A Time For Patriots

Stories

Diaries

Polls

Users

Web Adequacy.org

Home

About

Topics

Rejects

Abortions

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

A Time For Patriots

Author:

Peter Johnson

Topic:

General

Posted:

Sep 11, 2001

Comments:

I have never considered myself much of a patriot. I have never felt the need for it until today. My country, my people have been attacked by unknown aggressors. Civilians have been targeted, innocent blood has been shed and we cannot allow this cowardly act to go unpunished.

More stories by

Peter Johnson

	Solving Teen Pregnancy
	The Law Fought The Law And Nobody Won
	Winning The Battle Against Pornography
	The Science of Poetry
	Victoria, BC: Potemkin Village of the Frozen North
	Writing Satire For A Technical Audience
	The Proselytizing Atheist
	Boom City, USA

The United States of America has long prided itself on standing for truth and justice. In this time of crisis, we must not lose site of that. I want the individuals responsible for these cowardly acts to regret the day their mothers bore them as much as anyone, but we must remember our duty as Americans and seek justice, not revenge.

Speculation is rampant as to the identity of the parties responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon. It will only grow worse in the days that follow. The temptation to lash out immediately, to make the usual suspects weep tears of blood is very powerful, but it is not the American way.

We are a lawful nation. No matter how horrific the crime, those accused are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This crime is no exception.

We must determine the individuals responsible and bring them to trial. This is our national duty and one that we must give our full support. But we must not attempt to settle this issue through military strikes alone. If we believe that the culprits are being sheltered by a foreign power, then we may have no choice but to retrieve them through a military intervention. But our goal as Americans must be to make them answer for their crimes in a court of law.

Respect for the rights of the accused and the rule of law is what makes this country great. If we give into our natural desire for revenge and execute those believed responsible without a trial; what are we then? In taking possibly innocent life, we will be no better than those we attack.

The highest calling of a patriot is not to defend his country, but rather to make his country worth defending. I hope that I can depend upon my fellow Americans to fulfill this calling. This is a time when we must stand tall. This is a time for patriots.

	A great opportunity... to keep cool (none / 0) (#2)
	by curious corn on Tue Sep 11th, 2001 at 03:52:26 PM PST

	I'm shocked by these events and deeply sympathise with the victims' families. OTOH I feel deeply worried that somebody can get his testosterone in the button room and act accordingly. Please, let's keep our minds lucidly focused on the human (and humane) principles that _should_ make up out cultural fundamenta. It's a crime, a big one for shure but law & justice was built do deal with this stuff and keep revenge & anger out of the way.

	my suggestion (1.00 / 1) (#3)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 11th, 2001 at 04:11:48 PM PST

	Dispatch some more of those "smart" missiles that once made the world safe for oil and gave Americans watching CNN stiffies. Oh, wait minute. That might give the terrorists ideas. Ok, let's try this again. We are a lawful nation. No matter how horrific the crime, those accused are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Cute. Given an accounting of lives and misery, the US is champ and not a few living Americans need to stand trial. Once that happens, maybe cowardly terrorist nations will imitate the example. Till then, patriots on both sides are targets, just as they've always been.

	A little obvious, but true (5.00 / 2) (#6)
	by lowapproach on Tue Sep 11th, 2001 at 06:08:15 PM PST

	While certain segments of the world have reason to hate and fear the United States, our bombs and missiles were intended to hit buildings of at least a nominally military purpose (the World Trade Center does not fit into this, unless you think that simply having a job in America makes you part of the military-industrial complex), and occurred during wars when governments could have sued for peace or cease-fire. I would argue that none of the people in the towers had any stake in America's oppression of foreign people, other than being American. I wonder how much we have all been conditioned as sophists, to lay blithely the blame on the victims rather than the attackers. I have had this argument with an acquaintance who also took this position, and I asked him to consider how lucky he was to live in the ass end of the Appalachian Mountains, where no one is important enough to kill solely for political statement.

	hrrm. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
	by otak on Tue Sep 11th, 2001 at 06:37:34 PM PST

	While certain segments of the world have reason to hate and fear the United States, our bombs and missiles were intended to hit buildings of at least a nominally military purpose And the sanctions on Iraq? The bombing of civilian areas of Cambodia? The overthrow of the democratic government of Chile? The twenty years of support for Indonesia while it massacred the population of East Timor? The support and training for death squads in Columbia? The repeated vetoing of UN resolutions condemning Israel over a whole host of issues, including posession of nuclear arms? The sanctions on Cuba? The ten-year terrorist war against Nicaragua? And so on. It's not just bombs and missiles that harm people. Were all of the above actions aimed at nations and groups with a `nominally military purpose'? cheers, mike.

