OK, I am not arguing that it doesn't exist, just that it isn't a very significant organisation. Security experts can debate on its changing strategy as well.
It just seemed odd to me that an organisation which is allegedly as strong and powerful as Al Qaeda is supposed to be launching the 9/11 attacks would have quit when its enemy was on its knees (or down on the ground). Despite what people will say, 9/11 was a victory for the terrorists since the east coast of the united States shut down for the day and US air traffic was pretty much shut down for a week. It seems that an organisation with such strong skills at organising such a task would have planned to keep kicking while the giant was down. Instead, the attacks pretty much stopped.
There was the Beltway Sniper attacks a little over a year later that paralysed the US Capital area, but that was just a loner. We can also argue that the Fort Hood Shooter was "Al Qaeda inspired" instead of just another crazy with a gun. Not to mention at least two conspiracies to shoot up military bases in the US, Fort Dix and Quantico, that have been thwarted so far.
My point, however,is that the ability to terrorise large segments of the US population using a firearm is pretty well known, yet no one has been successful. This is an avenue for terrorism that has remained wide open despite an alleged "war on terrorism". Additionally, is the amount of gun carnage and the fear it creates also terrorism? I know that citing to VPC for a link between guns and terrorism won't persuade the unpersuadable. In fact, a few more DC sniper incidents wouldn't persuade them, but that's irrelevant since the point is that guns are tools and they are tools that terrorists can use for their ends.
Also, I have to admit it was odd that no one took credit for 9/11. Most terrorists will take credit for their actions. It seems as if the 9/11 attacks were attributed to Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda as a reason for all sorts of other actions which make no sense in a "War on Terrorism". Terrorism can be a homegrown act committed by anyone (e.g., Oklahoma City) and is not unique to a "Middle Eastern-looking man with a bomb."
The Oklahoma City bombing was the most significant act of terrorism on American soil until the September 11 attacks in 2001, claiming the lives of 168 victims and injuring more than 680. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen–block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings. The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage. This was an act of home grown terrorism perpetrated by some one who was upset at the federal government's handling of the Waco Siege and the Ruby Ridge incident (Oddly enough, people of this mindset scream for "gun rights" to fight government tyranny).
It's easy to look for the bogeyman outside of your country, but harder to deal with internal threats to national security.
Anyway, my point is that whatever threat "Al Qaeda" is to the United States is minimal. The US's illogical reactions to 9/11 prove that to be the case. The problem is that these reactions have utilised US (and other countries' resources) in activities that have not been productive. That's fortunate since Al Qaeda would be having a field day if it were truly powerful.
Showing posts with label War on terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on terrorism. Show all posts
06 December 2009
In the fight against terrorism, some rights must be repealed
I found this whilst trying to get info on a certain Jewish "Gun Rights" organisation. It's from altmuslim! It's also been something that I have been saying since 9/11.
By Junaid M. Afeef, March 4, 2005
The newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss, believes that terrorists may bring urban warfare techniques learned in Iraq to our homeland. If he is right, we could have a whole new war on our hands. The prospect is indeed scary.
The idea of terrorist cells operating clandestinely in the United States, quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages in our malls, is right out of Tom Clancy's most recent novel. If not for the fact that the 9/11 attacks were also foreshadowed in a Clancy novel, I would have given the idea no further thought.
However, rather than facing this potential threat publicly, the Bush administration is only focused on terrorist attacks involving missiles, nuclear devices and biological weapons. Stopping terrorists with WMDs is a good thing, but what about the more immediate threat posed by terrorists with guns? The potential threat of terrorist attacks using guns is far more likely than any of these other scenarios.
This leads to a bigger policy issue. In the post 9/11 world where supposedly "everything has changed," perhaps it is time for Americans to reconsider the value of public gun ownership.
The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore. The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a "well-regulated militia." At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists.
Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist groups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States' armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt.
The more important consideration is public safety. It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns. Gun violence is increasingly widespread in the United States. According to the DOJ/FBI's Crime In The United States: 2003 report, 45,197 people in the United States were murdered with guns between 1999 and 2003. That averages out to more than 9,000 people murdered per year. Nearly three times the number of lives lost in the tragic 9/11 attacks is murdered annually as a direct result of guns.
Examples of wanton violence are all around. One particularly heinous incident of gun violence occurred in 1998 when former Aryan Nation member Buford Furrow shot and wounded three young boys, a teenage girl and a receptionist at the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles and then shot and killed a Filipino-American postal worker.
Another occurred in July 1999 when white supremacist Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, a member of the World Church of the Creator, went on a weekend shooting spree, targeting Blacks, Jews and Asians. By the time Smith was done he had wounded six Orthodox Jews returning from services, and killed one African-American and one Korean-American.
Just recently, in Ulster, NY, a 24 year old man carrying a Hesse Arms Model 47, an AK-47 clone assault rifle, randomly shot people in a local mall. While the Justice Department did not label this murder a terrorist attack, all the signs were there. The Ulster, New York shooting is an ominous warning of what lies ahead. Terrorism can be a homegrown act committed by anyone with a gun and is not unique to a "Middle Eastern-looking man with a bomb." As long as the public is allowed to own guns, the threat of similar terrorist attacks remains real.
The idea of curtailing rights in the name of homeland security does not seem implausible given the current state of civil liberties in the United States. The war on terror has already taken an enormous toll on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and thus far, very few Americans have objected. In light of this precedence, it seems reasonable that scaling back or even repealing the right to bear arms would be an easy task.
