From: Adam Flinton 

John Beckett wrote:

> "Antti Kurenniemi" 
wrote in message
> news::
>
>>Tee hee, I always have to giggle when I see statements like that. I don't
>>think there's ever been a time in the history of mankind when you couldn't
>>have said "new rules for getting on in the world" and
"being nice won't work
>>anymore".
>
>
> Well OK. However, IMHO there really is a new phase in human development
> that has started in the last 20 years or so.
>
> Zealots have been able to delude themselves into forming armies for
> centuries. The priest says "X is good and Y is bad". Then
100,000 soldiers
> give their lives for X, while slaughtering Y.
>

Hah. Nothing has really changed. It's about economics & power.
Economics gives one power at home where one may not been keen on mil
action. E.g. Romans heading off (e.g. Caesar in Gaul) did so in part to
bring back lots of "praeda" (booty) which was then used to
accumulate power in Rome.

Equally the crusaders......took their sweet time getting to the holy land,
doing mucho looting of christian countries on the way & then the main
driver was how much moslem gold & booty the crusaders could bring back.

Equally equally your own fair country was taken not because
"aborigines are bad" but because "they've got something we
want & they can't beat us".

etc.

> Technology provides a new slant to this old story. While the western
> cultures get fat and comfortable, certain other cultures now have
> communication, transport and weapon systems that mean 1000, or 100, or
> even 10 fanatics can cause major mayhem.
>

That has been the case for ages. Usually they were called
"plotters" e.g. the "Guy Fawkes/gunpowder plot".


> For 9/11, roughly 100 people spent a year planning their own deaths in a
> way calculated to cause the maximum amount of horror for western culture.

How long do you think the invasion of itaq was in planning? How many people
were involved?

> I have no idea how to counter that sort of enthusiasm, but I really doubt
> if being nice would help.

Depends. It's all political so you need to ask "how can we politically
defeat these people?" Being nice or even living as you invite them to
live (e.g. rule of law, respect for human life etc) might help.

i.e. you might make tactically correct decisions which are strategically
disasterous. e.g the "not treating em nice" wrt Guantanamo &
Abu Ghraib etc are tactically fine.

Yup beat some to death & torture some more & you may get more info
than "treating em nice" (course whether you can rely on that info
is another story). However strategically the US descent into creating
"legal black holes for tactical advantage" are enormous strategic
errors. Now if some US person says "Human rights" to a foreign
dignatory" he is likely to hear sniggers. If the US tries to assert
some sort of "moral" case to the Arabs then once more prepare for
sniggers & as for "the rule of law".....

What those decisions "not to treat em nice" effectively said is
"AQ are right" to the Arabs & muslims in general.


> Abandoning Israel may help, but given where we
> are now, I think that concessions such as that would only increase the
> fervour of the  9/11 supporters. (BTW, I do not want to abandon Israel.)
>

This is the std line of the right. Any political dialog with the enemy is
treason & is putting lives at risk, the only answer is to kill em all
& to "shock & awe" them etc.etc.etc.

Eventually people realise they ain't going to "kill em all" &
indeed killing em/not being nice in general maybe creating more than you're
killing & possibly some of their points are quite valid etc.

Then the political talks start.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5