Before addressing anything said by Andrew, I must apologize to the
list for prolonging this thread, and fervently hope that none of my
words will harm the wonderful Squeak community.  I also agree with
Andreas' sentiments about how to move forward.  Nevertheless, now that
this can of worms has been opened, I feel compelled to speak as well.

On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 07:16:55AM -0400, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
> Yeah, but Richard also thought the forking of Squeak was a good 
> idea.  :-)
>
> As there, I think Richard's sentiments, while clearly well-intended, are 
> greatly misguided.
> 
> Stephen was not arguing so much against reflection and introspection as 
> against the suggestion that the evil of this obscenity can be overlooked 
> for any "reasons" raised in its defense.  
>
> Stephen was suggesting that the nature of the act, in and of itself,
> was of such enormity as to make irrelevant to the culpability of its
> perpetrators any purported justifications.  

Reading only Stephen's words, I suppose that this interpretation is
plausible.  However, as was clear to me in Cees' original post, and
made unmistakeably explicit in a followup (which perhaps didn't make
it into your mailbox before your reply; my last message to the list
took many hours to come back to me), no excuse is being made for the
terrorists.

He is, however, suggesting that bombing "terrorist states" back into
the "Stone Age" is perhaps not the best long term solution to
terrorism.  In fact, it will spawn more of the hatred that led to last
week's tragedy.  Although the crimes are not excusable, the roots of
the hatred may be understandable.

> He is, of course, quite correct: How can the indifferent murder of
> thousands of innocents, requiring detailed planning and cold,
> monstrous calculation in its execution, be justified or excused?

Doesn't this sentence also perfectly describe the bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki?

http://www.oneworld.org/news/world/bloomfield.html
includes quotes from Eisenhower and other high-ranking military officers
that dispel the commonly held myth that dropping the Bomb was necessary
to end the war quickly and save countless American lives.

> It cannot.  Such conduct is, on its face, unforgivable and wholly evil.
> 
> It is entirely unnecessary --for purposes of justice-- to contemplate 
> any reasons purporting to account for the act.  

I agree.  However, as you soon state, these aren't the only purposes.

> The premeditated murder of thousands directly, and indirectly
> hundreds more of our bravest and best, cannot have been in
> self-defense, nor been undertaken in the "heat of passion," as those
> justifications are understood in Western jurisprudence.
> 
> It is, of course, useful for other purposes to understand motives of an 
> enemy who would do this, perhaps to better anticipate how to prevent 
> them from doing further harm and to apprehend them -- but for no other 
> reasons that come to mind.

Not even to look for the seeds of hate in American foreign policy?
What about the cruise missiles that took out half of Sudan's
pharmaceutical manufacturing capability, on the suspicion that it was
used for manufacturing chemical weapons?  Upon realizing their
mistake, barely an "oops" was heard from America's leaders, and
certainly no mention was made of possible reparations.  What about...
(the examples go on and on).  As long as America remains apparently
incapable of recognizing the resentment spawned by such acts, it will
it will maintain its share of responsiblity for the unending cycle of
violence.

The last two "World's Most Evil Men" are both former American pawns.
America apparently has no problem with supporting psychopaths who
terrorize their own populations, at least until these psychopaths turn
on them.  It is this sort of thing that Cees implores America to be
cognizant of before going off on a wild and indiscriminate bombing
rampage (WIBR).  Notwithstanding Colin Powell's statement that
innocent Afghans civilians are not the target, it seems likely that a
WIBR is about to occur.

One way to stop the leaders from engaging in a WIBR is for American
citizens to make it clear that widespread civilian casualties are
unacceptable.  Otherwise, the civilians may suffer as much as they did
in Vietnam, or the "humanitarian" bombings of Kosovo.  If the American
people say "we must catch these terrorists, but if we soil our hands
with civilian blood, we have no claim of moral superiority", then the
leaders will bow to this opinion, at least to some extent.  Innocent
lives can be saved.

> Their "reasons" are otherwise irrelevant.  Appeasement for terrorism is 
> not an option.  

I don't believe that appeasement was being suggested by either Richard
or Cees.

> However, our reasons and justifications for our conduct 
> must, as Richard suggested, be carefully considered.  On the other hand, 
> apart from strategic and tactical planning, which is quite hard, this is 
> not anywhere near a close question.
> 

I'm not familiar with the term "close question", and so I can't interpret
this paragraph properly.  Could you rephrase it for me?

Sincerly,
Joshua



> On Monday, September 17, 2001, at 07:10  PM, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> 
> > Stephen Pair wrote:
> >
> > 	Cees, if you think that I, as an American, am going to stop for even a
> > 	second and ponder why this act was committed, you are sorely mistaken.
> > 	My only concern in this matter is justice.
> > 	
> > This is getting us even further off topic, but
> > HOW THE HELL CAN WE HAVE JUSTICE WITHOUT PONDERING?
> >
> > It is *essential* to understand why the act was committed in order to
> > take *effective* steps to stop further deaths of the innocent.  It is
> > precisely the refusal to ponder on *both* sides which has brought us
> > this far.  I fully agree that the people who did this dreadful thing 
> > must
> > be brought to justice.  But what should be done to stop other people
> > wanting to do the same kind of thing?
> >
> > Wars have a terrible habit of killing even more innocent people, and
> > laying up hatred for more wars in the future.  (Like WWI leading to 
> > WWII.)
> > That isn't justice.
> >
> > If I became dictator of this country, I would do two things:
> >
> > 1.  Cause to be written in large letters in the House of Parliament and
> >     in every court this quotation from Oliver Cromwell:
> >
> > 	Brethren, I beseech you in the bowels of Christ,
> > 	CONSIDER IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU MAY BE WRONG.
> >
> > 2.  Resign.
>