It's Never 10 Years.

[Student of Trinity]

I'm not sure about this, but I'm beginning to suspect that there was an alien device brought back by one of the Apollo missions. Leaked low-resolution images — or is it only my imagination? — show the lunar artifact as a large black cylinder with a coppery-colored top. In any case, I have reason to suppose that it can generate practically unlimited amounts of heat, out of nothing at all.

 

Believe it! You have to believe in it!

 

Believe in ... the Moonbattery!

[Kelandon]

Oh, I just realized that I had a more serious comment to add (in addition to my Obama = Akhenaten — who, according to another conspiracy theory, was an alien... so I guess the birthers were right after all?).

 

I heard a brief lecture from Michael Chertoff on "the law of 9/11" today. His argument was, in essence, that because of improvements in communications technology and weapons technology, individuals from virtually any part of the world can inflict grievous harm on virtually any other part of the world (e.g. a plan from a remote part of Afghanistan killing thousands of people in New York City). This is a recent development; a hundred years ago (or even fifty years ago), the communications technology was not in place to make such a remote connection possible, and (this seemed like a weaker point) weapons technology had not reached the point where individuals could do as much damage as they can now.

 

As an aside, I suppose he meant theoretical damage more than anything that has actually occurred. Individuals could build bombs decades ago — famously, the Munich Olympics in 1972 involved grenade explosions, and various other terrorist bombings took place in the 1970's (the Weathermen come to mind) — and while airplanes hadn't been used as missiles before (to my knowledge), it had been possible for quite some time. But the capacity for an individual to acquire biological weapons or a dirty bomb is far greater now than it was in, say, the 1950's. Or maybe his point was just that it's easier to do more damage now than it was in the past.

 

Either way, he pointed out that this combines with the fact that there are essentially ungoverned pockets around the world (much of Afghanistan, Somalia, etc.) where organizations can not only operate with impunity and direct these campaigns, but also experiment and recruit. Together, this means that while in previous centuries only states were a serious threat to national security (e.g. the Soviet Union could nuke us), today non-state organizations can do severe damage at a distance in a way previously impossible.

 

He then went on to say that our previous paradigms in dealing with people who harm other people have been military or criminal justice. That is, when people killed other people previously, it either war or a crime, and these were considered extremely different and handled in very different ways. But international terrorism represents a somewhat different situation, which means that the solutions have to be somewhat different than we're used to. His example of a different solution was the mission that took out Bin Laden. Bin Laden killed people as a terrorist, not so much as a criminal or a soldier. Under criminal codes, we would request extradition from the government of the area, or at worst, we'd try very hard to capture him alive. Under military procedures, we'd have to be at war with someone or other, but the only person we deliberately killed was Bin Laden himself. It doesn't sound much like a criminal justice action or a military one, because if it were, we didn't do it right, and it would've provoked a lot more outrage than it did. But then what was it, and have we ever done something like that before?

 

He went on to describe some of the things we have to decide in getting a set of rules and procedures in place (how much to borrow from criminal procedure and how much from military, basically). I'm not sure how well I've replicated the argument or how much I buy it, but the whole thing was an interesting take.

[Randomizer]

Supposedly during the Nixon years the use of commercial airplanes flying into buildings was considered a threat, but Nixon didn't believe he could get the airlines to accept the extra costs associated with preventing this. Airline hijackings did result in the metal detectors after they go too common.

[Student of Trinity]

The goal I see is for terrorism to end up treated as a crime, dealt with by global police. Probably a few other things, like piracy and globe-spanning fraud, should also be global crimes.

 

There's no particular point in a world government that would usurp all the powers of sovereign states, any more than civic zoning ought to be handled by national governments. But just as there are some powers that work best at federal rather than state or provincial level, so there are some powers that ought to be exercised by some global body, and dealing with global crimes would seem to be one of them. This will need a level of world government that will take a while to achieve, but that's a political goal that can probably be attained over the next century or two.

 

This is a scenario where even the poorest countries somehow become rich enough that their relation to the global power is more like that of West Virginia to Washington D.C. that that of Afghanistan to the Security Council. It also envisions the emergence of a single human meta-culture, with enough shared basic values that the global law is accepted by everyone. So there are big economic and cultural jobs to be done, too. But global industrialization and the internet are already moving that way a bit. Another century or two might be enough.