	Ahh, okay - Part II (5.00 / 1) (#12)
	by lowapproach on Tue Sep 11th, 2001 at 11:32:45 PM PST

	And the sanctions on Iraq? Whether or not you think that they did anything to restrain the government from unwarranted aggression against its neighbors (of which it was definitely guilty), these were approved by a majority vote of the General Assembly and were enforced by several different militaries, not just the Americans. The repeated vetoing of UN resolutions condemning Israel over a whole host of issues, including posession of nuclear arms? Maybe the resolutions themselves were sheer idiocy. You question the sanctions on Iraq; the same set of minds brought you those too. The sanctions on Cuba? If Cuba were serious about wanting the United States as a partner in trade, it probably wouldn't have accepted Soviet medium-range nuclear missiles to ornament their island. I don't know enough about any of the others to make any sort of argument, but the three above (a) were policies with no explicit or implied intention of killing foreign nationals for being foreign nationals; (b) were between governments with opportunity to speak and negotiate with one another and (c) had a rational object other than terrifying civilians. Disliking the United States for its actions as a state and thinking that their citizens somehow deserved to be killed are two different things, or at least they should be.

	I should really dig out my Chomsky books for this (5.00 / 1) (#19)
	by otak on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 03:01:24 AM PST

	And the sanctions on Iraq? Whether or not you think that they did anything to restrain the government from unwarranted aggression against its neighbors (of which it was definitely guilty), these were approved by a majority vote of the General Assembly and were enforced by several different militaries, not just the Americans. The sanctions are primarily American and British backed and implemented, but I suppose I can give you this one. There still remains the unilateral bombing of Iraq by the US and UK. The repeated vetoing of UN resolutions condemning Israel over a whole host of issues, including posession of nuclear arms? Maybe the resolutions themselves were sheer idiocy. You question the sanctions on Iraq; the same set of minds brought you those too. Well, maybe. On the other hand when a nation vetos every single resolution critical of its main strategic ally, it starts to look like they're not just doing it in order to protect the UN from bad resolutions. It starts to look like they're protecting a state built on torture, murder, and the theft of land from the scrutiny of the international community. If Cuba were serious about wanting the United States as a partner in trade, it probably wouldn't have accepted Soviet medium-range nuclear missiles to ornament their island. IIRC the current government of Cuba was initially quite keen to trade with the US (as it had done before Batista's overthrow) but they were rebuffed. Faced with a choice of allying themselves with the USSR or facing total economic collapse, they (quite reasonably) chose the former. You chose the easy ones to defend. Defend the bombing of Cambodia - then I'll be impressed. cheers, mike.

	Jupiters (5.00 / 1) (#33)
	by johnny ambiguous on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 04:20:24 PM PST

