In 1999 the RAND Corporation published a study they made of the "new" terrorism for the United States Air Force, under the title, Countering the New Terrorism by Ian O. Lesser, et al. (ISBN: 0833026674). In it, the authors discuss the new terrorist movements (including Al-Qaeda among others), their non-hierarchical organization and their propensity for extremely lethal violence. The final chapter covers how to counter these terrorist movements.


Although the book is not about Al-Qaeda in particular, I found that it did go a long way towards explaining how the organization works, why no one is claiming credit for the recent attack, and why removing bin Laden from the scene will not stop Al-Qaeda's attacks. Also, I have found that this book goes a long way towards clarifying what President Bush is saying and apparently planning. If the authors of this study are correct, then the President is quite correct in assuring the American public that this war will have to be waged over an extended period.


I was lucky enough to be given a copy of this book by a colleague, but if you can obtain a copy I do think that it would be worth you time to read it.


On page 88, the authors wrote, "Until recent years, however, few of these [terrorist] attacks took place within the United States, partly because traditional terrorist groups found the prospect of operations in the United States too difficult, politically counterproductive, or simply unnecessary. Most observers now believe the threshold for significant international terrorism in the United States has been crossed..."

See CNN for an example of how Silent caution is battling Boomer passion in the DoD.

BTW Matthew, I saw CBC last night, and an analyst charitably allowed as how the omission of Canada could be a compliment in that it was "assumed; he didn't have to mention us."

The key word being 'charitably'.

I was wondering if you would be so kind as to give me your e-mail address. I like in Kansas, and I am considering making a run for the state house in next year's election. I'm seeking advice from a variety of people. When I saw your first post, the one in which you are seeking advice on what a GenXer politician should be doing now at the onset of the 4T, I knew I had to write you. I'd like to ask you a few questions, if you can spare the time, of course. Let me know by sending me a quick e-mail. Just in case,my e-mail address is: trice82829@lycos.com

Thanks!

I guess it would help to give a name, huh? My previous message is for "Lydia_James", state representative from Maine.

Sorry this message is off topic, but I couldn't think of another way to reach her.

George W. Bush keeps milking this freedom and liberty angle. In fact he represents the antithesis of liberty as his administration has consistently consolidated power at the expense of individual liberty since the day he assumed office. His administration is as top-down, command and control, as the previous two administrations if not more so. These most recent administrations have been properly defined by their coziness with Big Business and there is a general political philosophy which initially called for this corporate-government partnership/collusion early in this century. Said philosophy is decidedly anti-individual, anti-rights, and anti-liberty. In fact it tends inevitably to produce the nastiest of "side-effects" given its monopolization of power at the top. Let us hope that history does not repeat itself in every particular. But given the philosophical bent of our leadership, perhaps it would be more fruitful to look at how select nations on the European continent fared in the last crisis in order to ascertain how we will come through the present one.

So George W. Bush says the attack on us was an attack on freedom as if Muslim fundamentalists cannot stand to see anyone live freely. Well, they probably do not approve of anyone who does not adhere to their fundamentalist beliefs but is it likely that they would have attacked us had we always remained 6000 miles away and not interacted in any way with them? I don't think so. They did not attack us for our perceived freedom.

Certainly they experience a degree of envy when they see our power at work as we interact with them in the oil business. And when they see us come from afar, perhaps as uninvited guests, to alter their political boundaries as we did in the Gulf War, resentment might build on their part. Our "tinkering" certainly might generate enough resentment to cause them to lash out. But given that we generally leave them alone to run their own affairs excepting in rare circumstances, does our interaction generate sufficient hostility to lead them to a sustained war against a "Great Satan?" I doubt it.

It seems to me that the foremost concern of the Muslim fundamentalist is the state of Israel. We are over the horizon while Israel is in their own backyard. The existence of Israel is what incites them to jihad, and Israel, not us, is the center of their attention. To the extent that we prop up Israel, we enter their sights. They hold us responsible for Israel's continued existence and this is why they perceive us as the "Great Satan." This is what generates a level of hostility sufficient to sustain a prolonged war against us. It has nothing to do with any perception of freedom.

So if the administration were committed to a 4T war against terrorism, what would they do in substance? They would immediately recognize that Israel's fight is our fight as it is only our support of Israel which has placed us in this fight. The WTC event was the last straw and we would no longer be concerned about a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians as they are part and parcel of the opposing side in this war on terrorism. The very first thing we would do is announce our alliance with Israel in this war. Is this what has happened? No. In fact the administration is being very careful not to include Israel in any coalition. True, alliance with Israel might dissuade other Arab nations from joining the coalition. But if we were truly committed to a 4T war to eliminate the problem completely, we would not consider this to be an obstacle. George W. Bush would say, as he in fact did, "You are either with us or against us," with the "us" being the United States and Israel. But this is not how the administration is pursuing this war.

All the administration is doing in substance is carrying out their pre-existing plans to invade Afghanistan and take out the Taliban regime, plans which press reports reveal to have been in place by 15 March. (As to the original motivation for this invasion, I would suggest that it might have something to do with Afghanistan's poppy crop though I do not know exactly what.) The WTC event has had no effect on the administration other than in providing them with political capital to expend the lives of American servicemen in carrying out their pre-existing plans. George W. Bush speaks of a grand war on terrorism yet announces plans to attack only one country, and not even the country which most intelligence sources claim is ultimately responsible, namely Iraq. Additionally, George W. Bush makes it clear that he will not seek a formal declaration of war, i.e. this is yet another "police action." Simultaneously his administration seeks a coalition with a host of countries which also house and support terrorism thereby eliminating the possibility that the administration can even achieve its stated goal of eliminating terrorism. In substance, this administration is pursuing anything but a 4T solution.

I see another Vietnam in the making. This administration has plainly revealed through its actions that it is not committed to a 4T war despite the rhetoric. This thing is going to drag onward for a long time and it is going to be incredibly costly, both on the "front" and here at home. Let no one forget all those terrorist cells in this country which the government has repeatedly warned us about in recent years. The longer we allow this war to run, the more damage those cells can inflict here at home. This is not going to be pretty.

If indeed the mood of the people shifts to 4T and the administration continues to fight a 3T war, it is easy enough to presume that the administration is incompetent. But I doubt that is the case. The people behind George W. Bush do not do anything without a plan and this crisis (or a similar one) has probably been "in the works" for some time. They clearly wish to generate a 4T mood to cement George W. Bush's place in history and save the Republican Party as they honestly believe it is doomed without a crisis and resultant realignment. And there is nothing stopping them from mobilizing the country, putting us on a wartime footing a la WWII, and pursuing a 4T war. Yet they opt to remain in 3T mode. Gauging these people, I would suspect there is a reason for this.

