From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #352 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, September 14 2001 Volume 10 : Number 352 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: hey rube ["Thomas, Ferris" ] Holy War Coming Soon [steve ] RE: hey rube [Capuchin ] RE: hey rube ["Thomas, Ferris" ] i can see through your masks [Ken Ostrander ] RE: hey rube [Viv Lyon ] RE: hey rube [dmw ] bombing afghanistan ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] RE: hey rube ["Poole, R. Edward" ] RE: Another long rant. ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: Holy War Coming Soon [Eclipse ] telepathymaniax ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] RE: bombing afghanistan ["Poole, R. Edward" ] Re: telepathymaniax [The Great Quail ] World War III ["Walker, Charles" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 17:08:35 -0400 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: RE: hey rube Queried Viv Lyon: > So if I go over to my friend Jeff's house, and Rex > happens to be there > (he is a long-time tree-sitter and forest activist), and Rex > I chat for > awhile, then guess what? I'm associating with someone the government > suspects of being allied with a terrorist organization. He doesn't, of > course, but the FBI assume that all forest activists are > involved with the > Earth Liberation Front. Does that therefore make me a suspicious > character, worthy of investigation? Does the ELF guide planes into skyscrapers? There's a difference. > my family's been known to > go to anti-abortion rallies. Have they been associating with > terrorists? If the parties they associate with assassinate doctors or bomb clinics, then I would say yes. > So you see that people who (and I guess you'll have to take > my word that I > and my family are pacifistic) have never engaged in terrorism > nor plotted > to or assisted those planning such things could easily fall > under the most > unwelcome and unfair scrutiny. Under suspicion, yes, I would think. When the stakes are set as high as they were in New York you can't be too careful in who you place above suspicion. While I'm not saying that you or your family do (or ever would,) the simply act of casting yourself as a pacifist doesn't grant carte blanche to aide or abet terrorists. It would be akin to a church not turning over a bomber who's asked asylum. Once the acts the person's carried out have come to light it's the harboring party's responsibility to turn them over. End of story. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:14:39 -0500 From: steve Subject: Holy War Coming Soon Well, looks like the National Cathedral shindig ended up with a rousing version of The Battle Hymn Of The Republic, prompting me to repost this thing I got on another list. - - Steve Statement on September 11 Terrorism Acts of Terrorism the Ultimate "Faith-Based Initiative"? September 13, 2001 This statement was released by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison, Wis.-based national association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics) working to protect the constitutional separation of church and state since 1978. Representing our national membership of freethinkers, as well as the 18.5% of U.S. citizens who are not religious, we join in the national mourning over the events on September 11, a horrible and senseless human tragedy. However, Bush's proclamation of Friday, September 14 as a "National Day of Prayer and Remembrance" shows the pitfalls of the "God is on our side" mentality, and the dangers of religious patriotism. While it may be natural for religious persons to turn to religion or prayer for solace, it is not the role of the President of the United States, or his spokespersons, to urge citizens to pray, to go to church, to turn to faith, or to observe a National Day of Prayer with worship. In fact, it appears that the terrorist disasters of September 11 may well have been the ultimate "faith-based initiative." These terrorists apparently expected to find a reward "in heaven" and were bent on starting a "holy war" with our nation. Our country should not fall into the trap of religious terrorists: Holy wars don't have solutions, they just have body counts. Religion is not the answer, it is probably the problem. As Pascal put it: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." Prayer had its chance on September 11, and it failed. Imagine the unanswered prayers of hundreds or thousands of the victims of these terrorists. Official prayer will not solve any problems. We believe it is appropriate for President Bush to call for a Day of Remembrance, but leave prayer up to individuals. Civil War Col. Robert G. Ingersoll reminds us: "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." The nonreligious are among the victims and their families, and are represented in the ranks of the heroes, the firefighters and police officers risking or giving their lives to save others. It is offensive that the President of all Americans disregards the convictions, even the existence, of the more than 10% of the population that is not religious. The "God is on our side" mentality was responsible for these tragic acts of terrorism. We must not compound the dangers by a "One Nation Under God" response. __________ HALTON, England  President Bush said Thursday he is having a hard time selling a missile defense plan to skeptical allies in Europe because he has only "vague notions" about what it would entail. - Ron Fournier, AP, 07/19/01 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:20:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: hey rube