	If Cuba were serious about wanting the United States as a partner in trade, it probably wouldn't have accepted Soviet medium-range nuclear missiles to ornament their island. At the time when the Cubans imported Soviet IRBMs to missile bases a hundred miles from the borders of the U.S.A., the U.S.A. had had for years nuclear-armed Jupiter IRBMs stationed in Turkey, which was zero miles away - it shared a border - from the Soviet Union. The flight time of these intermediate-range nuclear missiles - the "early-warning" period - from liftoff in Turkey to atomic detonation over Moscow would have been less than ten minutes. With regard to threats of nuclear terror, the U.S.A. was consistently recklessly aggressive against the Soviet Union. Are you unaware that through the fifties, the U.S.A. and its allies flew nuclear-capable bombers over Russian cities on a regular basis? As unbelievable as that assertion may seem to you, I extracted it from is the book Dark Sun by Richard Rhodes; you may argue with his well-documented sources if you like. The fact is that, despite outright fictions like Kennedy's "missile gap" and Reagan's "window of opportunity," at no time during the Cold War, ever, did the Soviet Union ever present half so imposing a nuclear threat against the U.S.A. as the U.S.A. imposed upon the Soviet Union. As we had started it, the Soviets were entirely justified to counter our IRBM threat with their own. And in fact, after the Cuban Missile Crisis, while the Russians took their missiles back from Cuba, the U.S.A. also quietly withdrew its arsenal of IRBMs from that threatening forward position in Turkey. Thus Khrushchev's Cuban IRBM deployment eventually had the net positive effect of easing the prior hair-trigger status quo. Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net Getting into my Chevrolet Magic Fire, I drove slowly back to the office. - L. Rosen

	yeah, yeah (5.00 / 1) (#10)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 11th, 2001 at 08:21:18 PM PST

	Keep talking to yourselves, no one else is listening. When they do, your moral outrage is no match for your prime time schedule. I would argue that none of the people in the towers had any stake in America's oppression of foreign people, other than being American. I would argue that Americans are responsible for America. I would argue that Americans benefit from America. I would argue, as the State Dept does, that Americans who harbor criminals are criminals themselves. I would argue that all this demonstrates how the distinction between America and Americans is entirely false, albeit convenient for its social autism. I wonder how much we have all been conditioned as sophists, to lay blithely the blame on the victims rather than the attackers. Well, if you are saying America is the WWF of attackers, I agree.

	Ahh, okay (2.00 / 1) (#11)
	by lowapproach on Tue Sep 11th, 2001 at 11:15:45 PM PST

	I would argue that all this demonstrates how the distinction between America and Americans is entirely false, albeit convenient for its social autism. Thus, if any of the operatives were Afghani, this would fully justify a retaliatory nuclear bombing on all of its population centers until nothing remained but patches of sand fused into glass? That's ridiculous.

	i think its ridiculous to infer (5.00 / 2) (#13)
	by venalcolony on Tue Sep 11th, 2001 at 11:55:51 PM PST

	retaliation in anything I wrote. Do I sound like Bush to you? I didnt say nations which harbor terrorists will not be spared, he did. Furthermore, as criminal as the likely suspects are, American policy is criminal, and American policy is both driven by, and has popular support with, Americans. American policy survives every government and is perpetuated by Americans making American choices for Americans' benefit. What I am suggesting to you is that you cannot evade social responsibility by disavowing your society whenever it's convenient to do so. Will Americans trade Bush I for Bin Laden? Why not? Arent future terrorist lives worth something? Will Americans demand legislation forcing their transnationals to treat foreign labor humanely and pay a fair wage? Why not? Isnt more expensive clothing worth a few lives? This isnt about personal culpability, this is about the shroud of sanctimony Americans use to cloud social culpability and justify inaction. But society exists, right? There really is only one American society in extant, isnt there? The links I provided arent unusual, they are a pattern in American History. --- The difference between trolling and life is life doesnt have to make sense.

	Justice... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
	by DezertRat on Tue Sep 11th, 2001 at 04:30:22 PM PST

	Peter... You are absolutely dead on. Justice along with cooler heads MUST prevail. We as a nation must mourn. We must repair our lives as best we can. We must go on with life. We all feel that we have been violated, not the least the families that have experienced loss. We must feel for the children whose parent will not be coming home tonight. These things must happen. What must NOT happen is the immediate and "knee-jerk" reaction that so many of us want to happen. More than once today, I caught myself saying to people "We shoulda turned the middle east into a sea of glass years ago." That is NOT what is going to resolve a problem like this. It can only serve to make it worse. Listening to the news this evening, I wish I were still in the military so I could have my hands on better intelligence other than CNN. To those who felt this act of heinous terrorism was necessary, you will be found. You will be brought to justice. You are not above the law. Your cause is not worth all the pain that you have brought the children and adults in the U.S. To those that have lost loved ones and friends - I send my gravest condolences. It may take time, but allow the justice to be proper.