The one overriding goal of this group is to wrest our sovereignty from us such that they can rule this country and the world without ever having to run the risk of being removed from power through "antiquated institutions" such as popular elections. They wish to rule arbitrarily and in perpetuity through unaccountable organizations such as the WTO, IMF, and World Bank. My guess is that the only conflict is between different cliques or factions competing for ascendancy.

The reason why this administration would plan to fight this war in a 3T fashion is to foster the sense that, rightly or wrongly, the US alone cannot win this thing. They will wage another Vietnam so as to wear us down and shatter our confidence. Finally, when we are sufficiently war-weary, they will offer a "global solution" to the "global problem" of terrorism. Americans in their fatigue will gladly abandon their isolationist thesis in favor of the administration's globalist synthesis in order to avert the antithesis of perpetual warfare. And then the world comes directly under one central authority as the greatest nation on earth, the sovereign United States of America, is consigned to the dustbins of history.

Look at it this way. The first crisis since our founding resulted in the creation of one nation from 30+ individual states (at the time) thus allowing a concentration of power to rule more expansively and directly. The next crisis removed the constitutional restraints on the government of that one nation thus allowing a concentration of power to rule even more directly while setting its sights on the rest of the world. This present crisis will allow a concentration of power to subsume this one nation in a global empire under its direct control. I find it difficult to accept much of the conspiracy talk that the same people have been working toward this goal all along. But the fact remains that each of these crises produced openings for concentrations of power to exploit. The current or coming opening will not necessarily be exploited by the same people which exploited the civil war opening. But it seems pretty clear that today's relevant concentration of power has been actively working toward their goal at least since Wilson's administration.

The last issue is timing. If the goal is to cement George W. Bush's place in history and save the Republican Party, then what will be the state of the nation in 2004 such that the forces behind this administration can parlay it into electoral victory? Surely it cannot be a state of long, grueling, grinding war with no end in sight -- if so, we will change horses in midstream. Alternatively, the "global solution" will probably not yet be in place as, given that people generally tolerate war for four years before losing their will, any "global solution" prior to the election will be premature and will meet with fierce resistance and bloody internal conflict. The most likely scenario is that, in the days leading up to the 2004 election, George W. Bush will proclaim a peace plan to bring the war to an end. It will perhaps be short on specifics or the specifics may change after the election when it is finally implemented. But whatever it is, it will look good and be welcomed by a war-weary people and George W. Bush will be reelected...per plan anyway. Then, with Bush safely reelected, the forces behind him can push things to the next level. Look for the "global solution" to be implemented in 2005.

If the current crisis ends in 2005, then we are probably looking at an absolute disaster: the Civil War cycle magnified exponentially. Perhaps roughly half the population will be in varying degrees receptive to being "managed" by the global authority from birth until death. But the other half of the population will be in varying degrees resistant to this. The 2005 peace will surely be short-lived as no social contract will have been successfully forged. Strife will undoubtedly ensue soon after and, since the ruling elite will no longer know any restraints on its power, it will show no restraint in its response. I refer back to my initial paragraph wherein I likened the political philosophy of this group to that of so many on the European continent during the last crisis. Perhaps the best way to predict how things will progress is to imagine what the world would have been like had the Axis Powers won the Second World War. Any way you slice it, it is not a pretty picture. Will it even be fair to say that the crisis ended in 2005? If not, when and how will it ever end? Where can the world go when there are no longer any borders, no frontiers to freedom, and thus no escape? It is probably safe to assume that those in the ruling elite will never voluntarily surrender their power. Thus it may not end until mankind destroys itself.

I hope I am wrong and I may revise this as events develop in the days, weeks, and months ahead. But the motive is clearly present with today's players. This is just something to think about anyway.

Kurt63, your book is on 3-5-week backorder at amazon.com....

On 2001-09-21 09:47, Brian Rush wrote:



In other words, Bush is targeting an ideology of radical Islam, which happens to employ terrorism as a tactic. He is not, despite some statements, targeting terrorism as a tactic no matter who uses it. He is identifying radical Islam as the heir to Nazism and Communism as the Shadow of Democracy, the Enemy Against Whom We Strive.

It declined to name Communism as part of the wickedness in the forces of Darkness as the PRC is being attended to as an ally on the side of Truth and Light. HTH

On 2001-09-21 13:56, Doug Saxon 47 wrote:


What then are their next targets? As on Hollywood type commented these attacks were low-tech (box cutters and knives, tools legal at the time) and high concept (maximum damage and publicity for minimal effort and risk). One future area of risk is anywhere large numbers of people gather, sporting events, entertainment events, public ceremonies and buildings, malls at Christmas time, etc. Does this mean we should not go to the ballgame, the concert, the courthouse, shopping, etc? No, then they win by default. But we cannot go blindly. We must have our eyes and ears open and report anything we see that is out of the ordinary.

I think that there is some danger at college sporting events that are much followed by alumni in Arabia. The Big 12 would be a juicy target for terror. Strike the heartland and the grads in Saudi. HTdoesn'tH.

To quote from the CNN article link just posted above: "In addition, this official said to use the word "war" in this campaign will be a misnomer as this will likely be a drawn-out, multi-faceted campaign lasting years." I know this has nothing directly connected to the Silent-Boomer struggle, but I totally agreed with the comment I quoted.

Stonewall, I take it from your latest post that you watched the President's message to Congress last night?

I think you bring up some very excellent points that wise people would do well to ponder, even though it may not look PC (Patriotically Correct) to do so.

More response to you later....

On 2001-09-21 10:53, cecilalb wrote:
It has struck me that it may be in their best interest for American Arabic-Muslims to freely encourage very temporary incursions on their personal freedoms.

It would be in the interest of other Americans to discourage their fellow citizens be made to "prove" their loyalty. If it is needed to hinder freedom for citizens better it be applied to all. HTH

Mr. Rush observes the intentions of the present administration, that Bush, "is identifying radical Islam as the heir to Nazism and Communism as the Shadow of Democracy, the Enemy Against Whom We Strive."

To wit Mr. Saari responds, "It declined to name Communism as part of the wickedness in the forces of Darkness as the PRC is being attended to as an ally on the side of Truth and Light."

Mr. Lamb, by now sounding as a "broken record" (only Boomers will understand), remembers a Communism, while our ally in the previous fourth turn, was not so during the big bad Red Scare of 1920.

Perhaps when this is all over, the threat abated and "normalcy" returns... and then "withers on the vine," we may find our present foe a future "brother in arms" as was Uncle Joe.