 

The alternative in which rich countries bunker themselves against the barbarians is probably at least as feasible, but I'm pretty sure it would be a worse option even just for the rich countries. So in the meantime I think the best option for dealing with problems like terrorism, that exploit cracks between jurisdictions, is to improvise in ways that tend towards the open world with global metaculture, rather than bunker states. Even brief nods to the UN, or token participations by small local states in multinational coalitions, may be worthwhile for their long-term implications.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

This is a scenario where even the poorest countries somehow become rich enough that their relation to the global power is more like that of West Virginia to Washington D.C. that that of Afghanistan to the Security Council. It also envisions the emergence of a single human meta-culture, with enough shared basic values that the global law is accepted by everyone. So there are big economic and cultural jobs to be done, too.

if those jobs were done there'd be a great deal less terrorism to worry about in the first place

[ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

I'm not sure about this, but I'm beginning to suspect that there was an alien device brought back by one of the Apollo missions. Leaked low-resolution images — or is it only my imagination? — show the lunar artifact as a large black cylinder with a coppery-colored top. In any case, I have reason to suppose that it can generate practically unlimited amounts of heat, out of nothing at all.

Believe it! You have to believe in it!

Believe in ... the Moonbattery!

it was tall shaped a bit like a candy bar. they are calling it the Monolith

[Kelandon]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

The alternative in which rich countries bunker themselves against the barbarians is probably at least as feasible, but I'm pretty sure it would be a worse option even just for the rich countries. So in the meantime I think the best option for dealing with problems like terrorism, that exploit cracks between jurisdictions, is to improvise in ways that tend towards the open world with global metaculture, rather than bunker states. Even brief nods to the UN, or token participations by small local states in multinational coalitions, may be worthwhile for their long-term implications.

I agree about the general goal, although I don't know (literally — I am not informed enough on the subject) about the methods. Consider the example of the strike on Osama bin Laden, as above. There had been an arrest warrant from Interpol since 1998, I guess, but no move was made to involve Interpol or any sort of international organization. No token participation by the local state was attempted. Yet it was probably done in exactly the right way: we had actionable intelligence, couldn't wait for the (slow) international process to work, and couldn't really trust the local authorities, so we just went it alone. In war, this is a terrible policy, but in a surgical counterterrorist strike, it seemed necessary.

Or is there even an international process? I guess I'll know more about this in a couple of years, but my understanding from quick Googling is that all that international organizations can do is force sovereign powers to communicate. They can't actually take action themselves.

I guess the solution might be to reform Interpol (or some part of the UN) substantially to give it better ability to handle situations like these, but is that feasible? Alternatively, should we have involved the Pakistani government? That seems deeply dangerous, and the fact that someone as committed to international law as Obama (see: Libya) didn't is probably an indication that it was simply not a good idea, but maybe he was wrong.

What about the drone strikes on major Al Qaeda leaders? Is that different or the same?

I guess the crucial issue here is not really trusting the local Pakistani authorities, because if this were, say, Britain, there would not have been a problem working with them. There are ungoverned regions, and then there are governments that are corrupt, ineffective, not committed to international law and order (*cough* maybe us for a little while, honestly), or whatever. The former are obviously a problem, but maybe the latter are an even bigger (or just very different) problem.

[Randomizer]

Interpol only works when the person is in a country where the police will help capture the person. bin Laden was in an area where the Pakistan government had little control.

[ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε]

there is a small area where the pakistan government has little control. we call it pakistan

[Kelandon]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

Interpol only works when the person is in a country where the police will help capture the person. bin Laden was in an area where the Pakistan government had little control.

Uh, he was in a suburb next to the equivalent of West Point. I think that the government had reasonable control over that area. (Well, to the extent that Darth Ernie isn't just right in the first place, I suppose.)

Maybe you mean earlier, when he was in the mountains (or Afghanistan). But I'm talking about when he actually died.

EDIT: Oh, and a lecturer I heard today made an interesting point. This idea that is sometimes propagated, that terrorism is somehow newly a part of American life, is not only wrong — one successful attack does not make for a lifestyle — but also offensive to at least a good percentage of the older African-American population who can still remember the lynchings of the 1950's and 1960's.

[Alorael at Large]

Bin Laden was likely in a country where the police could not be relied upon to catch the person. Pakistan has some political problems, yes.

 

Terrorism isn't a new part of American life, but fear of foreign terrorism producing mass death is. And American life was unarguably changed post-9/11, although not nearly as much as seemed possible in the immediate aftermath.

 

—Alorael, who thinks what's necessary is a way to unilaterally declare war on a non-sovereign entity. America didn't really want to invade Afghanistan, it wanted to invade Al-Qaeda. Afghanistan was in the way.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

Quote:

it was tall shaped a bit like a candy bar. they are calling it the Moonolith

FYT.

[Trenton.]

The eleventh aniversery passed 3 days ago. Watched FLIGHT 93 as a treat, a movie about the people who fought back against the terrorists and made sure that the plane never reached it's destination. Possibly the white house. Possibly the washington monument. never really understood why it happened. What reason did bin laden have to launch terrorist attacks on the US?