	Retalition, Consequences & Patriotism (5.00 / 4) (#9)
	by chloedancer on Tue Sep 11th, 2001 at 07:45:24 PM PST

	With regard to retaliation, and after a day's worth of consideration, I am left with only one thought: How many more deaths will it take to prove what the lives lost were worth? There is a world of difference between retaliation and justice. I have little doubt that retaliation and additional loss of life will occur; I have reservations as to whether or not justice will truly be served in the process. This saddens me greatly. With regard to the consequences of these attacks, I offer the following for consideration. Loss of innocence is the most striking casualty, regardless of the actual, final body count. The realization that horrifying events such as those witnessed live on CNN today can happen here, on "mainland" U.S. soil, is now a part of our national consciousness. The technology we rely upon on a daily basis for benign purposes has been successfully reinvented as devastating weaponry. How we deal with this loss of innocence, however, is what I believe to be of the greatest importance in the present moment. The psychological ramifications of today's events will likely be years in the making; our cultural landscape will be undeniably altered. I am a resident of Seattle. A little less than two years ago, residents of this city were subjected to the declaration of martial law in response to the WTO riots -- the most outrageous of many civil rights violations committed during that incident which remain unrecognized and unaddressed to this day. While I am uncertain as to how we will respond to the hijackings and horrifying, senseless attacks perpetrated today, I have little doubt that the civil rights of our nation's average citizenry will be impacted. A handful of self-proclaimed Gap-wearing anarchists and opportunistic looters turned Seattle into a military-occupied war zone in November of 1999; I cannot imagine what will come to pass as a result of today's tragedies. I hope that the decisions that are made for the purpose of ostensibly protecting our country are sensible ones; I fear, however, that instead we will lose something precious in the balance, that the freedoms we have long celebrated will be inexorably altered. In the wake of today's events, this is what I fear the most. With this in mind, my "patriotic response" to today's tragedy will focus on ensuring that our rights as individual citizens of this country are not sacrificed unreasonably in future efforts to thwart terrorism. There will always be those who are willing to die for their beliefs, whether or not what they believe is actually true or the actions they choose to take in support of those beliefs are laudable; I have little confidence that this can be changed in a manner which serves justice instead of simply adding to the body count. Instead, I choose to work to prevent the "little deaths" in my day-to-day existence that can be avoided with careful and conscious thought, particularly those impacting the civil rights we all share as Americans.

	that is, in fact, very patriotic (5.00 / 1) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 01:22:15 AM PST

	With this in mind, my "patriotic response" to today's tragedy will focus on ensuring that our rights as individual citizens of this country are not sacrificed unreasonably in future efforts to thwart terrorism. Americans' rights are safe from America. Terrorism, on the other hand, isnt unprovoked. Terrorism can be thwarted by focusing on the rights of individuals outside your borders. The United States has not ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The United States is one of two countries in the world that have not acceded to the International Convention on Children's Rights. The United States has not joined the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The United States is the only western country that has voted against the Declaration on the Right to Development. The United States refuses to accede to the Human Rights Convention of America and other human rights conventions approved by the Organization of American States. The United States has been found guilty of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. The United States has reduced international conventions into nothing but empty rhetoric: Yesterday, George Bush referred to the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon as an attack on Freedom. Freedom.

	If only we had known (5.00 / 1) (#21)
	by lowapproach on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 03:40:14 AM PST