Far fetched? Yes indeed.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-09-21 17:08 ]</font>

On the poppy fields: An "ex-spokesman" for the previous Drug Czar Mr. Barry McCaffrey (sp?) wrote that the Taliban is funding its program with the opium trade and threatening "Our Kids".

Yet, the U.S. Government gave aid to Afghanistan in part due to the destruction of the poppy crop on the order of said Taliban. The British press has reported this poppy destruction as another evil visited upon the "small farmers" of Afghanistan by Moslem fanatics.

It'll be a smoke and mirrors operation soon. We are told we will have success in this War that no one will ever know. Great future, that' more and more funding for the War on Terror and no need to show "results" of any sort. Terror here will mean more effort; and no terror here will mean that the job is going well and only more effort is the answer.

Where is the feedback loop for the citizen?

i found this interesting:

After Innocence
By Jedediah Purdy

First Appeared: The American Prospect - September 18, 2001


At 10 o'clock on a cloudless and balmy Tuesday morning, two eras overlapped on the streets of Washington. A little more than an hour had passed since two hijacked planes slammed into the World Trade Center in New York. Just minutes ago, another had crushed one wing of the Pentagon, the American military command center outside Washington. Half the pedestrians on the street had no idea what had happened. They chattered loudly about plans for dinner, proposals to rent the latest video release, and whether to leave their offices early on a gorgeous day. The other half walked silently, stiffly, urgently yet without direction. Their expressions were stricken and their faces were ashen. When their blank gazes met, each knew that the other knew as well.

The carefree strollers were still living, for a few more blessed minutes, in the age of American innocence. The rest of us were reluctant pioneers in a new era. The last time the United States admitted an enemy was when British troops torched Washington in 1814. Since that time, Americans have believed that we live apart from the quotidian horrors of the world -- the bombs of Ireland and Israel, the wars of the Balkans, the cultural upheaval of the Islamic nations, and the steady violence and deprivation of Africa. In our national myth, we sometimes venture forth to save the wretched world from itself, and at other times draw up our bridges and close our doors. But always our vast and rich country is safe between two oceans and our peaceable neighbors, Canada and Mexico. That belief is no longer possible.

The question now is what Americans will do after innocence. Secretary of State Colin Powell has called the attacks on New York and Washington acts of war -- not against the United States, but against civilization. Surely he was right. The basic experience of civilization, as we understand it in the modern world, is a precious marriage of freedom and security. It is confidence that we can move about, share in goods and culture and ideas, and deal with others as dispassionately or as intimately as we and they please, all in the certainty that no sudden disruption will destroy our complex web of activity.

The attacks struck at the heart of this experience. They were unannounced, they used civilian aircraft as weapons, and they targeted ordinary people for destruction. This is the essence of terrorism -- not that it is carried out by people who cannot afford their own fighter jets, but that it destroys civilization. Terrorism is an attempt to make civilized life impossible by ensuring that no one can walk down a street, go to work in a tower of glass and steel, or board an airplane without fearing, however briefly, for her life. If terrorism produces a siege mentality, then terror has won. That is the sense in which the attacks represent a battle between civilization and barbarism.

The terrible irony of such a battle is that civilization loses only if it consents to become barbaric. One American form of barbarism is xenophobia, and there the center is holding -- with some strain. A Muslim cleric's presence to deliver the first of many prayers at the National Cathedral in Washington was a fine symbol of national unity. News anchors have mainly followed New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani's example by warning against blaming American Muslims. But in the past week there have been official reports of 40 attacks on the shops, restaurants, and homes of Americans of Middle Eastern descent, and members of immigrant networks describe anecdotes of widespread threats and assaults. Not only Muslims, but many Sikhs -- members of a faith related to Hinduism whose tradition requires men to wear a beard and turban -- have been attacked.

These are the responses of affronted innocence. They express the idea that everything was all right, before the latest band of immigrants arrived, that all Americans are loyal except for a few dissidents, and that if we can just clean out the rot, our innocence will be restored. The impulse to restore our national innocence is inevitable in such a time. It is also the most dangerous impulse.

The American response to terrorism will depend on empowering intelligence operatives at home and abroad, with implications for civil liberties and foreign policy. Although Colin Powell issued an assurance on Tuesday that the attacks "will not change the nature of our society," the next day he declared that the "war" will be fought "on the intelligence front." Attorney General John Ashcroft has asked for increased surveillance authority, and the Vice-President has warned that the anti-terrorism campaign will be conducted "in the shadows," by assassination and cooperation with criminals and, perhaps, competing bands of terrorists. Expanded surveillance powers are appropriate to a point, since old rules had not kept up with the proliferation of cellular phones and increased personal mobility. "Shadow" operations may prove necessary in a new kind of campaign; but in a time when Americans are appropriately rallying around the government, it is important to recall that such measures were prohibited in the past because they are dangerous. They give unaccountable power to officials and freelance operatives, and unaccountable power is always hazardous for democracy. Finding a reasonable balance of freedom and security is particularly perplexing when the enemy takes advantage of integral aspects of an open society, from free and ubiquitous communications to a frictionless economy. In such circumstances, there is a danger of treating freedom itself as the enemy. Once we issue the power to restrict liberty, revoking that power tends to mean a struggle.

It is easy to believe that not only these terrorists, but all who openly resent the United States are barbarians -- people outside the reach of sympathy and reason, who understand only force and must be dealt with accordingly. Resisting that impulse requires distinguishing between condemning the evil of terror and comprehending the existence of both suicide bombers and the crowds that, here and there, cheered their carnage. The point of understanding is not to soften the condemnation, but to make it effective, not only in retribution but also in prevention.

It is particularly dangerous to try to "make sense" of terrorism. The very idea suggests giving legitimacy to terrorist demands, treating terrorists as moral equals, or retreating from terrorist threats. The United States government is quite right to refuse all such proposals. Terrorism is not politics or moral argument in any way that does, or should, make sense to us. Most terrorism, everywhere in the world, is failed nationalism -- the essentially impotent yet terribly destructive expression of an already violent political passion. The decision to use terror always reveals more about those who make it than the conditions in which they do so. Moreover, there is always evil in the world, and the appetite for destruction needs to be stopped on its own brutal terms. Force is the only way a government can react to those who take up arms against its people. But an attack on a civilization also deserves a response worthy of a civilization -- not for the sake of the attackers, but for the sake of the civilization itself.