 

 

Pray for the people of flight 93, who had the courage to fight the terrorists. Even if it meant their lives.

 

 

 

Which is why I should say, we should also have atleast 2 extra pilots on every plane. If something happens to the first pilots, then instant death wouldn't have been a option for people on flight 93. Or future flights.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Captain Trenton..

The eleventh anniversary passed 3 days ago. Watched FLIGHT 93 as a treat, a movie about the people who fought back against the terrorists and made sure that the plane never reached it's destination. Possibly the white house. Possibly the Washington monument. never really understood why it happened. What reason did bin laden have to launch terrorist attacks on the US?

From my understanding, his original beef with the US stemmed from our putting military bases in Saudi Arabia per their government's request during the First Gulf War back under H.W. Bush. These bases, being filled with things like women not covering their faces and people worshiping other religions and other such ideas offensive to fundamentalist Muslims in the holiest place of Islam irked more than a few people, and bin Laden happened to be the person with the resources (he was multimillionaire), the drive, and the fanaticism to extract revenge for the perceived slight in spectacular fashion.

[Harehunter]

I don't disagree with your summary of why Bin Laden chose to take that action. But even though he felt justified by the tenets of his faith, it does absolve him of the mass murder of thousands of people who had committed no transgression against him or his people. As for those who aided and abetted his crime, they are equally culpable.

 

The latest uprisings in the middle east, supposedly over a movie that denigrates the Prophet Mohammed, have been ignited by ... whom? Did they murder the U.S. ambassador to Libya in the name of some secular leader? Or was it a religious leader? This is why I am so against the form of totalitarianism which calls itself a theocracy. I strongly believe in the freedom to believe or not believe according to one's own conscience and decision. But the government of the people must not be placed in the hands of a small clique of people, religious leaders or secular, who answer only to themselves.

 

And don't get me wrong, when I am talking about theocracies, I do not exclude the Holy Roman Empire, or the Church of England. Government of the church, by the church, for the church to the exclusion of all other churches, denies the people of their basic liberty to choose for themselves.

 

As I see it, the greatest danger of a theocracy is that, unlike a secular dictatorship, it reaches into the core fibers of our emotional selves. It motivates from within more than from brute force. It gives people a justification for those acts they would otherwise reject as criminal. Those 11 men, plus the one who was prevented from joining them, all believed that what they were doing was holy and right. They believed that they would be rewarded for their sacrifice. I tend to disagree with their belief.

[Alorael at Large]

I'll agree that theocracy is bad, but you're a little off. The mob assaulted the consulate in Benghazi in the name of religion, not any particular leader, as far as we know. Libya was definitely not a theocracy under Gaddafi, and its current leading coalition is moderate and pro-democracy over Islam.

 

Then there's history. The Holy Roman Empire was not holy, not Roman, and not much of an Empire. It was somewhere between an empire and a federation of (mostly) German states. Although they exercised a fair amount of autonomy, its titular head was an emperor or king who was crowned by the pope as a formality. An odd institution, all in all, but not a theocracy.

 

And England wasn't a theocracy either. The Church of England was created to separate from the Catholic church, and although there was serious, deadly sectarian squabbling, the country was never ruled by religious figures except inasmuch as the kings claimed rulership over the Church of England. They didn't, as far as I know, do anything much with that; they certainly weren't frequent meddlers in matters of doctrine.

 

—Alorael, who thinks the real point you're making isn't about theocracy but about fanaticism. Belief that you are right and no one else can be opens the door to errors and atrocities. Religion is probably the most frequent creator of the kind of zealot who does these things, but it's not alone. Consider some non-religious ideologies that have inspired insane acts by dedicated people: anarchism, communism, Nazism, fascism. Even republicanism lead to disaster in revolution-era France.

[Harehunter]

True, Gaddafi was a dictator, but not on religious authority. His ouster is potentially a good thing. The question in my mind remains; will the people of Libya form a truly democratic society, or will the process be usurped by a religious authority as happened in Iran when the Shah was deposed? That the motivation for this past weeks unrest is religiously inspired troubles me.

 

I have been re-hashing my previous post the past couple of days, and I was intending to retract my thoughts re the Church of England. The Archbishop of Canterbury did not wield the power that the imams in Iran do. However as you pointed out, there were the Acts of Supremacy enacted by Parliament that made King the Supreme Head of the Church of England. While this authority by itself was not bad, it did open the door for King James to persecute those who believed that the Church of England had become corrupted and wished to be separate from it.

 

 

It was this abuse of power the Constitutional Congress wished to prevent. This is the basis of the "Separation of Church and State". It does not forbid the free practice of religion by our leaders. It just forbids Congress from enacting laws that elevate one religion over all others.