On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Thomas, Ferris wrote: > > Violence begets the like until someone says enough and STOPS. > > This is true. However I don't think you would soon see religious > fanatics throw up their arms and say, "all right, you've got us. > We'll stop." Right. Which leaves whom responsible for doing so? Us. > Pacifism is a nice ideal. It's also one that's entirely inappropriate > under the circumstances. Any sign of retaliatory weakness on our part > will only open the floodgates to the responsible parties. There are no "floodgates" to be opened. If we back off on our oppressive foreign policies, cease are irrational support of Israeli racism, and generally pull our occupational forces out of the Middle East (making sure the Israeli's are disarmed, like the Iraqis were), we're not MORE succeptible to attack from outside. We're not talking about a nation with borders and an infrastructure and symbolic targets. We're talking about people who share a belief system. You cannot fight terrorists by attrition (and I'm going on the unfounded assumption that we're talking about terrorists and that those terrorists are from the Middle East). They are decentralized. They use the infrastructure of otherwise innocent nations. They have already accepted their own losses. I just cannot imagine what you you're talking about when you say "open the floodgates". > The ability to orchestrate and carry out any attack on a perceived > enemy without fear of reprisal is a powerful motivator. THEY DON'T FEAR REPRISAL. Don't you understand that? We're talking about SUICIDE BOMBERS. These people believe that dying while fighting the enemy of God is WONDERFUL. And you do not kill an IDEA by killing all the people that believe in it. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 17:21:49 -0400 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: RE: hey rube > THEY DON'T FEAR REPRISAL. Don't you understand that? We're > talking about > SUICIDE BOMBERS. These people believe that dying while > fighting the enemy > of God is WONDERFUL. It's a difficult conundrum, no doubt. What's left to do then? I don't think that pulling out of Israel is an option. The problem is that you've got three of the world's most powerful religions (Muslim, Jew, and Christian) vying for, essentially, a city. What's the answer, then? Take control of Jerusalem and make it a UN territory? If ownership of the Holy Sites were taken from the equation it may solve a few problems. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 17:31:09 -0400 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: i can see through your masks >Eddie, Drew, and Ken -- *really.* The very fact that you even >entertain the notion that the attack was US sponsored speaks far more >from your loathing of the US than it does from any sense of logical >reasoning. Eddie, you especially know the US is a capitalist state -- >why take out her own financial district? Jesus, any number of other >civilian targets could have enraged Americans and yet not harmed us >financially! i don't loath the united states. quite the contrary. what i hate is the way that big money can drive not only foreign and domestic policy; but our very culture. it will come as no suprise to anyone that many are licking their lips in anticipation of the chance to bomb the shit out of those troublesome folk in the middle east ("stabilize the region"), deflate the building protest movement ("pinko commie ingrates"), distract the american populace ("nothing to see here"), and make some serious cake in the process ("boo-yah!). my opinion of the military industrial complex is such that i wouldn't put it past them to let something like this happen for these and other reasons. i'm reminded of george c scott in 'dr. strangelove' when he tells the president, "i'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." we have a great tradition in this country of letting people die for lousy reasons. US sponsored, when you consider how many individuals there are that fall under the auspices of our national umbrella, could mean a lot of different things; but there are more factors involved than simply the financial district. besides, there were a lot of other offices in the world trade center. and i don't think that we've been all that harmed financially. war is the biggest business there is. 9/29 tell bush: no to racism and war: http://www.iacenter.org/ > The right to association: You bet. Associating with known terrorist faction > members or their allies should cast you into suspicion. The Brits have been > doing it for years with the Antiterrrorism act and I don't have much of a > problem with it. uh oh...you're associating with us. > I, for one, would willing to forgo some civil liberties in exchange for > heightened national and local security against any such attacks. guess what? you don't have a choice. >Take a second to look at the supporting cabinet. We're paired right now >with probably the most competant Vice President and Secretary of State the >country's had in the past fifty years. yeah...they're good at what they do...obfuscate and obliterate. speaking of which: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28620-2001Sep14.html ken "come you masters of war" the kenster np look into the eyeball ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:32:29 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: RE: hey rube On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Thomas, Ferris wrote: > Does the ELF guide planes into skyscrapers? There's a difference. That's not quite the point. > > my family's been known to > go to anti-abortion