	It does seem like a tremendous oversight, in retrospect. Thank God that the deaths were confined to only those with direct influence over the signing of the aforementioned documents and the military-diplomatic complex which oversees the world's misery. Yeah, they bagged every last one of those wage-earning, unsuspecting and completely uninvolved bastards. I love the credulous mouth-breathers with faith in any kind of international system of law. This, in light of an episode where a group of twenty men armed with sharpened ceramic knives can force their way onto the flight deck of a handful of commercial jets, slam them into the largest buildings along their flight path and bring air traffic over the United States to a complete halt. I am sure that the terrorists took great pains to ensure that only Americans and not members of signatory-nations of the treaties you described were in those buildings, before the aircraft struck. Further, we can take comfort in knowing that the United States (every last man, woman and child - diminished capacity, my ass) is guilty of every alleged crime and hardship perpetrated against other nation-states. The world's other states, having never trampled on the sovereignty or rights of other peoples or countries at any time in their history, can breathe easier. Some brave souls risked it all to make a statement, using the lives of tens of thousands of random people for an exclamation point. "But what about Britain and Ireland? Germany and goddamn near every country bordering it? Russia and Afghanistan? Japan and Korea? China and Vietnam? Spain and the Basques?" you say, scratching your head at the injustice yet unpunished. To you, don't worry. These guys only needed four jets to teach the U.S. its well-deserved lesson, and there are an average of two thousand of them in the air over the U.S. alone every day.

	oh yeah, sermons are a defense (none / 0) (#22)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 04:21:18 AM PST

	I love the credulous mouth-breathers with faith in any kind of international system of law. They are, of course, in direct opposition to those who prefer to remain ignorant and conveniently withdraw their political voice and influence from the system because they are too busy enjoying the benefits of its continual and persistent violation of international convention. Was there a coup d'etat in the US -- again? Strange that it happens to US all the time, dont you think? I submit your thinking is the precise fucking problem, here.

	is demonization a genetic USian trait? (none / 0) (#23)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 04:25:22 AM PST

	To you, don't worry. These guys only needed four jets to teach the U.S. its well-deserved lesson, and there are an average of two thousand of them in the air over the U.S. alone every day. To me, dont second guess. I cannot even legally enter the US and I've donated thousands to the Red Cross. What have you done?

	oh come on, be fair (5.00 / 1) (#25)
	by jsm on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 05:08:38 AM PST

	His point (I thought a rather good one) was that the government of the USA exposes its citizens to danger by constantly interfering in other countries. The dead people were at one remove the victims of the inevitable consequences of a consistent policy of promoting US corporate interests overseas. ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	USA's conduct abroad (5.00 / 2) (#26)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 05:50:55 AM PST

	Is questionable but how was this act supposed to change that? It won't so the means in no way justifies the end. It was immoral and wicked act because it was a blind act of rage with no higher purpose. Primo Levi makes the distinction between rational evil and irrational evil. He even saw the rationale behind the Holocaust but he couldn't understand the inhuman cruelties inflicted unecessarily. This is an irrational evil act.

	you've created a different subject for yourself (5.00 / 1) (#29)
	by venalcolony on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 08:32:48 AM PST

	USA's conduct abroad Is questionable but how was this act supposed to change that? It won't so the means in no way justifies the end. I have to question why you are making a point of something no one has contested. I also question why that same insight has eluded America during its long history of terrorism against South and Central America. I think America has frankly benefitted from terrorism; and if that is the case, then America should relinquish its monopoly on terrorism so that all nations may profit by it. Since that isnt a satisfactory position, we should admit chasing blame and pursuing sanctimony offers little prospect for iterative progress. This is an irrational evil act. Which nevertheless accomplished two things. First, it was a convincing demonstration of American vulnerability. I imagine this is important to a Palestinian wavering his or her resolve against a powerful, crushing enemy. I suspect this is the reason for the cathartic displays of joy broadcast from the Middle East; I certainly dont think anyone wasnt horrified at the certain knowledge of personal tragedy. Second, one hopes this demonstration of vulnerability shattered American innocence. If Americans understand that they arent above the fray, maybe they will become critical of their current government's arrogant abrogation of international commitments such as Kyto, and isolationist policies towards the Middle East. You cannot just pump money into Israel and walk away from the festering, violent mess such finance creates. Third, is terrorism necessarily an irrational evil? I think radical American Revolutionary militias such as the Mass. Minutemen and Ethan Allen's Green Mountain Boys were irrationally evil considering the relatively minor threat posed to English, wealthy Colonials by England. I think they make latter day terrorist organizations such as Hamas look saintly by comparison. It becomes even harder to penetrate the fog of irrational evil when one remembers Hamas was originally financed by Israel and Bin Laden by the US; both were once presumably more useful than evil. There seems to be a fine line between hyperactive justice and terrorism, made that much finer by America's blunt dismissal for the conclusions of international jurisprudence. But yes, what happened yesterday was evil. Now what? --- The difference between trolling and life is life doesnt have to make sense.

