-minded and paranoid.
Many are calling for Congress to compromise on many issues. Maybe we should be asking Congress and the Administration to compromise with the rest of the world.
"The Post-American World" is a very good read. Zakaria lays out all the pitfalls of assuming that economic and military might can mislead a country into thinking its "On top of the world and outside history". On the other hand, Zakaria thinks that as the first "universal nation" (people of many origins and faiths) has a lot of strengths that can be harnessed to bring about a more prosperous, peaceful, multi-polar world.
Fareed Zakaria wrote "Washington ... has not yet figured out that diplomatic imperialism is a luxury that the United States can no longer afford."
- The Post-American World, Release 2.0, pp. 258-259
He concludes his book with the idea that we are an open, welcoming country but that our foreign policy is narrow-minded and paranoid.
Many are calling for Congress to compromise on many issues. Maybe we should be asking Congress and the Administration to compromise with the rest of the world.
"The Post-American World" is a very good read. Zakaria lays out all the pitfalls of assuming that economic and military might can mislead a country into thinking its "On top of the world and outside history". On the other hand, Zakaria thinks that as the first "universal nation" (people of many origins and faiths) has a lot of strengths that can be harnessed to bring about a more prosperous, peaceful, multi-polar world.
Friday, March 01, 2013
Remember where you were when you heard…
Tonight we watched "Julia" with Jane Fonda and Vanessa Redgrave, a tight, engrossing movie about Lillian Hellman and her friend Julia. I won't get into the veracity of the story, but I would like to mention my own personal incident concerning Lillian Hellman. At the conclusion of the movie, I remembered where I was when I heard that she had died!
In the summer of 1984 I was driving on 42nd St. in Crystal, Minnesota when I heard a tribute to her on Minnesota Public Radio. I was a block west of the Post Office.
I also remember where I was when I heard Jack Kennedy was shot, Walt Disney died, Marshall Dodge the Maine storyteller died, about 9/11, and 54 million shares were traded on the New York Stock Exchange the day before.
BTW, what is your name again?
In the summer of 1984 I was driving on 42nd St. in Crystal, Minnesota when I heard a tribute to her on Minnesota Public Radio. I was a block west of the Post Office.
I also remember where I was when I heard Jack Kennedy was shot, Walt Disney died, Marshall Dodge the Maine storyteller died, about 9/11, and 54 million shares were traded on the New York Stock Exchange the day before.
BTW, what is your name again?
Saturday, September 10, 2011
What 9/11 should have taught ALL of us
First, before the über patriots criticize me, let me question Al Qaeda.
What do you hope to gain? You are like flies or mosquitos in a house. You annoy many people, but many of you will get swatted without gaining anything meaningful. Sure you may bite a few people, but the people go on about their business. You think you speak for all Islam, but you speak for all Islam as much as the Ku Klux Klan or the Crusaders speak for all Christianity.
If you are so sure that you have Allah on your side, why do you say "Inshallah" ("God willing")? If you have doubt that Allah wants you to succeed, how can you be sure you are doing Allah's will in the first place? And if hundreds and thousands of imams and ayatollahs write volumes of commentary, often disputing each other, how can you be so certain?
If you're so interested in protecting Islam and Muslims, why do you kill those who disagree with you and why do you instigate others to blindly strike back at Muslim countries? You gain nothing but chaos, but doesn't your Allah want order and harmony?
Second, many of those who are justifiably disturbed by the attacks of 9/11 have reacted like somebody who is paranoid about flies in the house; they are willing to knock over furniture and break windows to kill a single fly. These people have reacted so wildly that they are ready to invade countries that have no connection with Al Qaeda or think that invading the base of "The Base" will eliminate it. Ten years later they have not succeeded in eliminating the threat; quite the contrary, they have increased the number of terrorist wannabes to levels where the costs are budget-breaking.
In invading other countries, these fly-swatters didn't learn from history. They sent into foreign countries armies that were not wanted, who didn't speak the language, and who didn't understand the culture. Have they forgotten their own history? Our predecessors disliked being governed by a country thousands of miles away, and that country shared our language and culture. Of course, that country made matters worse by sending mercenaries who didn't speak our language. Have they forgotten the French Resistance? At least many of the Germans spoke French. But as soon as the Germans killed or captured a leader of the Resistance, somebody took his or her place.
The intolerant among us are playing right into Al Qaeda's hands. By treating all Muslims as Al Qaeda they are indirectly recruiting more Al Qaeda sympathizers. Fortunately, like most Christians are not interested in going on a Crusade, most Muslims are not interested in going on an Al Qaeda-style jihad.