This means reflecting on America's place in the world. American power is vast, and it travels less often on the wings of fighter aircraft than by satellite broadcasts of American television and movies, and in the great and small movements of a global economy whose rules are America's rules. What Americans call "globalization" and imagine as a natural process of economic and cultural integration strikes many people elsewhere as something closer to empire. One basis of that empire is the power to lay down the principles that others must live by or be excluded from the world economy --free trade, protection for intellectual property, reductions in domestic spending and social programs, and an end to special privileges for local culture. The other is the power to shape desires. American images of prosperity and beauty have inflected the desire of people around the world. A Manhattan stockbroker and a young man on the West Bank both recognize the curve of a Baywatch model and the swish of the Nike logo, and both in some sense want them.

These kinds of power breed especially potent resentment because they intimately implicate the same people they affect. The global free market is never forced directly on anyone. It arises out of the consent of governments and individuals who feel that no other alternative -- and hence no real choice -- remains open to them. Globalized desire works through the appetites, the senses, above all the eyes of people everywhere. It becomes a part of its hosts, but changes them as well. It is both foreign and one's own, and there is no way to expunge it. What penetrates one's very choices and desires is both welcomed and resented, and this division defines the combination of fascination and embitterment with which much of the world views America.

Combine that with the cruelest irony of today's world: the desperately poor slum-cities in Asia, Africa, and Latin America where families and neighborhoods can gather around flickering television sets to watch images of wealth and pleasure that, even in the United States, are exotic to most people. Luxury and indulgence that were once unimaginable to all but a few now do not even require imagination: they are on display for anyone who can tune in, which means nearly everyone. We live in a world that sows with one hand desire that it frustrates with the other. The resentments of slums and refugee camps are part of the reason that America is hated and loved, often in the same hearts. They may not have caused this attack, but they help to ensure that it will not be the last.

The United States cannot escape being the world's emblem of globalization. As long as globalization produces not only benefits, but also injuries, affronts, and displacements, America will bear the brunt of any reaction against it. This means that America and its allies hold responsibility for making globalization more than a set of economic and cultural upheavals, and offering its changes as a form of civilization that deserves adherence. This is the insight that General George C. Marshall, creator of the Marshall Plan that helped to rebuild Europe after World War II, expressed when he declared in 1947 that national policy must be "directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos." Such a policy meant ensuring that democratic Europe would be a place of order, security, and, in time, prosperity. Bombs could stop armies, but they could not establish that a civilization deserved loyalty. In a time of war between civilizations, that was the point that democratic capitalism needed to win.

In today's world, pursuing the same aim would mean pressing a more humane and democratic version of globalization. On the level of rules and principles, it would require recognizing -- as the United States recognized of Europe after the war -- that integration into the world economy should not require adopting a laissez-faire model of economic and social life. Countries' economies are always shaped by cultural ideas about the proper proportions of individuality to solidarity, continuity to change. When the present version of globalization strips economic life to a set of universal, efficiency-maximizing rules, it creates the impression of empire and breeds as much resentment as loyalty.

A wise policy would demand even more in resources. Around the world, hundreds of millions of people whose rural, agrarian lives are no longer economically possible have fled to the edges of cities as virtual refugees. Across Latin America and Asia and in pockets elsewhere, the poor are becoming the labor force of the rich world, producing everything from clothing to the latest computer programs at a fraction of the cost of American or European workers. Yet although they form an integral part of a global economy, their membership is incomplete. They have little or no power as organized workers or as voters to affect the companies that employ them. Many have little or no security should they lose their jobs or grow too old to work. Most cannot travel or migrate to the countries where their products -- and their profits -- return at the end of the long global assembly line.

A nation-state -- our best working model of political community -- is bound together by several commonalities. One is a shared material life of production and consumption. Another is a national myth, a story of language and identity that links distant individuals in their imaginations. The last is politics, the status of citizenship that ensures equal membership by means of rights and protections. This is what distinguishes a nation from an empire, where different people occupy different levels of membership. An integrated global economy has created the link of shared material life. Globalized desire links people in imagination and identity more than ever in the past. But our politics -- our means of giving individuals membership in a community of common destiny -- is imperial.

That is not an insult but an observation of fact. In some parts of the world, people enjoy comfort and -- even after Tuesday -- security. In others, insecurity and inequality are life's most basic facts. Changing this would require a massive commitment of resources, the kind that the United States once dedicated to Europe and, later, Europe infused into Greece and Spain. The purpose would be what it has been before: to integrate people not by force or because they have no other choice, but through the benefits -- economic, but also civilizational -- of membership. But this cannot mean just a loosening of rules or a commitment of resources.

It also requires distinguishing between terrorists and their patrons, who are barbarians, and Islam, which is a civilization. Much talk in the United States, among commentators and elected officials as well as the public has proposed putting global Islam in the place vacated by communism after the Cold War -- the position of the worldwide enemy. That would be a vast mistake. The Islamic world is home to many believers who abhor the attack on the United States, but also lament that America has chosen oil-rich despots, and even the Afghan rebels who became the Taliban, as its allies in the region. Rightly or wrongly, they take this as evidence that Americans consider them unworthy or respect as a civilization. The best assurance of long-term Western security would be a peaceful and democratic Middle East a century from now. Despite that fact, American policy in the region has supported makeshift means to stability, at the cost of alienating Muslims who admire neither the Taliban nor the Saudi princes, and would like to bring their region into the modern world on terms of mutual respect. If we are to join forces with civilized Islam against its own worst barbarians, Americans will have to reconsider our policy of supporting whatever forces in the region are presently convenient, which has so often worsened later conflict and deepened resentment against the United States.

Americans remain shocked and enraged a week after the attack. We who are fortunate enough not to have lost anyone close to us have been reading victim lists again and again, fearing for acquaintances and classmates. The country wants revenge. Retribution is the most basic moral instinct. That is why nearly every word for moral or legal obligation comes from some ancient term for a debt -- often a blood-debt. And of course we will respond. No responsible person questions that.

But what we do is not the only question. The spirit in which we do it matters as well. The purpose of barbaric attacks is to prove that civilization is a thin shell, that beneath it we are all scared, angry, ready to lash out violently for the sake of violence. That is why terrorism, more than any other crime, requires us to struggle against ourselves. It requires that our relentless, decisive retribution come with as little hatred as possible. This is a terrible thing to say, because it is unnatural. It denies the passion for reciprocal destruction that fills us now. But the point of civilization, unlike barbarism, is that it is unnatural. It is a triumph of intelligence and moral training over nature. It is the thin shell that every terrorist wants to shatter.

We have been moved by Europeans' show of support in the past week. Now, just as all of us in the West have been marked by the terrible crimes of September 11, we also share responsibility for the way we respond. In a time like this we lose the privilege of isolating ourselves morally from common life.