In fact, it will be a very difficult task. So far the civil liberties curtailment has affected generally disenfranchised groups such as immigrants, people of color and religious minorities. An assault on the Second Amendment will impact a much more powerful constituency.
According to the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2002 41 percent of American households owned at least one gun. According to these same statistics, 50 percent of the owners were male, 43 percent were white and 48 percent were Republican. More than 50 percent of the gun owners were college educated and earned more than $50,000 per year. Regrettably, these folks are going to marshal their considerable resources to protect their special interest.
This is a shame. Instead of laying waste to the civil rights and civil liberties that are at the core of free society, and rather than squandering precious time and money on amending the U.S. Constitution for such things as "preserving marriage between a man and woman," the nation ought to focus its attention on the havoc guns cause in society and debate the merits of gun ownership in this era of terrorism.
So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians. The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.
Junaid M. Afeef is a Research Associate at the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding. His articles are available at http://ispu.org/.
Comment: if the US seriously starts addressing gun control, stops messing with gay marriage, abortion, making Christianity the state relgion, and other wedge topics, then there would be progress. As long as the US allows the political arena to be diverted by fringy groups, nothing will get done.
By Junaid M. Afeef, March 4, 2005
The newly appointed CIA Director Porter Goss, believes that terrorists may bring urban warfare techniques learned in Iraq to our homeland. If he is right, we could have a whole new war on our hands. The prospect is indeed scary.
The idea of terrorist cells operating clandestinely in the United States, quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages in our malls, is right out of Tom Clancy's most recent novel. If not for the fact that the 9/11 attacks were also foreshadowed in a Clancy novel, I would have given the idea no further thought.
However, rather than facing this potential threat publicly, the Bush administration is only focused on terrorist attacks involving missiles, nuclear devices and biological weapons. Stopping terrorists with WMDs is a good thing, but what about the more immediate threat posed by terrorists with guns? The potential threat of terrorist attacks using guns is far more likely than any of these other scenarios.
This leads to a bigger policy issue. In the post 9/11 world where supposedly "everything has changed," perhaps it is time for Americans to reconsider the value of public gun ownership.
The idea of public gun ownership simply does not make sense anymore. The right to bear arms, as enumerated in the Second Amendment, was meant for the maintenance of a "well-regulated militia." At the time the amendment was adopted, standing armies were viewed with a great deal of suspicion, and therefore, gun-owning individuals were seen as a protection mechanism for the public. These gun owners were also seen as guardians of the republic against the tyranny of the rulers. The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists.
Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist groups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States' armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt.
The more important consideration is public safety. It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns. Gun violence is increasingly widespread in the United States. According to the DOJ/FBI's Crime In The United States: 2003 report, 45,197 people in the United States were murdered with guns between 1999 and 2003. That averages out to more than 9,000 people murdered per year. Nearly three times the number of lives lost in the tragic 9/11 attacks is murdered annually as a direct result of guns.
Examples of wanton violence are all around. One particularly heinous incident of gun violence occurred in 1998 when former Aryan Nation member Buford Furrow shot and wounded three young boys, a teenage girl and a receptionist at the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles and then shot and killed a Filipino-American postal worker.
Another occurred in July 1999 when white supremacist Benjamin Nathaniel Smith, a member of the World Church of the Creator, went on a weekend shooting spree, targeting Blacks, Jews and Asians. By the time Smith was done he had wounded six Orthodox Jews returning from services, and killed one African-American and one Korean-American.
Just recently, in Ulster, NY, a 24 year old man carrying a Hesse Arms Model 47, an AK-47 clone assault rifle, randomly shot people in a local mall. While the Justice Department did not label this murder a terrorist attack, all the signs were there. The Ulster, New York shooting is an ominous warning of what lies ahead. Terrorism can be a homegrown act committed by anyone with a gun and is not unique to a "Middle Eastern-looking man with a bomb." As long as the public is allowed to own guns, the threat of similar terrorist attacks remains real.
The idea of curtailing rights in the name of homeland security does not seem implausible given the current state of civil liberties in the United States. The war on terror has already taken an enormous toll on the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and thus far, very few Americans have objected. In light of this precedence, it seems reasonable that scaling back or even repealing the right to bear arms would be an easy task.
In fact, it will be a very difficult task. So far the civil liberties curtailment has affected generally disenfranchised groups such as immigrants, people of color and religious minorities. An assault on the Second Amendment will impact a much more powerful constituency.
According to the DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2002 41 percent of American households owned at least one gun. According to these same statistics, 50 percent of the owners were male, 43 percent were white and 48 percent were Republican. More than 50 percent of the gun owners were college educated and earned more than $50,000 per year. Regrettably, these folks are going to marshal their considerable resources to protect their special interest.
This is a shame. Instead of laying waste to the civil rights and civil liberties that are at the core of free society, and rather than squandering precious time and money on amending the U.S. Constitution for such things as "preserving marriage between a man and woman," the nation ought to focus its attention on the havoc guns cause in society and debate the merits of gun ownership in this era of terrorism.
So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians. The Second Amendment is not worth such risks.
Junaid M. Afeef is a Research Associate at the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding. His articles are available at http://ispu.org/.
Comment: if the US seriously starts addressing gun control, stops messing with gay marriage, abortion, making Christianity the state relgion, and other wedge topics, then there would be progress. As long as the US allows the political arena to be diverted by fringy groups, nothing will get done.