rallies. Have they > been associating with > terrorists? > > If the parties they associate with assassinate doctors or bomb clinics, then > I would say yes. By which I meant to say that: Does attending a rally in which there are likely to be "terrorists" (ie: people who are, or people who are accused of being such) make a person de facto suspicious? I gather you think it does. I am very afraid of this sentiment. It bodes much ill for anyone who would like to hold or participate in a legitmate rally, march, protest or demonstration. > Under suspicion, yes, I would think. When the stakes are set as high as > they were in New York you can't be too careful in who you place above > suspicion. You know, you'll hum a different tune when it's you who find you've got a friend with an unpopular opinion. > While I'm not saying that you or your family do (or ever would,) the simply > act of casting yourself as a pacifist doesn't grant carte blanche to aide or > abet terrorists. What about talking to them? Should that also be verbotten, according to you? Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 17:40:23 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: RE: hey rube On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Thomas, Ferris wrote: > abet terrorists. It would be akin to a church not turning over a bomber > who's asked asylum. Once the acts the person's carried out have come to > light it's the harboring party's responsibility to turn them over. End of > story. i thought it was all supposed to stay between the confessor, the confessee and the deity, no? i mean, i'm partly being flip, but i'm partly not. the right to free association strikes me as pretty important. i think it's ALREADY the case that if you associate with somebody on an FBI watch list, you're likely to earn an FBI file of your own, and possibly a place on a watch list yourself, depending on the nature of the association -- if it's your hairdresser who turns out to be a terrorist, and all he/she did was cut your hair, i think you're unlikely to be arrested. -- they can be literal minded at times, occupational paranoia may sometimes suggest connections that aren't actually valid, and you may disagree ideologically -- but i don't think a whole lot of FBI agents are really all that dumb. or inhuman. (operation sundevil aside...) On the other hand, it seems vital to me that people be *allowed* to assoicate with "suspicious" or "dangerous" people (and ideas!) ... without regard to the legal suspicion they may accrue as a result. - -- d. np edith frost _wonder wonder_ - ------------------------------------------------- Mayo-Wells Media Workshop dmw@ http://www.mwmw.com mwmw.com Web Development * Multimedia Consulting * Hosting ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:47:03 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: bombing afghanistan >From: "Thomas, Ferris" > >The below is from Jewish World Review Sept. 12, 2001 / 23 Elul, 5761, >writeen by Greg Crosby > >- --- > >Plan of action (excerpt) > >. . . >What Should We Do? > > 1. Right Away: Once we are sure who committed these hateful attacks, > we need to take them out. Period. If indeed it is bin Laden, then > we should bomb the living hell out of Afghanistan, the country > which has been harboring this bum. We need to wipe out not only > bin Laden, but his followers, his friends, his arsenal, his cow, > his home, his sandals, his comic book collection -- everything. > It's time to send a message, folks. And the message better be > loud. What was done to America today is unacceptable. http://www.livejournal.com/talkpost.bml?itemid=10676643 Drew - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 17:47:48 -0400 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: RE: hey rube Jeme, ever the "rational thinker," and (according to some of you), the unfairly flamed stalwart of reasonable debate, recently spewed forth: >cease are [sic] irrational support of Israeli racism . . . [snip!] I was waiting for this, dreading it, and hoping you wouldn't go there. But, of course, you were bound to at some point. Whomever is keeping score, please mark down a point for Jeme in the inflammatory rhetoric box. Do you really believe this? The whole Zionism = racism bit is such a load of crap, and Cold War era doggerel at that, that it wearies me just to respond. But, I feel I have to since it is, unfortunately, timely again. First, Zionism is NOT a racist doctrine, nor is it concerned with race in any way. To believe that Jews have a right to a homeland does not, of itself, have anything to do with race. After all, "Jewish" is NOT a racial classification. And the belief that Jews have a right to a sovereign state in Palestine has nothing at all to do with the racial/ethnic/religious orientation of the other occupants of that territory. Second, racism is the irrational hatred or discrimination directed towards the members of a different race, for the sole reason that they are members of that race. Israelis that hate Palestinian Arabs (and there are a few of those, I'll grant you), do NOT hate them because they are Arab or because they are Muslim. They hate them because they are a threat to their lives, their security, their sovereignty. Third, to paint with the broad brush as you do is to suggest that ALL Israelis hate/discriminate against the Palestinian Arabs. This is decidedly NOT the case. Arabs and Jews work together and live together (though the last 9 months have sorely tried the strongest of such relationships). Last, the foregoing is NOT an apologia for everything Israel has done -- particularly since Sharon came into power, they have