RE: [iwar] On the Nature of a Response

From: Glenn Williamson (Glenn_Williamson@ottawa.com)
Date: 2001-09-14 15:25:37
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Bush's.coalition.already.starting.to.fall.apart]"
Previous message: Mohammad Ozair Rasheed: "[iwar] Skyscrapers may go out of fashion after attacks"
In reply to: Tony Bartoletti: "[iwar] On the Nature of a Response"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: <iwar@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <NEBBJBJAILHONFLOGCKJGEKJCMAA.glenn.williamson@sympatico.ca>
Importance: High
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010913141517.00b182a0@poptop.llnl.gov>
From: "Glenn Williamson" <Glenn_Williamson@ottawa.com>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:25:37 -0400
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [iwar] On the Nature of a Response
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tony

 You and I have talked on occasion and it is with this sad occasion I will
once again say thank-you, over the past number of days there has been more
than a fair share of opinions of what should be done to the culprits (just a
word I use for not crossing any line). You have broadened the scope of what
has happened and what (US/Nato countries) have thought about. I will not go
on but the way you have put this should be read by people that for whatever
reason see nothing but hatred. I will not ever disagree with them nor agree
with them, but to be able to read a different perspective provides so much
more insight on the root of the problem.

 Thank You


Glenn


-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Bartoletti [mailto:azb@llnl.gov]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 7:57 PM
To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] On the Nature of a Response



I find I have been unusually quiet these past few days, for I tend to write
only after having given careful consideration to my thoughts, their motives
and implications.

I must commend Fred (again) for his seemingly inexhaustible effort to
gather and distribute commentaries on Tuesday's horrible events, and more
so in providing an even-handed forum in the representation of responses.

In particular, I found the posting labeled:


"Reposting-of-a-summary-of-global-media-regarding-the-attacks-on-New-York-an
d-DC"

to be especially revealing, as it contains excerpts from the medias of over
fifty countries or regions, multiplied in many cases by individual excerpts
from the left, right and centric sources.  If I were a civics teacher, this
would be "required reading."

One is struck by the virtual unanimity of condemnation for the murderous
attacks upon civilians, upon innocents, and especially among the "western"
nations, upon the symbols and infrastructure of civilized commerce and the
defense forces of democracy.  Beyond this, however, one sees in the choice
of words used either appeals to nationalism or globalism, and (perhaps
somewhat cynically on my part) either an eagerness to exploit these events
to project power for various agendas, or to step away from the perceived
line-of-fire of a military response.  Of course, as one surveys the
responses from the NATO nations and then outward, one sees a natural
decrease in the language of retribution, and an increase in efforts to
explain, if not justify, the motivations behind that which defies
justification.

Allow me to digress a moment:  I do not support capital punishment, for any
crime.

I happen to believe that the only justification for killing another is when
the failure to apply deadly force would reasonably and imminently lead to
one's own death or grave injury, or those of others so threatened.  To
coldly execute even Timothy McVeigh, once he is securely held in a position
of powerlessness, is simply to promote the concept that "killing is OK if
you are upset enough."  It is not, and cannot be a civilized and humane
response to any act.

I hear much rhetoric implying how the perpetrators of this atrocity shall
be "punished", and headlines that, it would seem, are intended to strike
the fear of retribution in the hearts of these maniacs.  Even I have given
in to such terminology, but it really does not serve the cause of humanity
or civility.  I suppose that, in some fashion, the extremists of "Radical
Islam" are behind this attack.  From what I understand, they will not be at
all frightened by the rhetoric, or the fact of their imminent destruction,
or the incineration of their neighbors, friend or foe.  In their minds,
such "retribution" will simply expedite their own arrival in heaven, and
that of their foes to some other place.  The rhetoric of "pain-for-pain"
will not affect them, and only serves to harden the hearts and inflame the
passions of the peace-loving and civilized world.

I consider myself exceedingly tolerant of religious diversity, and I am
often dismayed at how many of the non-Judeo/Christian sects are
marginalized in this country, founded as it is upon freedom of
worship.  And I would hesitate to have any government or world-order given
charge to "define" what is legitimate religious belief.  But the world
community must stand behind certain principles, despite religious
belief.  Universally, no sect that practices human sacrifice should be
given status as a recognized religious endeavor.

Above all, these terrorists should not be considered religious, or (truly)
Islamic, by any measure.  They are akin to a cancer that has erupted in the
body of the world, and I think it provides a great deal of clarity if this
analogy is pursued.  There is always debate over the causes of cancer.  Is
it spontaneous? Genetic predisposition?  Is it triggered by one's
lifestyle, environment, etc.?  These issues must eventually be examined
with renewed purpose.  But when gripped with cancer, we charge the
physician first and foremost with the task of its elimination, and by the
means LEAST intrusive and destructive.

Take note:  When the physician sets to destroy or excise cancerous cells,
she does not pretend to be "punishing" those cells, or sending them a
message, or exacting retribution for the damage they have caused.  Nor
would we want her to, lest more damage be done in the process.  For those
cells are mindless killers, and deserving only of a cold and clinical
elimination.

Precisely how we determine the extent of culpability in Tuesday's
catastrophe, and how we respond to it, will serve to define the term
"civilization" for this new century, and that is not something that should
be done with haste for the sake of short-term gratification.  Certainly, a
relentless effort to identify and eliminate terrorism should be undertaken
collectively by all of the peace-loving peoples of this world.  This must
include, by some extension, not only those whose hand literally carry out
such acts, but those who knowingly fund or support, give guidance, comfort,
or shelter such activities.

Does this indict all of "Radical Islam"?  I don't know.  The
Taleban?  Again, I don't know, although I am no fan of any religions that
seem to treat women as some kind of sub-human species, for their own
"protection" (as a rancher might protect his cattle.)

Unfortunately, the U.S. public, and the NATO alliance, will likely not be
satisfied with a quiet and surgical excision of the cancer that has taken
us.  And understand, I do support whatever level of force will be required
to "coerce" those governments that do not fall vigorously in line with the
effort to eradicate this scourge.

But we cannot demonstrate that America is the greatest nation on earth, or
that freedom and democracy are the greatest ideals on earth, by dropping
the greatest bombs on earth.

And finally, although it turned even my stomach to see crowds cheering in
celebration of Tuesday's tragedy, these are in some sense the people most
deserving of our pity.  They were not born this way, to hate us, or to
cheer death.  The world is ripe with the oppressed, with powerless
populations in misery.  It would be very sad if these people, their lives
and aspirations, are turned into some kind of "counter sacrifice" to the
lives that were lost in New York and Washington this week.


___tony___




Tony Bartoletti 925-422-3881 <azb@llnl.gov>
Information Operations, Warfare and Assurance Center
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, CA 94551-9900






------------------
http://all.net/

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Secure your servers with 128-bit SSL encryption! Grab your copy of VeriSign's FREE Guide: "Securing Your Web Site for Business." Get it Now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4mr93B/zhwCAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Bush's.coalition.already.starting.to.fall.apart]"
Previous message: Mohammad Ozair Rasheed: "[iwar] Skyscrapers may go out of fashion after attacks"
In reply to: Tony Bartoletti: "[iwar] On the Nature of a Response"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-09-29 21:08:44 PDT