09 November 2009
When we hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope.
I have to admit being flooded with outrage about the Fort Hood shootings. There are loads of reasons for this.
First off, that it could have been allowed to happen. Even more so when you consider that the ridiculous access to firearms is done under the guise of the Second Amendment. This is a text that includes the words:
necessary to the security of a free State
Why has that gottten lost in the debate? I hear all sorts of stupid shit about "fighting tyranny", "rights", "Liberty", and "freedom", but I never hear about the responsibility and obligation that is incumbent upon this right.
That is service in the militia. Not some bullshit "unorganised" militia, which is the quivalent of having a draft card, but actually serving in a legally organised militia unit.
There has been at least two conspiracies to shoot up military bases in the US: Fort Dix and Quantico, VA. U.S. domestic military bases are still "wide open to attack."
Charles Faddis, a 20-year CIA counterterrorism veteran, says:
Nothing has been done to restrict access to firearms either. One can walk in to a gun store with a valid drivers licence and walk out with enough firepower to cause serious mayhem. Hey, you can buy enough guns and ammo to start WWIII. There have been mass shootings in the United States for at least 30 year, yet gun laws are becoming laxer, not tighter. The assault weapons ban was crap, but somewhat useful. Even then, it was allowed to lapse and newly made assault weapons can once again be bought,
So, why the fuck are people who should not have access to firearms still buying them legally? Or even acquiring them easily. I mean we lock our houses and cars, but we leave firearms wide open.
The next thing that pisses me off is that people are pointing fingers at everything except what allowed this to happen.
The gun.
Yeah, sure guns are tools. They are highly effective tools for killing. They work quite quickly as the Fort Hood shootings show.
Don't give me any crap about an Army Base being a gun free zone since there was an armed guard who returned fire. They were guns on the base which could have been used to fend off the attack, but a semi-automatic pistol can has a high rate of fire. Unfortunately, people, especially civilians, don't understand that an incident like this can happen quite quickly and result in a high body count before anybody can do anything.
The FN 5.7 holds 20 rounds. In a crowded room it would be easy beyond belief to hit 43 people in a matter of a few SECONDS, say nothing of minutes.
Are you going to tell me that US soldiers are cowards and didn't resist in any way? They just let this psychotic asshole shoot up the military processing center. I don't believe that.
Not to mention someone did return fire, but by that point, the body count had racked up.
Of couse, in this outrage, we also see a backlash against muslims, which also doesn't make sense. The Fort Hood shooter could have been screaming "Kill for Cthulhu". He was a fucking whack job.
His religious pseudofundamentalism is a symptom of his mental illness.
As Zirgar said, do we point out the people who kill abortion doctors are christians? Likewise, do we point out the religion of other mass shooters? How about the asshole who shot up the Holocaust museum, what religion was he? How about the dickhead who gunned down 3 Pittsburgh Officers, what religion was he? How about the Jerkoff who shot up an LA Fitness Centre in Pittsburgh? What religion was he?
No, only this asshole because he is a "muslim".
If this is terrorism, then it is because someone with a firearms shoots up a place we would like to think is secure. But we would like to think streets, shopping malls, supermarkets, schools, universities, fitness centres, and so on are secure. Terrorism is creating a feeling of terror and panic, which mass shootings do create.
The United States has to become like Northern Ireland during the troubles where security checkpoints were ubiquitous and frequent if people are going to demand more guns without restrictions. Even with registration, there should be checkpoints.
It is completely moronic to give terrorists the tools they need to accompllish their goals. Those who block any restrictions, especially if they do it in the name of "fighing tyranny" are complicit in this act.
After all, who defines tyranny? Is it a small minority who feel that they have been wronged? Then why aren't they praising the Fort Hood shooter for standing up against what he saw as tyranny?
No, because that it complete bullshit. So, cut the crap with the Second Amendment being for "fighting tyranny" and "freedom" because somehow our freedom of movement and right to live safely will have to be curtailed. Even if that destruction of liberty is from sheer paralysis about leaving the safety of your own home.
As for the Second Amendment, I have said more than once that it is archaic and its meaning has been lost with the passing of time. The founders would be shaking their heads in disbelief at things which are being said and done regarding "the Second Amendment right". Especially when people say that the Army should be able to "exercise its Second Amendment rights".
No, too much emphasis has been placed upon the phrase "right to keep and bear arms" with neglect of the concept of the "Security of the Free State". The Supreme Court wrote those words out of the Amendment in its DC v. Heller decision, but it is time to revive that concept.
The "right to keep and bear arms" is related to the "Security of the Free State" and those who would allow terrorists, foreign or domestic, access to arms are guilty of treason.
So, where the fuck is the outrage that this shit can happen and why isn't it directed at the ease it can happen?
First off, that it could have been allowed to happen. Even more so when you consider that the ridiculous access to firearms is done under the guise of the Second Amendment. This is a text that includes the words:
necessary to the security of a free State
Why has that gottten lost in the debate? I hear all sorts of stupid shit about "fighting tyranny", "rights", "Liberty", and "freedom", but I never hear about the responsibility and obligation that is incumbent upon this right.
That is service in the militia. Not some bullshit "unorganised" militia, which is the quivalent of having a draft card, but actually serving in a legally organised militia unit.
There has been at least two conspiracies to shoot up military bases in the US: Fort Dix and Quantico, VA. U.S. domestic military bases are still "wide open to attack."