Many opportunities have been lost in neutralizing or marginalizing the likes of Al Qaeda. What if the State Department had one-tenth the military budget to train people in languages, cultures, and negotiation? Wouldn't this undercut support for Al Qaeda more than military action that "proves" Al Qaeda "right" in its criticism and rhetoric?
Mourn the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and non-believers who were in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2011, but also give serious thought to how we can bring about a world where nobody resorts to violence to bring about their wishes.
What do you hope to gain? You are like flies or mosquitos in a house. You annoy many people, but many of you will get swatted without gaining anything meaningful. Sure you may bite a few people, but the people go on about their business. You think you speak for all Islam, but you speak for all Islam as much as the Ku Klux Klan or the Crusaders speak for all Christianity.
If you are so sure that you have Allah on your side, why do you say "Inshallah" ("God willing")? If you have doubt that Allah wants you to succeed, how can you be sure you are doing Allah's will in the first place? And if hundreds and thousands of imams and ayatollahs write volumes of commentary, often disputing each other, how can you be so certain?
If you're so interested in protecting Islam and Muslims, why do you kill those who disagree with you and why do you instigate others to blindly strike back at Muslim countries? You gain nothing but chaos, but doesn't your Allah want order and harmony?
Second, many of those who are justifiably disturbed by the attacks of 9/11 have reacted like somebody who is paranoid about flies in the house; they are willing to knock over furniture and break windows to kill a single fly. These people have reacted so wildly that they are ready to invade countries that have no connection with Al Qaeda or think that invading the base of "The Base" will eliminate it. Ten years later they have not succeeded in eliminating the threat; quite the contrary, they have increased the number of terrorist wannabes to levels where the costs are budget-breaking.
In invading other countries, these fly-swatters didn't learn from history. They sent into foreign countries armies that were not wanted, who didn't speak the language, and who didn't understand the culture. Have they forgotten their own history? Our predecessors disliked being governed by a country thousands of miles away, and that country shared our language and culture. Of course, that country made matters worse by sending mercenaries who didn't speak our language. Have they forgotten the French Resistance? At least many of the Germans spoke French. But as soon as the Germans killed or captured a leader of the Resistance, somebody took his or her place.
The intolerant among us are playing right into Al Qaeda's hands. By treating all Muslims as Al Qaeda they are indirectly recruiting more Al Qaeda sympathizers. Fortunately, like most Christians are not interested in going on a Crusade, most Muslims are not interested in going on an Al Qaeda-style jihad.
Many opportunities have been lost in neutralizing or marginalizing the likes of Al Qaeda. What if the State Department had one-tenth the military budget to train people in languages, cultures, and negotiation? Wouldn't this undercut support for Al Qaeda more than military action that "proves" Al Qaeda "right" in its criticism and rhetoric?
Mourn the Christians, Jews, Muslims, and non-believers who were in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2011, but also give serious thought to how we can bring about a world where nobody resorts to violence to bring about their wishes.
Thursday, September 09, 2010
Peace quote of the day
"All the work that Beyond the 11th has done in Afghanistan over nine years has cost less than keeping a single American soldier in Afghanistan for eight months."
Beyond the 11th is an organization founded by two 9/11 widows to help women in Afghanistan. To read the full column, see "The Healers of 9/11", Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, 2010-09-08.
Beyond the 11th is an organization founded by two 9/11 widows to help women in Afghanistan. To read the full column, see "The Healers of 9/11", Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, 2010-09-08.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
"Sacred places": The shoe is on the other foot
Civil rights leaders are upset that Glenn Beck has proposed a big gathering at the Lincoln Memorial, a sacred place to followers of Martin Luther King, Jr., who gave his "I have a dream" speech there. Beck's "Restoring Honor" gathering is on the anniversary of King's speech. ("Conservatives' plan to rally at site of famed King speech sparks debate, Kathleen Hennessey, Duluth News Tribune, 2010-08-25)
One can read many things into this. Was the place and time just happenstance, or was it deliberately planned that way. If Glenn Beck is upset about a mosque being built two blocks away from the World Trade Center site, shouldn't he be equally concerned about upsetting people over his choice of venue?
I'm not going to keep a scorecard on who is complaining about what, but I do hope we all would get on with life instead of turning everything into a monument to the past.
One can read many things into this. Was the place and time just happenstance, or was it deliberately planned that way. If Glenn Beck is upset about a mosque being built two blocks away from the World Trade Center site, shouldn't he be equally concerned about upsetting people over his choice of venue?