	I strongly doubt (none / 0) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 09:00:40 AM PST

	This action is going to make Bush presidency any less unilateral in regards to international obligations although I have a feeling that 'Star Wars' may be put in the back burner. Also I think any catharatic release experienced by the Palestinians is going to be strongly outweighed by the likelihood of the Israelis being let off the leash as seems likely.

	Reality Check (5.00 / 2) (#28)
	by chloedancer on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 08:24:58 AM PST

	Americans' rights are safe from America. You'd think differently if you'd had to walk out of your office into a cloud of tear gas; if you'd had to present proof of your place of employment to enter certain blocks of the city where you live, work and pay taxes; or if you'd been arrested for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You'd think differently if you were a third-generation American of Middle Eastern ethnic heritage who, during the past several years, has exercised care to dress formally when traveling in a conscious attempt to avoid uncomfortable scrutiny from airport officials. You'd think differently if you were a Japanese-American who'd been "detained" in the internment camps on Bainbridge Island after the attack on Pearl Harbor in the interest of American national security. You'd think differently if a member of your family had been murdered during the Wobblie Massacre in Everett, WA on November 5, 1916. I believe that it's high time for the United States' rubber-stamp policy of hegemony to come to an end. Not familiar with the word? Its definition is as follows: "Preponderant influence or authority over others: DOMINATION" (source: www.merriam-webster.com). I believe that its time we learn, as a nation, to lead by example; if nothing else, the doctrine we endorse will be more credible. Once we address the injustices and inequities within our own borders, we can then begin to address focusing on the rights of individuals outside our [sic] borders; to do otherwise is hypocritical. I know that I, as an individual, have little influence over national policy. I choose, instead, to act within my own community to ensure that the values of our nation are enjoyed to the fullest extent by all, regardless of race, creed, color, ethnic origin, religion, gender or sexual preference. This is how I choose to exercise my patriotism.

	*wow, righteous and* condescending** (5.00 / 1) (#31)
	by venalcolony on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 09:26:06 AM PST

	You know, I originally wrote white, privileged american but edited it out for stridency. My intent wasnt to belittle what you did say, my intent was to point out what you did not say. All this talk of defending against terrorism misses the point: terrorism is provoked and thwarted by respecting the rights of individuals outside America. Now I dont mean to trivialize your concerns, but after you've closed the page on hegemony maybe you can look up perspective (and perhaps irascible.) There's a difference between being asked to present id, long dead Americans, and living 12 year old wage slaves eking out a living in the shadow of America's transnational corporate darlings. There's a difference between living in America and living in country under a crushing debt which can only be serviced by growing cash crops. There's a difference between developing native productive capacity and American landlords exporting away all your production. There's a difference between sewing clothes for pennies a day and buying them cheaper than web pages. There's a difference between bottled designer water and a poisoned water supply. Apart from that, I certainly sympathize with everything you wrote except your patriotism. Your patriotism has my condolences. --- The difference between trolling and life is life doesnt have to make sense.

	i guess its my turn to look up grammar (2.00 / 1) (#32)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 09:37:34 AM PST

	Let me rewrite that first paragraph so it makes sense: You know, I originally wrote "white, privileged americans" but edited it for stridency. My intent wasnt to belittle what you did say, my intent was to point out what you did not say. All this talk of defending against terrorism misses the point: terrorism is provoked by not respecting the rights of individuals outside America. Terrorism is thwarted by respecting those rights.