Charles Faddis, a 20-year CIA counterterrorism veteran, says:
"If you drive around the United States today, other than security measures in place at airports, you will see very little has changed in the last eight years," said Faddis, who has visited several U.S. military bases in the past year while researching an upcoming book on homeland security, "Willful Neglect".
"We remain wide open to attack. That is true in the nation as a whole, and it is true on military bases as well," said Faddis, 51, who retired in 2008 as chief of the CIA's weapons of mass destruction terrorism unit. Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he led a counterterrorism team into northern Iraq in search of an al Qaeda base. He has authored two withering critiques of his former employer, most recently "Beyond Repair: The Decline and Fall of the CIA", published last month.
“They know how to secure an installation,” says Faddis. “They are not failing to do so because they do not know what to do. They are failing to do so, because somehow, some way, we have convinced ourselves that an attack cannot happen here.”
"You may have to show a photo ID at some locations, but even that is not always true. Even if you have to show an ID, a civilian driver's license will often suffice," he said. "Most bases remain open to civilian visitors with even the most cursory of explanations for why they are coming on post. "
Even the Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters for both the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command and the super-sensitive National Security Agency, has porous security, said Faddis, who has visited the sprawling post within the last few weeks. "There are no barriers (at the gate)," he said. "If you want to stop, you do so. If you want to go by the gate and onto the base at 60 miles an hour, you do so.
"Once you are on base," the former CIA official continued, "you go wherever you want. There are no armed guards. There are no checkpoints. There is no visible security. Even entering buildings, the only kind of security you are going to see is the kind designed to deter unauthorized personnel who are trying to sneak in, steal secrets. and sneak back out.
Nothing has been done to restrict access to firearms either. One can walk in to a gun store with a valid drivers licence and walk out with enough firepower to cause serious mayhem. Hey, you can buy enough guns and ammo to start WWIII. There have been mass shootings in the United States for at least 30 year, yet gun laws are becoming laxer, not tighter. The assault weapons ban was crap, but somewhat useful. Even then, it was allowed to lapse and newly made assault weapons can once again be bought,
So, why the fuck are people who should not have access to firearms still buying them legally? Or even acquiring them easily. I mean we lock our houses and cars, but we leave firearms wide open.
The next thing that pisses me off is that people are pointing fingers at everything except what allowed this to happen.
The gun.
Yeah, sure guns are tools. They are highly effective tools for killing. They work quite quickly as the Fort Hood shootings show.
Don't give me any crap about an Army Base being a gun free zone since there was an armed guard who returned fire. They were guns on the base which could have been used to fend off the attack, but a semi-automatic pistol can has a high rate of fire. Unfortunately, people, especially civilians, don't understand that an incident like this can happen quite quickly and result in a high body count before anybody can do anything.
The FN 5.7 holds 20 rounds. In a crowded room it would be easy beyond belief to hit 43 people in a matter of a few SECONDS, say nothing of minutes.
Are you going to tell me that US soldiers are cowards and didn't resist in any way? They just let this psychotic asshole shoot up the military processing center. I don't believe that.
Not to mention someone did return fire, but by that point, the body count had racked up.
Of couse, in this outrage, we also see a backlash against muslims, which also doesn't make sense. The Fort Hood shooter could have been screaming "Kill for Cthulhu". He was a fucking whack job.
His religious pseudofundamentalism is a symptom of his mental illness.
As Zirgar said, do we point out the people who kill abortion doctors are christians? Likewise, do we point out the religion of other mass shooters? How about the asshole who shot up the Holocaust museum, what religion was he? How about the dickhead who gunned down 3 Pittsburgh Officers, what religion was he? How about the Jerkoff who shot up an LA Fitness Centre in Pittsburgh? What religion was he?
No, only this asshole because he is a "muslim".
If this is terrorism, then it is because someone with a firearms shoots up a place we would like to think is secure. But we would like to think streets, shopping malls, supermarkets, schools, universities, fitness centres, and so on are secure. Terrorism is creating a feeling of terror and panic, which mass shootings do create.
The United States has to become like Northern Ireland during the troubles where security checkpoints were ubiquitous and frequent if people are going to demand more guns without restrictions. Even with registration, there should be checkpoints.
It is completely moronic to give terrorists the tools they need to accompllish their goals. Those who block any restrictions, especially if they do it in the name of "fighing tyranny" are complicit in this act.
After all, who defines tyranny? Is it a small minority who feel that they have been wronged? Then why aren't they praising the Fort Hood shooter for standing up against what he saw as tyranny?
No, because that it complete bullshit. So, cut the crap with the Second Amendment being for "fighting tyranny" and "freedom" because somehow our freedom of movement and right to live safely will have to be curtailed. Even if that destruction of liberty is from sheer paralysis about leaving the safety of your own home.
As for the Second Amendment, I have said more than once that it is archaic and its meaning has been lost with the passing of time. The founders would be shaking their heads in disbelief at things which are being said and done regarding "the Second Amendment right". Especially when people say that the Army should be able to "exercise its Second Amendment rights".
No, too much emphasis has been placed upon the phrase "right to keep and bear arms" with neglect of the concept of the "Security of the Free State". The Supreme Court wrote those words out of the Amendment in its DC v. Heller decision, but it is time to revive that concept.
The "right to keep and bear arms" is related to the "Security of the Free State" and those who would allow terrorists, foreign or domestic, access to arms are guilty of treason.
