<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content="MSHTML 5.00.2722.2800" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A href="mailto:lweiger@umich.edu" title=lweiger@umich.edu>Luke Weiger</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A href="mailto:lbo-talk@lists.panix.com" title=lbo-talk@lists.panix.com>lbo-talk@lists.panix.com</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:38 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: weird Hitchens comments on Israel</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Justin wrote:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>>More murderous = murders more people. Don't be obtuse.</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>To me, "murderous" connotes an element of malice.  There's no denying that the number of casualties directly attributable to US foreign policy far exceeds anything Al Qaeda could have reasonably hoped to reach.  However, I don't think that provides grounds enough for proclaiming that the US must not employ military action of any sort in their attempts to minimize the threat posed by Al Qaeda.    </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> BUT you have to make the case that is indeed what the US has done.  You also have to make the case that military action was the only and best solution to the problem. You also have to factor in the death of 5,000 or so innocent people and the destruction of a poor country. Did all of this justify military action to minimize the threat?  And to turn your question around, we know who the worlds leading terrorists state is by far.  Is Al Qaeda or any other group you want to name within their rights to employ military action in order to minimize the threat posed by the US?  If not, why not?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Did not the Taliban offer to turn Bin Laden over if the US would provide evidence of his guilt?  What was the US response to this?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV>>I didn't know, but I might have surmised. Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Not quite my view.  Before the war in Afghanistan, I thought doing nothing might well be the best course of action (perhaps I'll end up believing that again in retrospect).  Explain to me just how a police investigation would've incapacitated one of the world's largest international terrorist organizations?</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But your question assumes that one of the worlds largest international terrorist organizations has indeed been incapacitated.  It hasn't, nor will it be by dropping bombs.  This is a myth. The opposite is the case.  The grounds that fanatics can use in order to bring in new members to their cause will be fostered and grow because of US actions.  That doesn't change regardless of the existence of Al Qaeda.  There are root causes why people turn too groups like Al Qaeda. Until those causes are dealt with in a just and equitable way by the imperial power, then you can count on more of the same for years to come.-Tony</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-- Luke</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>