 

If the people of this country were to elect a Jew, I would thoroughly expect them to celebrate Seder as one off my co-workers is doing this week. If a Muslim were elected, I would expect them to celebrate their holy days such as Ramadan. ( I do not intend to slight other religions by omission. I just don't know them well enough to refer to them.)< And I do not object to those who hold the belief that there is no God. This is their liberty as well.>

 

Re. The HRE, I definitely need to brush up on my history. I believe I have become confused with other abuses of religious authority, e.g. the Spanish Inquisition, which of course had nothing to do with the HRE. I thank you for your admonition, and for your understanding of my meaning, even though I used the wrong historical reference.

 

And, once again, your summation of my previous rant is succinct and directly to the point. Zealotry, whatever its form or basis, is something to be on guard against. Even though none of us here subscribes to it, to the best of my knowledge, that does not mean that it does not exist elsewhere or that we are immune to its effects.

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

If the people of this country were to elect a Jew, I would thoroughly expect them to celebrate Seder as one off my co-workers is doing this week.

Isn't this the wrong time of year for that?

[Harehunter]

My bad, it is Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year.

And Yom Kippur happens later this month.

 

Now please excuse me while I remove my paw from my mouth.

[Alorael at Large]

Poverty, ignorance, and fanaticism have a history of going hand in hand. Libya has had plenty of all three, but it's important to note the difference between a mob's actions and the beliefs of the population. The Libyan government has apologized, as have many of the Libyan people. The transitional government has made Islam the state religion, yes, but they also promise liberal democracy with moderate Islam, and the new constitution guarantees freedom of religion. We'll see where this all goes when the transitional government transitions next year, but the signs aren't bad.

 

Yom Kippur is always nine days after Rosh Hashanah, and the two are together known as the High Holy Days or the Days of Awe. The first ten days of the year are the Days of Repentance with the two holidays bookending: the first a celebration of the new year, and the second a more somber apology for the last year's failures and transgressions. To God, but also very importantly to those who were wronged.

 

While I wouldn't exactly call myself exactly faithful, the ritual of acknowledging failure and wrongdoing and asking for forgiveness is one I like.

 

—Alorael, who wishes everyone celebrating the holiday happy celebration. L'shanah tovah tikatevu. May you be written a good year, whether or not you're celebrating.

[Harehunter]

Amen.

[Erebus the Black]

Originally Posted By: Step 1: Profit

Yom Kippur is always nine days after Rosh Hashanah, and the two are together known as the High Holy Days or the Days of Awe. The first ten days of the year are the Days of Repentance with the two holidays bookending: the first a celebration of the new year, and the second a more somber apology for the last year's failures and transgressions. To God, but also very importantly to those who were wronged.

While I wouldn't exactly call myself exactly faithful, the ritual of acknowledging failure and wrongdoing and asking for forgiveness is one I like.

—Alorael, who wishes everyone celebrating the holiday happy celebration. L'shanah tovah tikatevu. May you be written a good year, whether or not you're celebrating.

As it is now Yom Kipur, and even though I'm not religiously Jewish, I do fast and I still find the yom kipur tradition of making amends with anyone one has angered, a very worthy and right one.

As such I would like to send my sincerest apologies to anyone whom I slighted or offended on theses boards, I know I might come off at times as very inflammatory and somehow, even against my best of efforts to the contrary at some times, cause anger or anguish. I might not fit in these boards, and I might not fit in this world or lifetime, and yet you still put up with me and refrained from banning me.
So again I hope you will accept this apology of mine for any kind of negative feeling I may have caused you.
Happy Jewish New Year, have an easy fast ( or if you prefer, an effective fast) and Gmar Hatima Tova.

[Harehunter]

@M.L.

While I have never taken offense by anything you have said, I must admit that I, too, have often been the spark that ignites fiery discussions. I feel compelled to follow your example.

 

To anyone that I may have offended by my remarks, I beg your forgiveness. While I have tried to present the frustration that is felt by the more conservative side of the house, I have only meant to open the dialog so that we may come to understand each other better. Through such understanding, I believe, we begin a process in which we can work together and become part of the solution instead the source of the problem. I know that I have earned much from you since I arrived.

 

Again, I extend my apologies to the good people I have met on these fora for any hurt I may have caused.

 

Pax vobiscum.

[Alorael at Large]

And I ask forgiveness of anyone I have offended or wronged as well.

 

—Alorael, who also isn't very religious. But he does get benefit out of the annual reminder to stop being proud and/or lazy and mend relationships. Blanket apologies are worth very little, actually, but specific apologies when you know you have done harm, intentionally or not, go a long way. Fun fact: many people will apologize back to you, sincerely, if you apologize for your faults.

[Dantius]

And if, perchance, I have offended;

Think but this, and all is mended:

That you have but spamméd here

Whilst my postings did appear.