So, we must decide together what comes after innocence. If it is untamed revenge, even vigilante revenge, then the terrorists have won this battle twice over. If it is a restriction of freedom and a rise of intolerance, then we will have surrendered too much of what defines us. But if it is -- against all instinct -- civilized as well as implacable, if there is sorrow in our anger, and if we are determined to make a better world, then we will have proved again the power of civilization to renew itself.


Copyright: 2001 The American Prospect

Today it hit me that there is absolutely no doubt we are in a 4T. Before, I thought we were, but had reservations.

The economy is in bad shape. Newspapers screamed headlines today that the Dow had reached its lowest point since the Great Depression. I heard on NPR that people in large cities are afraid to go out; they are not only afraid to fly, but also afraid to shop or dine out because of what might be "out there" waiting to attack. This can only be very detrimental to the economy. Business owners, particularly airline executives, are urging patrons not to be afraid, but no one is listening. Replacing the 3T devil-may-care free-for-all is a dark mood of caution and fear.

My Silent mother called me in tears because she is worried about losing all her clients due to 911. She HAS to work to survive. She has no knowledge of turning theory and has never read any of S&H's books, but she was comparing what is happening now to 1929--and WW2. I told her I would send her a copy of T4T, thinking this book may offer her some hope for the future, as well as explain what is happening and why. I called my local bookstore, and the copies they had stored in their warehouse that they couldn't get rid of have just sold out. I called the publisher, and was told there has been a dramatic increase in requests for this book since 9/11. I'm not surprised.

I just can't see us going back to our former celebrity-worshipping, greed-is-good, nothing-is-sacred, freak show 3T culture. It just isn't going to happen. It can't now. Flag-waving and patriotism might make some of us hardened Xers and Boomers (and even a few Millies) feel nauseous, but it isn't going to go away. Not for a long time. This isn't just another 3T fad.

Anyone who still believes we are in a 3T is in denial. Hey, deal with it. It's here. Batten down the hatches and hug your kids a lot.

BTW, I'm not a great fan of George Bush, but I have to say I am very impressed with how he is handling the situation with Afghanistan and bin Laden, and was VERY impressed with the speech he gave last night. I felt it was very sincere. It might even go down in history as one of the great Presidential speeches.

There are still a lot of Silents who want to handle things diplomatically and rationally, and might have helped delay the 4T for a few more years (and this was my main reservation about whether or not we were in a 4T until today), but I no longer think their influence will make any difference. No one ever really listened to them anyway. I don't think anyone is going to start now.

_________________
Insanity is the only sane way to cope with an insane world.--RD LANGE

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Susan Brombacher on 2001-09-21 18:10 ]</font>

my messenger buddy says, "Anyone who still believes we are in a 3T is in denial. Hey, deal with it. It's here."

methinks we be 3t messenger buddy susan. does youthink methinks in denial? :smile:



The Second Coming

Turning and turning in the widening gyre, The Falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world...
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned:
The best lack all conviction, while the worse
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

W.B. Yeats, poet




In 1920, Yeats saw sad times all around.

m.s. lamb


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2001-09-21 18:21 ]</font>

George W. Bush keeps milking this freedom and liberty angle. In fact he represents the antithesis of liberty as his administration has consistently consolidated power at the expense of individual liberty since the day he assumed office. . . . These most recent administrations have been properly defined by their coziness with Big Business . . .

Stonewall, I have as much problem as you with a government that serves business interests instead of the people it is supposed to, and fully agree that Bush showed all the symptoms when he first took office. But it's my belief that he's changing. More on that in a moment.


For now, let me say that this governmental philosophy is characteristic of Third Turnings. In a 4T, it declines. The issue of corporate globalism isn't gone, and it, rather than global peacekeeping and war, might just as easily have been the one to start the Crisis rolling. It is, I believe, next on the agenda, with the entire global economy sliding into recession.


Just as people are now calling on government to keep us safe, to stop the terrorists, soon they will be calling on government to protect us from the irresponsibility of global corporations. Also, the only way that business manages to achieve the kind of influence over government that it has enjoyed in the recent past is if the people stop paying attention to politics. That, too, is a 3T thing, and it is now a thing of the past.

Is it likely that they [Muslim fanatics] would have attacked us had we always remained 6000 miles away and not interacted in any way with them? I don't think so. They did not attack us for our perceived freedom.

Of course we interacted with them. We interact with the whole world. We're the chief superpower, indeed the only remaining superpower. What's more, our culture impacts everyone everywhere through satellite television and the Internet and exported movies and products. That culture is highly corrosive of fundamentalist religious orthodoxy, be it Christian or Muslim or anything else. Ask Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson. Their sentiments, expressed to so much embarrassment, mirror exactly those of the Taliban.

But given that we generally leave them alone to run their own affairs excepting in rare circumstances, does our interaction generate sufficient hostility to lead them to a sustained war against a "Great Satan?" I doubt it.

Our cultural interference is profound, and certainly doesn't "leave them alone to run their own affairs excepting in rare circumstances." It's a 24/7 bombardment.

It seems to me that the foremost concern of the Muslim fundamentalist is the state of Israel.

That is not true. Israel is the foremost concern of the Palestinians, and those whose primary cause is Palestinian sovereignty rather than Islam. It is a cause for the Muslim fundamentalist, but far from the most important one. We could pull out all support for Israel tomorrow and the fundamentalists, including bin Laden, would still hate us for our cultural pollution of their faith.


They hate us for who we are. And it is not because they envy us, so much as because they fear Muslims of less zeal will envy us and want to become like us, bringing an end to Islam as they know it.

All the administration is doing in substance is carrying out their pre-existing plans to invade Afghanistan and take out the Taliban regime, plans which press reports reveal to have been in place by 15 March.

While the Bush administration may well have had contingency plans in place to do that, it defies credibility that they actually intended to carry out those plans before the attacks. Invading Afghanistan and taking out the Taliban will be costly in American lives and treasure. The people will stand for it now, but only because of the attacks. Had the attacks never taken place, there is no way Bush could have gotten away with such a move politically, and I don't believe he would have done it.


As to characterizing this as a 3T war because no actions have been taken in plain sight beyond preparing to do something (we still don't know exactly what) in Afghanistan, there have been hints and public-awareness preparations that the administration does plan to go beyond that.

The one overriding goal of this group is to wrest our sovereignty from us such that they can rule this country and the world without ever having to run the risk of being removed from power through "antiquated institutions" such as popular elections.

If that is their desire then it is not so much a goal as a pipe dream. I don't believe it.

They wish to rule arbitrarily and in perpetuity through unaccountable organizations such as the WTO, IMF, and World Bank.

Those organizations are not going to remain unaccountable much longer. That's part of the change we face this 4T.

Finally, when we are sufficiently war-weary, they will offer a "global solution" to the "global problem" of terrorism.