So, where the fuck is the outrage that this shit can happen and why isn't it directed at the ease it can happen?
12 September 2009
September 11 – An Opportunity to Evolve Our Humanity
OpEdNews
Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/September-11---An-Opport-by-Olga-Bonfiglio-090909-711.html
September 9, 2009
September 11 – An Opportunity to Evolve Our Humanity
By Olga Bonfiglio
It's been eight years since 9/11 and much has changed in this country since that dark day.
What didn't change, however, was our inability to take time to reflect on the meaning and implications of this tragedy.
Instead, we panicked to the point that we still are unable to view the day clearly or logically, let alone respond to it responsibly. In some instances we have been willing to give up our civil liberties in the name of national security and fold against an aggressive presidency that was adamant about swooping up as much power as it could—ostensibly to protect us from the terrorists. The result? Terrorism has neither been reduced (as if it could be measured) nor have our fears of it subsided despite an investment of nearly $1 trillion on two wars. And now, after a year into the financial crisis, our uncertainties about jobs, health care and middle class life have only multiplied.
But let's look at one notable moment when people attempted to deal with the horror of 9/11: New Yorkers were helping each other and being nice to each other. They cried together and comforted one another in the midst of death and loss. Likewise, citizens from all over the world sympathized with America and genuinely felt badly that terrorism had come to our shores. It looked as if there might be a “great turning” response to violence.
But once the politicians and the media got a hold of 9/11, they resorted to the usual rallying cry for revenge and retaliation. Americans acquiesced by waving their flags and displaying them on their cars, their houses, on their lapels, everywhere. (One older German woman told me it reminded her of Hitler and the Nazis.) Such activity helps to win public support but it ended up a missed opportunity to respond to tragedy in a new and different way.
Truth be told, Americans don't deal well with tragedy. After the initial shock is over and the recovery effort begins, we generally resort to going on with our lives as though nothing happened. The fallout of this approach is that we are overcome by sadness, anger, fear, or denial over what has happened—and it stops there.
Confronting September 11 remains illusive for most Americans partly because we have been unable as a nation to understand or inquire about why the perpetrators of this heinous crime would do such a thing—and partly because we unwittingly entered the realm of the “terror dream.”
The “terror dream,” which Susan Faludi discusses in her book of the same name, is the American frontier-wilderness story where we are attacked by “uncivilized enemies” in our struggle to settle the North American continent. This story line is full of victimized women and children, Wild West six-gun shoot-outs, hyper-masculinity, and epic heroism.
This “captivity narrative” became a popular literary genre from the mid-17th to the late 19th century but it lives on today through what psychologists call a “transgenerational transmission of trauma” where survivors of a tragedy are left feeling humiliated and enraged. They often repress their grief and fail to allow for any collective grieving because to do so would require taking responsibility for the trauma. Instead, the survivors pass on their feelings of helplessness, shame, and rage to subsequent generations who then carry these feelings unconsciously as a potent memory and marker of their identity. It's as though subsequent generations lived through the trauma themselves so that when another tragedy strikes, the feelings of the past are automatically projected on to it.
America's response to September 11 was to go to war against the terrorists first in Afghanistan and later in Iraq because we were essentially replaying an old story where we saw ourselves as victims of an “Indian attack” so we had to fight back to survive. George W. Bush assumed the role of a Dodge City marshal in a Hollywood Western who promised to “smoke out” those responsible for the attacks—and Americans willingly followed the script in an attempt to make sense of the tragedy with something familiar.
The problem with revenge and violence, however, is its detrimental effect on our humanity, as we saw in the horrendous situations of Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Haditha, and Guantanamo. Meanwhile, most Americans glaze over the fact that war in Iraq has resulted in at least one million Iraqi deaths, mostly civilians (based on the 2006 Lancet Report), and the wasting of 4,342 American soldiers with nearly 31,500 wounded. An unprecedented percentage of our soldiers have committed suicide or deserted their ranks. Many of their marriages and friendships have ended. Veterans are denied benefits they were promised, including health care for non-physical wounds like post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD). The war has also inflamed religious fanaticism and apocalyptic thinking at home as justification for continued war and violence.
Today, we are a nation exhausted by war to the point that we avoid talking about it! In fact, the war has largely disappeared from view. Coverage of war in 2007 occupied 23 percent of news content compared to 3 percent in 2008, according to the American Journalism Review (June 2008). During the presidential primaries and general election, the subject of war barely came up. President Obama's promise to end the Iraq war has led to a step up of the Afghanistan war.
So how might we approach 9/11 in a more meaningful way? Here are a few ideas, but please add more.
1. Join with others to talk about what you TOGETHER can do to substitute fear, hatred or denial in your family, neighborhood or community.
2. Refuse to watch the repetitive “news alerts” or inflammatory pundits by turning off the radio, TV, and the Internet. Recognize that such coverage is intended to agitate emotions, especially anger and fear—and to sell ads. Don't let yourself be manipulated by people making money off you.
3. Lobby your congressional representatives to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For the present, it's clear that we are going to have to deal with terrorists in our world. However, let us confront them by pulling ourselves together first. Violence, fear, shame and resignation are getting us nowhere.
As peacemakers, we can make a difference everyday by seeing to it that the spirit of cooperation and understanding operates in our local communities, which in turn can spread across the nation and the world. This is a golden opportunity to evolve our humanity.