	I'm all that... (3.00 / 1) (#34)
	by chloedancer on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 05:14:56 PM PST

	and baby got back, too. I prefer the noun "spitfire" to adjective "irascible," however. And whether or not I fit the description of "white, privileged american" is another matter entirely. C'est la vie. I don't recall ever having addressed the subject of preventing terrorism; perhaps you've confused me with someone else? With regard to international human rights issues and eliminating the economic exploitation of the citizenry of other countries, I'm right there with you; it's just not the topic I've focused on within this thread. With regard to your pundits, I offer the following for consideration: · If the United States couldn't get it together to pass our own Equal Rights Amendment, how could our nation stepping into the ring to support the "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women" be interpreted as being credible? · Will focusing on the rights of individuals outside your borders also protect us from future home-grown Timothy McVeigh clones? Keep your condolences, sweetie. You need 'em more than I do. But thanks for the attempt at generosity, really.

	fine, spitfire it is (4.00 / 1) (#35)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 13th, 2001 at 12:36:01 AM PST

	I don't recall ever having addressed the subject of preventing terrorism; No, you addressed the subject of protecting Americans from the effects of terrorism. Is the connection between the effects of terrorism and terrorism itself tenuous? Why is your country the victim of terrorism to begin with? I think that point deserved its own mention and ... perhaps you've confused me with someone else? ... if I wanted to mention the point to you, directly, I would have used email instead of adequacy. But there are quite a few people who read adequacy, and as long as I dont misinterpret your remarks, there isnt any obligation for me to reply strictly according to the way you wish your remarks framed. Your message was not misinterpreted, it was complemented. Will focusing on the rights of individuals outside your borders also protect us from future home-grown Timothy McVeigh clones? Yes, McVeigh received his epiphany in Iraq. The Internation War Crimes Tribunal judged the US guilty of "engag[ing] in a pattern of conduct beginning in or before 1989 intended to lead Iraq into provocations justifying U.S. military action against Iraq and permanent U.S. military domination of the Gulf", and found Bush guilty of having "intended and acted to prevent any interference with his plan to destroy Iraq economically and militarily." So it all ties in with my original reply, doesnt it? If you want your rights protected from anti-terrorist measures at home, it would make sense if you stopped abusing people's rights abroad. Instead of shrilly defending against the effects of terrorism, stop provoking it. Keep your condolences, sweetie. You need 'em more than I do. I'm sure, but what do I need them for? So far you know exactly one thing -- I'm not patriotic. And with that, this pointless subthread has come to an end for me.

	NOT retaliation (none / 0) (#36)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 13th, 2001 at 09:46:23 PM PST

	an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.<br><br> Ghandi<bR><br> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<br> www.freespiritmind.com<br> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

	This is the war (1.00 / 1) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 01:15:16 AM PST

	I remember some years ago American tourist people in my City laughing teloling "In USA, we are more develloped than in Europe, we don't have danger of terrorism". Perhaps now, you'll understand why the moslem are so much hated here, and also israel. Indeed, the causes of these bombs are this conflict in Israel feed by the Arabs and by the Youppin. Atomic bomb over Hebron, Atomic Bomb over Tel Aviv An european man

	There is a war between the ones who say there is.. (none / 0) (#20)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 03:29:30 AM PST

	...a war, and the ones who say that there isn't... (Leonard Cohen) An european man : from certain words in your senseless diatribe, I would guess French. If I'm right, I'm ashamed to live in the same country as you (although I've met many of you before). Not and Arab, not a Jew, just your regular French guy.

	Well... (none / 0) (#37)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 15th, 2001 at 03:30:20 PM PST

	At least here they teach us how to spell and use punctuation.

	my condolence to the innocent lives lost (none / 0) (#24)
	by deadcow on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 04:29:57 AM PST

	firstly, i would like those who are reading this in a minutes silence in respect of those who had died in the WTC, pentagon and on board the doomed flights. personaly, i dont care if the attackers hated the government of the USA. I dont care if they have the military. I dont care if they are jealous. I dont care if they thought that the american army was wrong by killing someone. Those fanatics have spilled oinnocent blood. Im not american. In fact, im not very fond of the US. but to murder innocent citizens of any race, nationality or status is the damnest thing to do. These fanatics shall pay. not by death, but by a life long sentence to make them feel guilty of what they did. over 15000 unarmed, innocent civilians had lost their lives because of some fanitcal craze of a jealous, unrealistic, bastard who is simply evil and just cant take the truth in a positive way. May those bastards be damned to hell

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.