I seriously, seriously doubt that this is a plan of the Republican Party or the Bush administration. But I do very much expect that it is what will happen, although perhaps not quite as you describe, through a Vietnam-like experience. Rather, it will be a natural outgrowth of the present consortium-of-nations approach to dealing with the problem.


It isn't something to be feared, but to be steered. The sovereign nation-state is outmoded, obsolete, and unworkable in the modern age of global communications and nuclear weapons. We WILL have a global government as a result of this Crisis. The only question is what kind. And those who reject the entire idea are those who will have, by their own choice, no voice in that decision.


Up to you.


Now I said that I believe Bush to be changing. I do. I think that, up to now, this man has never seriously any responsibility that life has placed on him. He has been the classic privileged kid, sliding through with a gentleman's C and on daddy's coattails. Up to now, I don't think he's ever had anything to believe in. Now, he does.


It is completely paranoid to suppose that he, or those around him, planned these events, and that, Stonewall, is a prerequisite for your theory. No, he was as shocked by 911 as the rest of us. I refuse to believe otherwise. And now he's begun to grow and learn as a result of the experience.
As a result, he is very likely to adopt positions that will come as a great surprise to many people and an outrage to a lot of Republicans.

I interrupt our latest beloved diatribe from comrade Rush for an important announcement pertaining to the present state of of our fair Republic affairs, per William Strauss.

I, William Strauss am here, live and in person, ready to talk to America on all things of a cyclical, generational, historical, millennial, ummmm, you know nature. At 10 pm left coast time.

Dawn't miss it baby, k?

http://www.artbell.com/schedule.html


Now back to comrade Rush...

I wanted to respond to a few of things that had been posted here:

First, thanks to the Author for your nice comments, it's always good to get a pat on the head from one of the "4T gurus."

Let me pose a question: suppose the Red Zoners demanded one of the issues you mentioned be resolved their way, as a show of good faith, just one. Which one would you be willing to yield permanently on, for the sake of 4T unity? (Not just Brian, anyone feel free to answer.)

I'd say we're already beginning to see the beginnings of the truce on many of those issues. Indeed, I think many of the Blue Zoners were already growing tired of some of these cultural divides. In particular, I'd say that one issues where the Blue Zone is going to give will be in the areas of gay rights.

Homosexuals have made enormous strides in this country in the past 30 years, to the point where something like the issue of gay marriage and gays in the military had become a huge public concern for many Americans. Prior to 1970, coming out of the closet was pretty much a death sentence, now, most companies recognize domestic partnership as a valid lifestyle for insurance coverage. True, we have a long way to go before gays are fully accepted as equal to straights, but that's going to have to wait for the next Awakening. No one's going to have the energy to worry about whether gays can march in the St. Patrick's Day parade. I think they should be able to, but I think we've all got bigger issues on our minds than that right now. I don't think gays are going to lose much ground, but they aren't going to gain much either, probably for the next 40 years. You're queer, you're here, we're used to it.

I was just reflecting, as I finally turned on the TV to watch something else tonight, that there is sort of a cultural reevaluation going on in my mind, and thus perhaps in the minds of my fellow citizens. What I mean is this: last week, I immediately felt "there is no going back" to the 3T. The 3T world seemed especially trivial; it would not be missed. Now, I'm selectively allowing some of the 3T culture that I did like to reenter my life, but through a kind of "4T acceptability filter". Is it the kind of thing that has real value, or is it just raw superficial entertainment? The latter gets weeded out, in a sort of "evolutionary shakeout".

Am I going overboard in trying to categorize once again, as is my wont, or am I onto something with this idea?

On the contrary, this is the kind of feedback loop that creates culture in a free society. Society shapes entertainment as much as entertainment shapes society. As I mentioned before, my company and others in the entertainment world have a LOT of 3T product in the pipeline - some will be acceptable to the 4T audience, some will not. Those that will not will die. I'd expect "Fear Factor" and other nasty reality shows to be one of the first casualties. No one's going to be able to take Americans being callously cruel to other Americans.

Don't forget - those who produce entertainment aren't all that different from you. We don't sit around and try to brainwash everyone, despite what our detractors think. We create things for a variety of reason, trying to balance the demands of art and commerce, following our muses while hoping that our visions will sell to the public. Those who are in step with the public mood will find success, those who don't will fail. Again, watch the fate of reality programming through the 2001 - 2002 for a clue as to whether we truly are in a 4T.

Predictions: look for a Frank Sinatra revival as well as any other "homegrown" singers who sing specifically about simple virtues of love, home, family, duty and sacrifice. Rap and hip hop will become WAY friendlier and far more mainstream. Ultra-leftist and "peace-nik" bands will begin singing to smaller crowds.

Bubble gum bands such as Britney Spears and N'Sync will be in a hurry to mature their sounds to appeal to the more serious mood their core followers are in. Some them won't have the talent to carry it off and will disappear. Madonna's always been a master at sensing the mood shifts of the country and changing her persona to match, but that was in 3T - if she continues to ply her act in 3T style, her career will die, but I doubt that'll happen.

Next year's fashions will be more regular in cut, with longer skirts, broader shoulders, darker colors and a more military, uniform look to them. Men's ties will also be darker, with regular patterns. I wouldn't be surprised to see argyle make a comeback.

In my own industry, video games, 1st person shooters are going to SURGE in popularity, but they'll have to have a more militaristic, cooperative feel about them. Games such as Tom Clancy's Rogue Spear (play as a member of an anti-terrorist team), Counterstrike (the first on-line FPS to stress true teamwork) and Return to Wolfenstein or WWII Online (become a squad member in WWII assaults). Don't look for many games like DOOM (lone marine takes on the forces of Hell, very 3T) any more. Other on-line games, like Everquest and Shadowbane, will still stress online community building, but in a more escapist manner (interact with thousands of others in a medieval fantasy universe with elves and trolls).

Can I ask the other Xers on this list, if they are into all this patriotic stuff.
My gut instinct has been to protect myself and my family. I havent really bought into the American part of it, other than as Americans we are in danger.

The urge to protect oneself, let others fend for themselves, except the core Gen X "friends-as-family" (but aren't most people "friends you just haven't met yet"?), and deride "patriotic stuff", is not only selfish, but is not defensible with the lame Gen X excuse "all my life I've been kicked around, so it's only natural I'll only look out for myself". This is the time for Gen X to grow up. And I say that in full knowledge of a "whatever" (non-)riposte.

Richt - don't judge all X'ers by the previous quote. Of all extant generations, I think we've been stepping smoothly into our 4T roles for a while now.