Author's Bio: Olga Bonfiglio is a professor at Kalamazoo College in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and author of Heroes of a Different Stripe: How One Town Responded to the War in Iraq. She has written for several national magazines on the subjects of social justice and religion.
24 March 2008
US Air pilot and Gun
Well, I haven't flown any US Airlines since the FFDO program began. Finally, one of these nitwits discharges his gun in a plane. And it seems this "well-trained" clown was mishandling his gun. It's one thing to fuck around with a gun on the ground, but another to do it in a pressurised cabin of an airliner.
As one person pointed out, one wrong shot with a .40 and the whole plane comes down. A bullet through the wind screen or the control panel of a jet traveling at over 500 miles per hour means an instantly killed crew and, a few minutes later, several hundred dead passengers. Well, the experts say a gunshot wouldn't be likely to cause the kind of damage that would lead immediately to a crash.
O.K., maybe not immediately, but maybe it might take a little while longer.
Anyway, a hijacker of the 9/11 ilk isn't going to be put off by some middle-aged jet jockey with a gun. In fact, I am pretty sure al-queda would train them to take out at least one of these guys. FYI, al-queda doesn't just rush into action.
Furthermore, al-queda is probably done with hijacking jet airliners. They can take them out of the sky with a Man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS), such as a SA-18 Grouse or stinger, if they want to drop one as well. It's been done before, and I can see al-queda as being more likely to do that than hijack again. Rumours are that TWA flight 800 was taken out by a MANPAD. MANPADS are far more of a threat than hijacking these days.
Imagine what would happen if al-queda took out a few US airliners during a period of time. Especially if that happened in US airspace!
Are people really that stupid as to think a handgun will stop someone with a guided missile?
I guess this is just another way of feeling like you're something when the US rolled over and played dead after 9/11. Personally, it doesn't make me feel safe having any loaded weapons in the cockpit. Especially when this country is doing zip to really address the terrorism issue.
As one person pointed out, one wrong shot with a .40 and the whole plane comes down. A bullet through the wind screen or the control panel of a jet traveling at over 500 miles per hour means an instantly killed crew and, a few minutes later, several hundred dead passengers. Well, the experts say a gunshot wouldn't be likely to cause the kind of damage that would lead immediately to a crash.
O.K., maybe not immediately, but maybe it might take a little while longer.
Anyway, a hijacker of the 9/11 ilk isn't going to be put off by some middle-aged jet jockey with a gun. In fact, I am pretty sure al-queda would train them to take out at least one of these guys. FYI, al-queda doesn't just rush into action.
Furthermore, al-queda is probably done with hijacking jet airliners. They can take them out of the sky with a Man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS), such as a SA-18 Grouse or stinger, if they want to drop one as well. It's been done before, and I can see al-queda as being more likely to do that than hijack again. Rumours are that TWA flight 800 was taken out by a MANPAD. MANPADS are far more of a threat than hijacking these days.
Imagine what would happen if al-queda took out a few US airliners during a period of time. Especially if that happened in US airspace!
Are people really that stupid as to think a handgun will stop someone with a guided missile?
I guess this is just another way of feeling like you're something when the US rolled over and played dead after 9/11. Personally, it doesn't make me feel safe having any loaded weapons in the cockpit. Especially when this country is doing zip to really address the terrorism issue.
18 March 2008
Come on, Justice Kennedy.
I am reading the transcript of the Heller argument and believe I could have done a better job than Walter Dellinger at arguing the case.
While it is a right of a people, we cannot take the people as a word which is anything individual in Constitutional terms. The Constitution starts with "We the people" does this mean each and every individual in the US was present during the entire ratification process? Additionally, the Second Amendment talks about the right of the people to bear arms, but the clause only applies to those enrolled in the militia. This means white males between certain ages. Certain professions were exempt from militia service and many people wanted exemption from militia duties. Were their Second Amendment rights violated?
As for the militia, Justice Kennedy, can I say I am a member of the California National Guard, which is your militia unit if I live in California? And can I say this if am a resident alien Briton? I mean the militia allegedly is all the people. Define people! As I said earlier, isn't this a blanket term and not one referring to individuals ("We the people"). Likewise, the unorganised militia argument. Are Californians who are members of an unorganised militia say they belong to the California national guard? Was the 60s draft dodger from Berkeley a member of the Militia, that is the California national Guard because he was technically a member of the "unorganised militia"?
The debates were rather explicit that the concern was the power under Article I, section 8 which Justice Alito brought up. I am wondering if Justice Alito is indeed reading this blog. Although, I think he is living up to the reputation I have heard about him.
And the silliest argument is that I am allowed weapons which are "linear descendants of arms carried in revolutionary times". The Congreve rocket was introduced at about this period, while it is comparable to the Kassam rocket used by the Palestinians, it is a direct ancestor of the modern guided missile. Using this standard means I am indeed allowed to keep tactical nuclear weapons, or even a strategic nuclear missile.
Additionally, saying that the militia who is entitled to weapons is any body other than that organised under Article I, Section 8 means that Al-queda is entitled to weapons, as are any terrorist organisation. Does this make any sense in light of Article III, Section iii?
Yes, the British Bill of rights is far more restrictive, but that is really not a relevance. And while contemporary State Constitutions declarations of rights offer an insight into the Second Amendment, they do have personal rights written into the language which allow for self-defence. Self-defence is not mentioned in the Second Amendment and was not a concern for the founding fathers, the issue of a federal standing army v. a state militia was the concern.