deliberately provoked the Palestinian Authority (for example, by creating new settlements where they had promised not to). I'm not going to debate the 1967 War. BUT, the Israelis DID commit to the peace process and they DID grant remarkable concessions including, but not limited to territorial concessions in the Golan. The response? The Palestinian Authority refused to negotiate from its original demands (complete territorial roll-back to pre-1967 borders, complete control of Jerusalem as capitol of the Palestianian state) and, in general, has shown a remarkable willingness to break each and every promise they made during the peace process. In such a climate, is fear/hatred of Palestinian Arabs understandable? You bet. There's nothing racist with hating someone for a GOOD REASON -- even if in your pie in the sky world no one would hate anyone (I'd be glad to live there, but I don't see it on the horizon). I swear Jeme, you just seem intent on taking up every one of the most offensive positions and stating them in the most inflammatory manner possible. (For those of you who agree with Jeme's opinions, can we not agree that he some times states them in such a tactless or offensive way that you might understand the negative reaction he gets?) tiredly, - -ed ============================================================================This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@dsmo.com Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP http://www.legalinnovators.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 17:53:33 -0400 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: RE: Another long rant. >James: >Perhaps I'm terminally naive in the following, and I never thought I'd hear >myself say this, but one person who could seriously help the US right now >is Louis Farrakhan. If he spoke out, representing the US's Moslem >population, and said loud and clear for the world to hear that (as is true) >the killing of innocent people is a heinous sin against Allah, and whoever >did this will have to answer to His mightly vengeance, then it would >probably do as much good to the US as any number of bombing raids on the >Afghan desert. The Nation of Islam is not affiliated with tradditional Islamic groups, not even a tiny bit as far as I know. Max _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:00:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Eclipse Subject: Re: Holy War Coming Soon On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, steve wrote: > Well, looks like the National Cathedral shindig ended up with a rousing > version of The Battle Hymn Of The Republic, prompting me to repost this > thing I got on another list. (inanity snipped) blah blah blah.. (before i say anything, let me say that this isn't directed against you personally in any way, steve :>) i'm not religious (raised lutheran, then i got away) and i hate the idea of the commingling church+state as much as the next liberal, but it really irks me to see organizations like this take this opportunity to get up on their soapbox. c'mon, people, this isn't about you and your pet peeves; this is (imo) about feelings that should go beyond race or creed or sexulity - feelings about being an American. things like pride, strength, solidarity, and compassion, things that are being summoned from all Americans right now in the face of this horror. if you don't want to pray today, fine. take a few moments to reflect on your feelings or to feel compassion for those who are suffering - but don't use this event to get preachy about your own agendas. to me, that comes off as insufferably rude and inconsiderate. peacefully, Eclipse - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Eclipse | eclipse@best.com If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations. "i guess one person can make a difference - but most of the time, they probably shouldn't." - Marge Simpson > > > - Steve > > > Statement on September 11 Terrorism > > Acts of Terrorism the Ultimate "Faith-Based > Initiative"? > > September 13, 2001 > > This statement was released by the Freedom > From Religion Foundation, a Madison, Wis.-based > national association of freethinkers (atheists > and agnostics) working to protect the > constitutional separation of church and > state since 1978. > > Representing our national membership of > freethinkers, as well as the 18.5% of U.S. > citizens who are not religious, we join in > the national mourning over the events on > September 11, a horrible and senseless > human tragedy. > > However, Bush's proclamation of Friday, > September 14 as a "National Day of Prayer > and Remembrance" shows the pitfalls of the > "God is on our side" mentality, and the > dangers of religious patriotism. > > While it may be natural for religious persons > to turn to religion or prayer for solace, it > is not the role of the President of the United > States, or his spokespersons, to urge citizens > to pray, to go to church, to turn to faith, > or to observe a National Day of Prayer with > worship. > > In fact, it appears that the terrorist disasters > of September 11 may well have been the ultimate > "faith-based initiative." These terrorists > apparently expected to find a reward "in heaven" > and were bent on starting a "holy war" with our > nation. > > Our country should not fall into the trap of > religious terrorists: Holy wars don't have > solutions, they just have body counts. > > Religion is not the answer, it is probably the > problem. As Pascal put it: "Men never do evil > so completely and cheerfully as when they do > it from religious conviction." > > Prayer had its chance on September 11, and it > failed. Imagine the unanswered prayers of > hundreds or thousands of the victims of these > terrorists. Official prayer will not solve any > problems. > > We believe it is appropriate for President Bush > to call for a Day of Remembrance, but leave > prayer up to individuals. Civil War Col. Robert > G. Ingersoll reminds us: "The hands that help > are better far than lips that pray." > > The nonreligious are among the victims and their > families, and are represented in the ranks of > the heroes, the firefighters and police officers > risking or giving their lives to save others. It > is offensive that the President of all Americans > disregards the convictions, even the existence, > of the more than 10% of the population that is > not religious. > > The "God is on our side" mentality was responsible > for these tragic acts of terrorism. We must not > compound the dangers by a "One Nation Under God" > response. > > > __________ > HALTON, England  President Bush said Thursday he is having a hard time > selling a missile defense plan to skeptical allies in Europe because he > has only "vague notions" about what it would entail. - Ron Fournier, AP, > 07/19/01 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:00:45 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: telepathymaniax >From: The Great Quail > >Eddie, Drew, and Ken -- *really.* The very fact that you even >entertain the notion that the attack was US sponsored speaks far more >from your loathing of the US than it does from any sense of logical >reasoning. You don't know what you're talking about. *Really.* I mean, you may know more than I do about political science and history, but to completely ignore what I wrote about my state of mind and preach about my nonexistent "loathing of the US" is just rude and ignorant. By all means poke holes in the hypothesis, but don't sit there and schoolmarm me for even bringing it up. Jesus Christ. >From: "Thomas, Ferris" > >In times of disaster like this it's heard that we need to rally and support >one another. Put petty (partisan) grumblings aside, pitch in and help. >Perhaps using terms like "baffled" and "goofy child-President" is better >kept for another time. The belief that he's a moron isn't all that partisan, I think is the point. And the worry that in this time of crisis a moron may not do what is best for his country is not a petty one. Drew - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:09:51 -0400 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: RE: bombing afghanistan http://www.livejournal.com/talkpost.bml?itemid=10676643 that's a powerful and sobering piece, and I encourage everyone to read it. ============================================================================This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@dsmo.com Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP http://www.legalinnovators.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:15:44 -0700 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: telepathymaniax >*Really.* I mean, you may know more than I do about political science >and history, but to completely ignore what I wrote about my state of mind >and preach about my nonexistent "loathing of the US" is just rude and >ignorant. Drew, you are right; I did apply "loathing of the US" to you and you have never done anything to merit such a comment. Your state of mind and associations are different from those offered by some of the other Fegs speculating upon this. And I sent this out *before* I read what you had written to Chris, where you revealed your state of mind. >By all means poke holes in the hypothesis, but don't sit there and schoolmarm >me for even bringing it up. Jesus Christ. "School marm?" Hm. I would hate to project that tone; I am sorry. - --Q ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:45:39 -0700 From: "Walker, Charles" Subject: World War III Something I found on my journies thru cyberdom.... World War III By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN JERUSALEM -- As I restlessly lay awake early yesterday, with CNN on my TV and dawn breaking over the holy places of Jerusalem, my ear somehow latched onto a statement made by the U.S. transportation secretary, Norman Mineta, about the new precautions that would be put in place at U.S. airports in the wake of Tuesday's unspeakable terrorist attacks: There will be no more curbside check-in, he said. I suddenly imagined a group of terrorists somewhere here in the Middle East, sipping coffee, also watching CNN and laughing hysterically: "Hey boss, did you hear that? We just blew up Wall Street and the Pentagon and their response is no more curbside check-in?" I don't mean to criticize Mr. Mineta. He is doing what he can. And I have absolutely no doubt that the Bush team, when it identifies the perpetrators, will make them pay dearly. Yet there was something so absurdly futile and American about the curbside ban that I couldn't help but wonder: Does my country really understand that this is World War III? And if this attack was the Pearl Harbor of World War III, it means there is a long, long war ahead. And this Third World War does not pit us against another superpower. It pits us - the world's only superpower and quintessential symbol of liberal, free-market, Western values - against all the super-empowered angry men and women out there. Many of these super-empowered angry people hail from failing states in the Muslim and third world. They do not share our values, they resent America's influence over their lives, politics and children, not to mention our support for Israel, and they often blame America for the failure