I'd say that most X'ers like me, have reacted positively to patriotism, but we've done so in our particularly Nomadic fashion. As a New Yorker in California, I had to stop myself a thousand times last week from getting my truck and driving 3,000 miles to be in New York to offer what help I could. As I described it to Californians who couldn't really understand my pain - New York IS my family and wherever you are, whatever your disdain toward certain aspects of New York, that feeling never really leaves you.

Two brothers can hate each other and fight, but let a third party step in and watch how quickly they unite to kick the crap out of an interloper.

One of the things that struck me about my generation is the common theme that they felt as though their FAMILY had been attacked. In a larger sense, what happened to me, happened to my generation. In one moment, most of GenX expanded their definition of "family" to encompass all Americans.

I think if GenX is a little uncomfortable with ostentatious, patriotic displays even now, as I am, it's not because we're in any less pain or because we care for America any less, but from a combination traits - all of which are very Nomad:

1. Discomfort with symbols over action. Flags are all very well and good, but we've got a big dirty job ahead of us, let's leave symbols to Boomers and Millies and do what needs to be done.

2. Pure, unalloyed emotional patriotism, like any other pure passion, is foreign to us. We live in a world without black or white, only shades of grey. In this conflict, we see two sides that are pretty close to unambiguously right and wrong - but not entirely. Xers know this, at least instinctively.

Solving this crisis isn't going to be as easy as just "wiping the bastards out". It's also going to mean answering some tough questions about America's position in the world and what the blowback effect of some of our actions have been. That doesn't mean that America "deserved this" or any of the other atrocious comments I've heard coming from hard-core liberal loons and terrorist apologists, nor does it mean that America is totally right and has the moral right to turn Afghanastian into radioactive glass and re-open Manzanar for Arab-Americans and Muslims as I've heard some right wing freakos talk about.

It means that we're going to have to come up with a way to lead the world into a new era, and that means changing many of the ways in which we conduct our business. It also means finding ways to teach the world that most of the grudges that Muslim extremists like Bin Laden (and their "Down with Amerika" apologists here in the States) hold against America and the American system (like the concept that American movies and burgers are "cultural imperialism" - AARRGH!) is just plain WRONG.

If our cultural output is truly a 24/7 assault on the values of folks like Bin Laden, Jerry Falwell and former members of the Weathermen, then that's all too the good. The American culture broadcast on TV and in movies and in magazines, for all its excesses and missteps, is still superior to the alternative because of the values that underlie it's creation. THAT is what the people of the world respond to, as much as images of wealth, sex and luxury (Pornography may be a crude statement, but it's still a statement). It's the notion that the good life is available here on Earth, that you don't have to wait for Heaven for a roof over your head and a meal every night. The price tag is that a good life means buying into the value systems of those who produce the films and TV shows, a value system that is antithetical to tyrannical dictatorships of all political and theological stripes that would control people's minds, something always more important than merely controlling their bodies.

"America is the worst country in the world - except for every place else."

We must prove that freedom, democracy, capitalism, equality under law, freedom and speech and religion and many other things that are American ideals is better than the 14th Century barbarism that Bin Laden and his ilk offer. We also need to acknowledge that America itself often fails to live up to our ideals. This is a chance to make ourselves better Americans, and by extension, make the world a better place.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-09-21 21:27 ]</font>

Marc,

1920, eh? That is very interesting. I am a first-wave 13er and I never could relate to the "disillusionment" of my cohort Lost Generation -- until recently. For the life of me I could never understand what could possibly shatter the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of that generation so thoroughly. In contrast, my optimism knew no bounds.

But all that began to change early in 1999. As I witnessed the farce that was the impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton, I came away with an acute sense of Republican duplicity (which many including David Schippers later documented). And I then came to terms with how stupid and staged the whole tour-de-force of the past few years had been. There was incriminating evidence on Clinton on everything from Vince Foster's "suicide" to those FBI files (by the way, whatever happened to them?) to actual treason in the Chinese matter, yet what did the so-called opposition party pursue? Bill Clinton's private parts. Yes, there were real issues with Monica concerning perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power. But the fact is that the so-called opposition party deliberately deep-sixed the real investigations which could have resulted in Clinton's removal in order to pursue a pathetically weak case which they knew would never force him from office. Why? Because Republicans were complicit in the Chinese treason and, politically, they needed to damage, but not remove, Clinton so that their now strengthened, anointed puppet would not face an incumbent Al Gore in 2000. Protect the party and screw the country.

But even though I had developed contempt for the "system" at this point, my optimism still was not swayed. I was confident that the people (or like-minded people) perceived all this as I did -- in fact I knew they did -- and consequently would reject any establishment Republican in the primaries. Then George W. Bush was trotted out as a Republican candidate in the spring and the blood drained from my face as I instantly knew that, no matter what, this nice guy who could not string together a coherent sentence and who never even thought about running for office until his daddy ordered him to, would get the nomination. It was over right then and there and the Republican primaries were superfluous: a mere formality and a joke.

But even at this point, my optimism had not abated. I was confident that people (or like-minded people) would not take the bait and would reject the Republican puppet. I thought that a number of third parties would rise to the occasion and merge or that people would support a third party in the absence of a merger. The third party support might not be enough to defeat Al Gore but I hoped it would be enough to defeat George W. Bush. I hoped that electoral defeat would prompt the Republican Party to thoroughly cleanse itself of the establishment element so as return to being a true opposition party, once again fighting for individual rights and liberty, probably with some newly supportive former Democrats. Our sovereignty was safe so long as Al Gore faced opposition in office. It was a goner so long as twin brother George W. Bush faced no opposition.

A specific moment came in September 2000 when my optimism finally died and I instantly understood the disillusionment of my Lost cohorts. In that moment I came to realize what a joke the media coverage and the polls were and that my hopes, dreams, and aspirations would not be realized in this election nor at any point in the foreseeable future. All my life I had argued with "liberals" that the media had a "liberal" bias and the many studies done over the past three decades attest to this as they consistently indicate that 85-90% of the media vote Democratic. Yet for some mysterious reason, "liberal" reporters buried their bias through this campaign. We would have expected a constant undertone that apparently speech and thought-challenged George W. Bush was his daddy's or somebody else's puppet. Yet this undertone never materialized. There were a host of negatives to air about George W. Bush but these rarely ever saw the light of day and, when they did, they consistently died after 48 hours. And the few that did were never properly followed up -- by liberal reporters no less. Concurrently the polls were going crazy, rising and falling without any apparent motive, with most running counter to the one tested one, Zogby. I instantly perceived in that moment in September that the same forces which handed George W. Bush the Republican nomination, no questions asked, necessarily also had some measure of control over the media such that what "liberal" reporters would normally be expected to report was filtered out. And it was then apparent to me that those same forces had the power to put their handpicked puppet in office regardless of how anybody actually voted. So much for my hopes, dreams, and aspirations. At long last I do understand the disillusionment of my Lost cohorts.