As for the "well regulated" language, this does not mean well trained, it means that the military is under civilian control. The militia is to be subject to government regulation, not an armed mob.
So, while the Revolutionary militia were not subject to the crown, they WERE subject to the Revolutionary authorities. It is not correct to say that the Colonial militias were independent armed bands. Additionally, there were loyalist militia bands during the revolution. There was a fear of standing armies and armed mobs at the time of the revolution. The militia was never outside of authority, whether crown or revolutionary.
Again, to say that bodies which are unregulated are eligible for this right means that Al-queda is entitled to weaponry under the Second Amendment. And the "Well-trained" definitely favours al-Queda as they were trained by the CIA. But, I have always contended that terrorists first face Mecca and praise Allah, then face Independence Hall and praise the founding fathers for allowing them the right to have weaponry in the form of the Second Amendment. The Justices of the Supreme Court may be unwittingly aiding the enemy and violating their oaths if they take the independent right to arms for insurrectionary purposes opinion.
Justice Stevens was bang on in many of his questions. I am sure Wild Bill would be proud that Justice Stevens was his successor.
I am not sure which justice brought up that guns have been regulated. Gura is caught by saying that any regulation is allowed since "reasonable infringement" is not the equivalent of "shall not be infringed". The problem is that saying the Second Amendment protects an individual right means that all gun regulations are subject to scrutiny. This is why the RKBA folk hope for an opinion that will affirm an individual right, then they will begin to "test the waters".
I will reiterate that to find any form of individual right away from militia duty is not within the intent or scope of this amendment.
On the other hand, we can find an individual right which means that al-queda, as a well trained militia, has the right to strategic nuclear weapons, which are the direct descendants of the congreve rocket.
Now, isn't that one of the stupidest things that could happen.
While it is a right of a people, we cannot take the people as a word which is anything individual in Constitutional terms. The Constitution starts with "We the people" does this mean each and every individual in the US was present during the entire ratification process? Additionally, the Second Amendment talks about the right of the people to bear arms, but the clause only applies to those enrolled in the militia. This means white males between certain ages. Certain professions were exempt from militia service and many people wanted exemption from militia duties. Were their Second Amendment rights violated?
As for the militia, Justice Kennedy, can I say I am a member of the California National Guard, which is your militia unit if I live in California? And can I say this if am a resident alien Briton? I mean the militia allegedly is all the people. Define people! As I said earlier, isn't this a blanket term and not one referring to individuals ("We the people"). Likewise, the unorganised militia argument. Are Californians who are members of an unorganised militia say they belong to the California national guard? Was the 60s draft dodger from Berkeley a member of the Militia, that is the California national Guard because he was technically a member of the "unorganised militia"?
The debates were rather explicit that the concern was the power under Article I, section 8 which Justice Alito brought up. I am wondering if Justice Alito is indeed reading this blog. Although, I think he is living up to the reputation I have heard about him.
And the silliest argument is that I am allowed weapons which are "linear descendants of arms carried in revolutionary times". The Congreve rocket was introduced at about this period, while it is comparable to the Kassam rocket used by the Palestinians, it is a direct ancestor of the modern guided missile. Using this standard means I am indeed allowed to keep tactical nuclear weapons, or even a strategic nuclear missile.
Additionally, saying that the militia who is entitled to weapons is any body other than that organised under Article I, Section 8 means that Al-queda is entitled to weapons, as are any terrorist organisation. Does this make any sense in light of Article III, Section iii?
Yes, the British Bill of rights is far more restrictive, but that is really not a relevance. And while contemporary State Constitutions declarations of rights offer an insight into the Second Amendment, they do have personal rights written into the language which allow for self-defence. Self-defence is not mentioned in the Second Amendment and was not a concern for the founding fathers, the issue of a federal standing army v. a state militia was the concern.
As for the "well regulated" language, this does not mean well trained, it means that the military is under civilian control. The militia is to be subject to government regulation, not an armed mob.
So, while the Revolutionary militia were not subject to the crown, they WERE subject to the Revolutionary authorities. It is not correct to say that the Colonial militias were independent armed bands. Additionally, there were loyalist militia bands during the revolution. There was a fear of standing armies and armed mobs at the time of the revolution. The militia was never outside of authority, whether crown or revolutionary.
Again, to say that bodies which are unregulated are eligible for this right means that Al-queda is entitled to weaponry under the Second Amendment. And the "Well-trained" definitely favours al-Queda as they were trained by the CIA. But, I have always contended that terrorists first face Mecca and praise Allah, then face Independence Hall and praise the founding fathers for allowing them the right to have weaponry in the form of the Second Amendment. The Justices of the Supreme Court may be unwittingly aiding the enemy and violating their oaths if they take the independent right to arms for insurrectionary purposes opinion.
Justice Stevens was bang on in many of his questions. I am sure Wild Bill would be proud that Justice Stevens was his successor.
I am not sure which justice brought up that guns have been regulated. Gura is caught by saying that any regulation is allowed since "reasonable infringement" is not the equivalent of "shall not be infringed". The problem is that saying the Second Amendment protects an individual right means that all gun regulations are subject to scrutiny. This is why the RKBA folk hope for an opinion that will affirm an individual right, then they will begin to "test the waters".
I will reiterate that to find any form of individual right away from militia duty is not within the intent or scope of this amendment.