I'm not going to keep a scorecard on who is complaining about what, but I do hope we all would get on with life instead of turning everything into a monument to the past.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
The new Red Menace!
Those who want power often use scare tactics to get people to support them. Even in democracies - Joseph McCarthy, 9/11, Iraq and WMD. Now we have those who want power and lucrative government contracts have declared that we are in a cyberwar!!
"There is no cyberwar and we are not losing it. The only war going on is one for the soul of the internet." "Cyberwar Hype Intended to Destroy the Open Internet", Ryan Singel, Wired, 2010-03-01.
"There is no cyberwar and we are not losing it. The only war going on is one for the soul of the internet." "Cyberwar Hype Intended to Destroy the Open Internet", Ryan Singel, Wired, 2010-03-01.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Al Qaeda and Slaughterhouse Five
I have long had Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse Five" on my reading list. I borrowed it from the library recently and finished it yesterday afternoon.
I did know that Vonnegut was a survivor of the Dresden fire bombing. I had thought that Slaughterhouse Five was about five survivors who were in a meat locker. Actually it was the address of where they were bunked as prisoners of war assigned to work in Dresden: Schlacthof fünf. There were about 100 prisoners guarded by four old or teen-age German conscripts.
They were about the only survivors of the firebombing. When they emerged from their shelter, they saw no standing buildings. Even then, they were strafed by planes attacking anything moving.
One character, a retired Air Force officer justifies the bombing because of what "the Germans" did. He also states that more people died in Dresden than in either the firebombing of Tokyo or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. He also justifies the latter two because of all the things "the Japanese" did to other people.
Amazing the different attitudes of people in the air or far away and of the people actually on the ground.
The imposition of collective guilt is always wrong. Jewish children of the twentieth century had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. German children of the 1940s had nothing to do with the Holocaust or the bombing of England. Japanese children of the 1940s had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor or the Rape of Nanking. Yet all these children are worth killing because of the actions of some of their elders. The god Maloch still lives and we still sacrifice children to his fires.
Is it any wonder that Al Qaeda thinks it appropriate to kill Americans anywhere anytime because they don't like the actions of a few Americans?
Obama's reaching out to people around the world is not going to quench the fires of Maloch soon, but let's hope it is a start.
I did know that Vonnegut was a survivor of the Dresden fire bombing. I had thought that Slaughterhouse Five was about five survivors who were in a meat locker. Actually it was the address of where they were bunked as prisoners of war assigned to work in Dresden: Schlacthof fünf. There were about 100 prisoners guarded by four old or teen-age German conscripts.
They were about the only survivors of the firebombing. When they emerged from their shelter, they saw no standing buildings. Even then, they were strafed by planes attacking anything moving.
One character, a retired Air Force officer justifies the bombing because of what "the Germans" did. He also states that more people died in Dresden than in either the firebombing of Tokyo or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. He also justifies the latter two because of all the things "the Japanese" did to other people.
Amazing the different attitudes of people in the air or far away and of the people actually on the ground.
The imposition of collective guilt is always wrong. Jewish children of the twentieth century had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. German children of the 1940s had nothing to do with the Holocaust or the bombing of England. Japanese children of the 1940s had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor or the Rape of Nanking. Yet all these children are worth killing because of the actions of some of their elders. The god Maloch still lives and we still sacrifice children to his fires.
Is it any wonder that Al Qaeda thinks it appropriate to kill Americans anywhere anytime because they don't like the actions of a few Americans?
Obama's reaching out to people around the world is not going to quench the fires of Maloch soon, but let's hope it is a start.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Terrorists aren't the only ones fanning flames
There is such a hew and cry about closing Guantanamo and putting the suspected terrorists held there in U.S. prisons, one would think that an Al Qaeda army was poised to invade and occupy the U.S.
When I was researching "The apologists of torture are torturing us" I came across the fact that Zacharias Moussaoui was being held in a U.S. prison. I also assumed that those arrested for the first World Trade Center plot were still in U.S. Prisons.
Today I read in the Washington Post, that quite a rogues' gallery of convicted terrorists are being held in a Federal prison in Florence, Colorado. The number given in the article is thirty-three. See "Supermax Prisons in U.S. Already Hold International Terrorists", Washington Post, 2009-05-22
Another thing to remember is we don't know for sure all of those labeled terrorists are actually terrorists. All we know is that some in the Federal government have called them terrorists. If the Federal government supposedly does so many other things wrong, how can we be sure it has really caught terrorists?