I do not write this to incite anybody who may disagree with me so please do not take offense. My purpose is to demonstrate how my views may reflect the reactive/nomad generation so that it might be compared with earlier cohorts and assessed within the current cycle. Again, please, nobody take offense.

Marc, consider that Yeats felt the disillusionment by 1920, nine years before the catalyst, and I only felt mine one year before the catalyst. This reinforces my sense that this turning is premature and further that it is being forced. It seems clear to me that we relived the 1920s in the 1990s yet I did not develop my disillusionment until the "Twenties" were over. Perhaps I am an anomalous 13er? If not, it strikes me that we moved from TR and the 19-odds with Reagan directly to the Roaring Twenties in the 1990s and bypassed the 1910s altogether.
We departed from the natural order during George H.W. Bush's term (or possibly in Reagan's second term when George H.W. Bush was arguably running the show). The historical cycle was either compressed or advanced artificially. And when you take the full measure of George H.W. Bush, there possibly is sufficient invisible power behind him to wrench us from the natural cycle and push us forward artificially. Never before in our history has there been a sufficiently powerful establishment to do this. But all the evidence suggests to me that now there is. If so, we are living in an anomalous cycle with no precedent unless you wish to count the Civil War which came about prematurely but by natural means.

Yes, Marc and everybody, I'll be on the Art Bell show (with a guest host), all night long. Let me invite late-nighters to tune in.

On 2001-09-21 09:21, Pat Mathews wrote:
OUr local cartoonist, Trever, ran one in today's paper showing both the far right and the far left grinding their axes (God is mad at the gays, the abortionists, the ACLU... we brought this on ourselves with capitalism, support for Israel, racism...) and Uncle Sam, with a nicked & dented sword says "Excuse me, boys -- can you stop your grinding long enough to help me with this one?" The sword is labeled War on Terrorism.

Trever is a libertarian.

That is probably a perfect summation of the situation that actually exists, under the surface.

I think they _will_ set aside their axes long enough to unite against a foe, _if_ nothing happens that causes either one to see their foe as an extension or corollary of the outside enemy.

Asking them to permanently set aside their axes is more difficulty, since each is driven by sincere belief and good intentions.
They simply look out the window and see different realities.

While the Bush administration may well have had contingency plans in place to do that, it defies credibility that they actually intended to carry out those plans before the attacks. Invading Afghanistan and taking out the Taliban will be costly in American lives and treasure. The people will stand for it now, but only because of the attacks. Had the attacks never taken place, there is no way Bush could have gotten away with such a move politically, and I don't believe he would have done it.


Brian, earlier I linked to a BBC article which describes a Pakistani official's comments claiming that he was made aware, in mid-July, of our plans to invade Afghanistan and take out the Taliban by mid-October when the snow arrives. I also quoted the 15 March issue of Jane's which describes our plans to work in coalition with Russia, India, Iran, and other countries to take out the Taliban, although we were supposedly only to provide logistical and intelligence support at that time. Either the plan was modified before July to include US ground troops or the Pakistani official is full of it. It is a judgment call. I find it credible.

I agree with you that it is difficult to believe that Bush could have gotten away with ground troops in the absence of the WTC event. But this is assuming that no other attack would have taken place or that no other crisis could have been manufactured in the meantime. Does the Tonkin Gulf ring a bell? How about April Glaspie's green light for Saddam to invade Kuwait?


Those organizations (WTO, IMF, and World Bank) are not going to remain unaccountable much longer. That's part of the change we face this 4T.


Good luck.


It isn't something to be feared, but to be steered. The sovereign nation-state is outmoded, obsolete, and unworkable in the modern age of global communications and nuclear weapons. We WILL have a global government as a result of this Crisis. The only question is what kind. And those who reject the entire idea are those who will have, by their own choice, no voice in that decision.

Up to you.


I wish to mind my own business so I abstain. Will you be the one pointing the gun at me or will you let somebody else do it?


It is completely paranoid to suppose that he, or those around him, planned these events, and that, Stonewall, is a prerequisite for your theory. No, he was as shocked by 911 as the rest of us. I refuse to believe otherwise.


German intelligence reported that they discovered this plot three months ago and passed the information along to the Brits. The Brits reported that they passed the information along to us and we apparently did nothing. I even saw an account of a radio interview with David Schippers of all people on, I believe, a Pittsburgh radio station where he stated that he was made aware of a plot involving lower Manhattan about three weeks beforehand and when he went to the agencies, they ignored him. Many other reports have come forward which claim that our agencies were aware of things although it is unclear with what specificity. Recall that a State Department travel advisory was in fact issued the weekend before the attack.

You do not believe that the administration would have let something happen to provide a pretext for their desired actions? A lot of documentation has been coming forward lately suggesting that FDR was well aware that the Pearl Harbor attack was coming and "at dawn we slept." And, no, I never would have even considered any of this stuff until a couple of years ago. Now I do not know what to believe anymore so I question anything that the US government says. They simply are not honest and they have proven themselves not to be trusted. They forfeited any unconditional trust at some point after 1988.

Mr. Patton, I read your post with memories of how I "came of age" back as Nixon was leaving office. I was apolitical at the time. Then I watched the helicopters fly out of Saigon in the spring of '75. Then I watched the phoney show of Bicentennial
1976. Then came complete disillusion...

Then came the Winter Olympics in 1980. USA! USA! USA!. Then came Reagan... the man I feared to vote for (and did not) in 1980. By 1984, I had become a ideolgical conservative, voting Republican.

And I, once again fell in love with what America means... "a city on a hill."

Since then, I have seen it all, all that you describe so well in your post.

Conclusion: People make the world go round. The human heart is, for better for worse, the very nature of the notion of "generational history." Read any personal account of the second world war. Inch by inch was fought for... bled for... strived for... by individuals willing to die for whatever ideology they thought right at the time, some born of a thousand years, some born in an instant... an instant moment when one gave their life for someone standing next to them, someone they had bunked with the night before, someone they cared about in that instant the grenade fell between them.

Is it so simple? No. It is complex. As complex as is the human body. But there is order to it...

And it is for each of us to decide where we stand.

Stonewall:

Already, I know of people that ask: "If the moderate islamics are our allies in this terrorist struggle, then why don't they take care of their own laundry". Don't the folks in Saudia Arabia have some ownership and responsibility for their millionare (terrorist) son?
Perhaps they do.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-12-31 23:28 ]</font>