On the other hand, we can find an individual right which means that al-queda, as a well trained militia, has the right to strategic nuclear weapons, which are the direct descendants of the congreve rocket.
Now, isn't that one of the stupidest things that could happen.
18 February 2008
Freedom
I have to admit the last place I saw nearly as much security as currently exists in the US was when I was in Ulster. At least the US hasn't gotten to the point where you are searched pretty much everywhere you go. Probably because people would scream about their freedoms being trampled.
Why this comment? Because other people are talking about the hypocritical war on terrorism because nothing is being done to control firearms.
One person can rack up a body count of 33 bodies, yet nothing is done about it. A couple of people and a rifle (John Lee Malvo and John Allen Muhammad) had the US capital area in an lock down for three weeks. The body count racks up in senseless killings, yet we are told this is the cost of freedom.
Hey, if this is your idea of freedom, pal, I think the alternative isn't so bad. I mean, this is beginning to feel more and more like a totalitarian state because people are scared. Yet, the voice of the people is being silenced by some loud squeaky wheels who are not working toward "the security of a free State".
On the other hand, three people can die from eating spinach and it all gets yanked from the stores.
What is wrong with this picture? The Second Amendment talks about "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". Sure there are people who want to take the last part out of context and say it has something to do with self-defence. The problem is that the Second Amendment addresses Security of a free state and relates back to Article I, Section 8 the militia is a body that is "to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." It is "organized, armed, and disciplined...according to the discipline prescribed by Congress".
It is ridiculous to say that the Second Amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government, or to allow for waging war upon a tyrannical government since Article III, Section iii states that doing just that is TREASON!
Sorry, if there is a personal right, it is that you must be allowed to be a member of the National Guard. But the Dick Act of 1901 got rid of the Universal Militia because most people didn't want to give up their free time for militia duties.
As I have pointed out, the Second Amendment is an anachronism. It is irrelevant to modern society since most people aren't willing to accept the need to belong to a militia organised under Article I, Section 8 to be able to accept that right. The RKBA crowd wants to divorce "the security of a free State" from the equation and make it a licence for anarchy.
Unfortunately, "the security of a free State" is the most important part of the Second Amendment and to demand freedom from the responsibilities which come with the right is to totally negate the Second Amendment. It is to continue to see high body counts from senseless gun violence because people who don't understand the right to bear arms demand unfettered access to firearms.
Show me the words "self-defence" in the Second Amendment and I will grant the RKBA crowd their point. The Second Amendment does not mention self-defence and it is an irrelevance to tie that concept to the Second Amendment. It is even more absurd to tie the ability to revolt against the government to the Second Amendment.
We are not dealing with loose cannons, we are dealing with loose firearms. Loose firearms which are just as much a threat to society as is Al-queda. I would probably say that the cost of gun violence takes more of a toll on US society than Al-queda has ever done, yet nothing is done about it.
Until we have a leader who has the guts to say that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right of the militia to be armed, we will continue to lose the war on terrorism.
Why this comment? Because other people are talking about the hypocritical war on terrorism because nothing is being done to control firearms.
One person can rack up a body count of 33 bodies, yet nothing is done about it. A couple of people and a rifle (John Lee Malvo and John Allen Muhammad) had the US capital area in an lock down for three weeks. The body count racks up in senseless killings, yet we are told this is the cost of freedom.
Hey, if this is your idea of freedom, pal, I think the alternative isn't so bad. I mean, this is beginning to feel more and more like a totalitarian state because people are scared. Yet, the voice of the people is being silenced by some loud squeaky wheels who are not working toward "the security of a free State".
On the other hand, three people can die from eating spinach and it all gets yanked from the stores.
What is wrong with this picture? The Second Amendment talks about "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". Sure there are people who want to take the last part out of context and say it has something to do with self-defence. The problem is that the Second Amendment addresses Security of a free state and relates back to Article I, Section 8 the militia is a body that is "to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." It is "organized, armed, and disciplined...according to the discipline prescribed by Congress".
It is ridiculous to say that the Second Amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government, or to allow for waging war upon a tyrannical government since Article III, Section iii states that doing just that is TREASON!
Sorry, if there is a personal right, it is that you must be allowed to be a member of the National Guard. But the Dick Act of 1901 got rid of the Universal Militia because most people didn't want to give up their free time for militia duties.
As I have pointed out, the Second Amendment is an anachronism. It is irrelevant to modern society since most people aren't willing to accept the need to belong to a militia organised under Article I, Section 8 to be able to accept that right. The RKBA crowd wants to divorce "the security of a free State" from the equation and make it a licence for anarchy.
Unfortunately, "the security of a free State" is the most important part of the Second Amendment and to demand freedom from the responsibilities which come with the right is to totally negate the Second Amendment. It is to continue to see high body counts from senseless gun violence because people who don't understand the right to bear arms demand unfettered access to firearms.
Show me the words "self-defence" in the Second Amendment and I will grant the RKBA crowd their point. The Second Amendment does not mention self-defence and it is an irrelevance to tie that concept to the Second Amendment. It is even more absurd to tie the ability to revolt against the government to the Second Amendment.
We are not dealing with loose cannons, we are dealing with loose firearms. Loose firearms which are just as much a threat to society as is Al-queda. I would probably say that the cost of gun violence takes more of a toll on US society than Al-queda has ever done, yet nothing is done about it.
Until we have a leader who has the guts to say that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right of the militia to be armed, we will continue to lose the war on terrorism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