When I was researching "The apologists of torture are torturing us" I came across the fact that Zacharias Moussaoui was being held in a U.S. prison. I also assumed that those arrested for the first World Trade Center plot were still in U.S. Prisons.
Today I read in the Washington Post, that quite a rogues' gallery of convicted terrorists are being held in a Federal prison in Florence, Colorado. The number given in the article is thirty-three. See "Supermax Prisons in U.S. Already Hold International Terrorists", Washington Post, 2009-05-22
Another thing to remember is we don't know for sure all of those labeled terrorists are actually terrorists. All we know is that some in the Federal government have called them terrorists. If the Federal government supposedly does so many other things wrong, how can we be sure it has really caught terrorists?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The apologists of torture are torturing us
Commentators, such as Charles Krauthammer, "The Torture Debate, Continued", Washington Post, 2009-05-15 (Reprinted in Star Tribune, 2009-05-19) keep painting a scary scenario on how torture would prevent a terrorist attack, "the ticking time bomb" scenario.
In this scenario the authorities "know" there is a plot to do some dastardly deed, they have captured a suspect that they believe is involved in the plot, they believe they can only get details about the plot by torturing the suspect, and when the suspect reveals these details, they will be able to successfully foil the plot.
Like Krauthammer, they offer a real example in which they claim torture worked.
Unfortunately, there are no guarantees on any part of this scenario.
Some in the Clinton administration knew that Al Qaeda was planning an attack on the U.S. but didn't know exactly what. This information was given to the Bush administration and not followed up at high levels. See "Bush Administration's First Memo on al-Qaeda Declassified" and "Know thine enemy".
Some flight schools were suspicious of some of their students, for example, Zacarias Moussaoui, and reported them to the FBI. The local FBI office acted on these suspicions, but the Washington office denied permission to search Moussaoui's computer. It is uncertain how much Moussaoui knew about the 9/11 plot, but earlier action may have led to other Al Qaeda members.
Suppose Moussaoui had been tortured in order to reveal more details of the 9/11 plot. First, how much did he really know about that specific plot? Second, since he changed his story so many times, admitting guilt and denying guilt, could anything he said be believed? If he was to be part of the 9/11 plot, would he have admitted sufficient details under torture to foil the plot.
Years ago I heard a story about a Norwegian resistance member who was captured by the Germans. They knew he was involved with others and wanted to know their whereabouts. His interrogator drove a screwdriver into his knee and twisted, repeatedly. Despite the great pain, the Norwegian held out until he knew his friends, who were escaping Norway before being caught, were safely at sea.
So, for torture to successfully foil a plot, you have to know the plot exists, you have to know a captured suspect really knows sufficient details about the plot, and you have to be sure that he will reveal, under torture, sufficient details about the plot in a timely fashion. That is a very slender thread to hang the security of the nation on.
In this scenario the authorities "know" there is a plot to do some dastardly deed, they have captured a suspect that they believe is involved in the plot, they believe they can only get details about the plot by torturing the suspect, and when the suspect reveals these details, they will be able to successfully foil the plot.
Like Krauthammer, they offer a real example in which they claim torture worked.
Unfortunately, there are no guarantees on any part of this scenario.
Some in the Clinton administration knew that Al Qaeda was planning an attack on the U.S. but didn't know exactly what. This information was given to the Bush administration and not followed up at high levels. See "Bush Administration's First Memo on al-Qaeda Declassified" and "Know thine enemy".
Some flight schools were suspicious of some of their students, for example, Zacarias Moussaoui, and reported them to the FBI. The local FBI office acted on these suspicions, but the Washington office denied permission to search Moussaoui's computer. It is uncertain how much Moussaoui knew about the 9/11 plot, but earlier action may have led to other Al Qaeda members.
Suppose Moussaoui had been tortured in order to reveal more details of the 9/11 plot. First, how much did he really know about that specific plot? Second, since he changed his story so many times, admitting guilt and denying guilt, could anything he said be believed? If he was to be part of the 9/11 plot, would he have admitted sufficient details under torture to foil the plot.
Years ago I heard a story about a Norwegian resistance member who was captured by the Germans. They knew he was involved with others and wanted to know their whereabouts. His interrogator drove a screwdriver into his knee and twisted, repeatedly. Despite the great pain, the Norwegian held out until he knew his friends, who were escaping Norway before being caught, were safely at sea.
So, for torture to successfully foil a plot, you have to know the plot exists, you have to know a captured suspect really knows sufficient details about the plot, and you have to be sure that he will reveal, under torture, sufficient details about the plot in a timely fashion. That is a very slender thread to hang the security of the nation on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)