Comments on WTC/Pentagon attack posted to newsgroup

Immediately after the terrorist hijacking and attack on the World Trade Center buildings in New York City and on the Pentagon in Washington DC, a Usenet discussion group, uk.current-events.us-bombing, was set up. And I was an active participant in that discussion from Tuesday September 11 through Thursday September 13. I provide here a public, unedited, archive of my contribution to the discussion. Anyone wishing to see the full context of the discussion should use a full Usenet archive service such as groups.google.com.

I expect that in coming days, I will be able to write coherent essay about my ideas. Until then, anyone interested will have to wade through what is here. I should note that with a few hints of exceptions, I do not – and do not plan to write – about my emotional reaction and feelings.

For those unfamiliar with Usenet news, you may find some of the forms of messages mystifying. Additionally, you will certainly find the fact that I only list my postings which quote selective from what I am responding to odd. There is a message ID listed for what I (selectively) quote, so you can look up the full thing.

Also note that some of the material I respond to (and quote) is deeply offensive, as are some of the subject lines of some of the messages (set by other people). I hope that you will distinguish between what I say and what I am responding to.

Anyway, here is the main entry point for the archive. Also you might find it worth while to first read my final posting in the discussion. Much of what I say is repeated in different posts in different threads. But here are references to a few posts

Final Post

My final post describes my experience in the discussion, extremely briefly summarizes aspects of my positions, and explains why I stopped posting.

The need to retaliate

As I say in msg00009 about retaliation as deterrence

The difficulty is that many terrorists are suicidal, so you can't really deter them. But you can deter the governments and regimes that knowingly support and enable terrorists.

Assuming that the likely suspect is the guilty party, he and his organization could not have functioned without the support of the ruling regime in Afghanistan.

And so in at least messages, msg00008, msg00021 and msg00037 (among others) I argue that war should be made on any regime which knowingly harbored and abetted a known terrorist.

The US must not act like terrorists

I repeat this point in many many postings, two of which are msg00014, msg00034,

Opposing anti-Arab and anti-Islamic bigotry

A frightening number of messages posted to the list exhibited the worst sort of anti-Arab and anti-Islamic bigotry. I opposed that in several messages.

(You will have to find them, because I want to go to bed and stop writing this).

Opposing "moral equivalence" arguments

I posted several messages opposing people who implicitly or explicitly presented arguments suggesting that acts by the USA such as the bombing of Hiroshima, actions in Vietnam, support of Israel, destruction of Native Americans, etc make the US a terrorist state.

Among many, Eg, msg00050.

Opposing European anti-american snobbery

For example, msg00013.

Alliance, Russian and Pakistani cooperation, ABM treaty

A lot of stuff about strategy, diplomacy and the need for help from Russia and Pakistan.

One message which discusses the ABM treaty is msg00053.

Version: $Revision: 1.4 $
Last Modified: $Date: 2001/09/15 05:55:37 $ GMT
First established September 14, 2001