of their societies to master modernity. What makes them super-empowered, though, is their genius at using the networked world, the Internet and the very high technology they hate to attack us. Think about it: They turned our most advanced civilian planes into human-directed, precision-guided cruise missiles - a diabolical melding of their fanaticism and our technology. Jihad Online. And think of what they hit: The World Trade Center - the beacon of American-led capitalism that both tempts and repels them, and the Pentagon, the embodiment of American military superiority. And think about what places in Israel the Palestinian suicide bombers have targeted most. "They never hit synagogues or settlements or Israeli religious zealots," said the Haaretz columnist Ari Shavit. "They hit the Sbarro pizza parlor, the Netanya shopping mall. The Dolphinarium disco. They hit the yuppie Israel, not the yeshiva Israel." So what is required to fight a war against such people in such a world? To start with, we as Americans will never be able to penetrate such small groups, often based on family ties, who live in places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan or Lebanon's wild Bekaa Valley. The only people who can penetrate these shadowy and ever-mutating groups, and deter them, are their own societies. And even they can't do it consistently. So give the C.I.A. a break. Israeli officials will tell you that the only time they have had real quiet and real control over the suicide bombers and radical Palestinian groups, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, is when Yasir Arafat and his Palestinian Authority tracked them, jailed them or deterred them. So then the question becomes, What does it take for us to get the societies that host terrorist groups to truly act against them? First we have to prove that we are serious, and that we understand that many of these terrorists hate our existence, not just our policies. In June I wrote a column about the fact that a few cell-phone threats from Osama bin Laden had prompted President Bush to withdraw the F.B.I. from Yemen, a U.S. Marine contingent from Jordan and the U.S. Fifth Fleet from its home base in the Persian Gulf. This U.S. retreat was noticed all over the region, but it did not merit a headline in any major U.S. paper. That must have encouraged the terrorists. Forget about our civilians, we didn't even want to risk our soldiers to face their threats. The people who planned Tuesday's bombings combined world-class evil with world-class genius to devastating effect. And unless we are ready to put our best minds to work combating them - the World War III Manhattan project - in an equally daring, unconventional and unremitting fashion, we're in trouble. Because while this may have been the first major battle of World War III, it may be the last one that involves only conventional, non-nuclear weapons. Second, we have been allowing a double game to go on with our Middle East allies for years, and that has to stop. A country like Syria has to decide: Does it want a Hezbollah embassy in Damascus or an American one? If it wants a U.S. embassy, then it cannot play host to a rogue's gallery of terrorist groups. Does that mean the U.S. must ignore Palestinian concerns and Muslim economic grievances? No. Many in this part of the world crave the best of America, and we cannot forget that we are their ray of hope. But apropos of the Palestinians, the U.S. put on the table at Camp David a plan that would have gotten Yasir Arafat much of what he now claims to be fighting for. That U.S. plan may not be sufficient for Palestinians, but to say that the justifiable response to it is suicide terrorism is utterly sick. Third, we need to have a serious and respectful dialogue with the Muslim world and its political leaders about why many of its people are falling behind. The fact is, no region in the world, including sub-Saharan Africa, has fewer freely elected governments than the Arab-Muslim world, which has none. Why? Egypt went through a whole period of self-criticism after the 1967 war, which produced a stronger country. Why is such self-criticism not tolerated today by any Arab leader? Where are the Muslim leaders who will tell their sons to resist the Israelis - - but not to kill themselves or innocent non-combatants? No matter how bad, your life is sacred. Surely Islam, a grand religion that never perpetrated the sort of Holocaust against the Jews in its midst that Europe did, is being distorted when it is treated as a guidebook for suicide bombing. How is it that not a single Muslim leader will say that? These are some of the issues we will have to address as we fight World War III. It will be a long war against a brilliant and motivated foe. When I remarked to an Israeli military official what an amazing technological feat it was for the terrorists to hijack the planes and then fly them directly into the most vulnerable spot in each building, he pooh-poohed me. "It's not that difficult to learn how to fly a plane once it's up in the air," he said. "And remember, they never had to learn how to land." No, they didn't. They only had to destroy. We, by contrast, have to fight in a way that is effective without destroying the very open society we are trying to protect. We have to fight hard and land safely. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules, and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. It won't be easy. It will require our best strategists, our most creative diplomats and our bravest soldiers. Semper Fi. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #352 ********************************