perfidy

That's true, apparently, if you're Trent Telenko. I guess they're everywhere. Here is my rambling response...lunchtime is limited today, and therefore so is my ability to polish the words.

Dear Trent: Good Lord. Where do you get the balls to tell me that I pretend 9/11 didn't happen? I guess it's simple enough if you just enjoy making it up as you go. Find me anything I've ever written that implies that. I live in Washington DC. I was here on that day. I spent a good-sized part of it terrified because the person I cared about more than anything in the world was in a State Department building, and rumors were floating around about another plane, and that a car bomb had gone off, destroying the building, and I didn't know what had happened to her. So save your "9/11 means nothing" bullshit for a little rally of like-minded jackboot-steppers. It's not applicable to me, and frankly it's not generally applicable at all. You debase yourself every time you imply it about another person.

Ah, calm.

Perhaps you're referring to the fact that my _reaction_ to 9/11 is different from yours. Once again, I'm not sure how you know, exactly, what my reaction is.

I don't pretend that a death cult is not involved, because a death cult _is_ involved, plain as day. I don't write that Arab culture isn't sick, because I happen to think that in many ways, it is. Perhaps you are confusing what I have actually written with something else?

You and I differ on whether genocide and atrocities are necessary to remedy the situation. There is no simple outcome to this; there is no absolute "logical conclusion" to be had from the facts at hand (or at least those at my disposal). Good god, man, we're dealing with social sciences and human beings, here. Nothing is predictable; nothing is certain.

Which side of the February 26, 1993 divide are you on? THAT was the wake up call, and there may have been earlier ones. That was when Islamic terrorism crossed the line in clear effort. They've had the will to do this for a very long time now. 9/11 was the first operation that accomplished its goals at scale.

You miss the point of this discussion in a spectacular way. Iraq is not the issue, and never has been. The issue is resource allocation and effective means of defense against the super-empowered angry man, and states who defend him. If we set aside all other issues, I could certainly support military intervention in Iraq, for simple "it's the right thing to do" reasons.

We're in the middle of a spending several hundred billion dollars to effect change in Iraq. We don't really know how that's going to turn out -- it's a risk, right now. The benefits are highly nebulous and off in the future. Kay's testimony and report shows that the country did not have significant WMD (or any at all, for that matter). Alarmingly, though, he found that there are some pretty "smart" guys running around in the middle east who might be able to create certain kinds of WMD, whose talents are for sale. What could they build? Low-tech nuclear, possibly biological, certainly chemical. Where will they go now? They will go places where we do not have monitoring.

Each of these capabilities will, over the next century, become progressively more available to smaller and smaller groups. I conclude that we _will_ suffer from this form of terrorism; and there is no way to stop it.

We can delay, perhaps. A massive onslaught of violence and posturing against Middle Eastern culture will achieve some delay. Arab culture and radical Islam seem to be the primary generators of violence on the face of the planet, at the moment. Religious intolerance is stunning difficult to root out and eliminate. We must find a way to generate massive intolerance _within_ Arab culture to the cancer in its midst, to create the ultimate solution. That is an open problem.

The singular focal point of _secular_ Middle Eastern anger at America involves Israel. Given the resources we are expending and have expended on Iraq, can we find a better use? I believe we can. Invading Iraq to provide an example of how an Arab state _could_ be is POINTLESS without some benign resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. You can set up any democracy you want in Iraq, and anything you do of merit will be poisoned by that fundamental conflict. Note that I do NOT advocate a particular solution to that conflict, at this point -- I advocate a specific OUTCOME. Anything that achieves an outcome of stability, separation, and relative peace is acceptable.

Longer term, I view decentralization as the only defense against the progressive danger of WMD. I conclude that over the long run, free cities cannot be defended from the terrorism of the super-empowered angry man. We must study our infrastructure and create many points of strength, where we currently have single points of weakness. We must, by government intervention if necessary, decentralize our financial and political systems.

We live on a vast continent, and it's time we took advantage of that.

A couple of random notes:

WMD are either state-sponsored or not. Tens of thousands of Russian nuclear missiles aimed at the US are a civilization-ending threat (not to mention life-on-the-planet-ending). One nuclear weapon, detonated in a city, is an immeasurable tragedy and horror, but not a civilization ending event. Eliminating state-sponsored terrorism is a critical goal. Clearly, military operations in Afghanistan accomplished this goal. Just as clearly, the massive expenditures in Iraq are not justified with a corresponding reduction in terrorist capabilities or potential.

When I look at the list you use to "qualify" Iraq for invasion, what strikes me is how precisely Saudi Arabia maps into it. I find it very hard to believe that somewhere in SA, we would not find a rich man, funding a clever man, to build a horror. Certainly, SA is a primary source of funding for the "death cult" that is attempting to propagate itself around the globe.

The easiest form of terrorism is to simply fill a van with explosives, drive it next to a building, and detonate it. This technique could easily be used to kill tens of thousands of people in America. It wouldn't necessarily kill them all at once, but if a series of bombings were to take place, the effect might be even stronger. Why have we not seen this form of attack? Don't tell me it's because the INS is doing its job. That's a joke. I'm really not sure why we haven't see more domestic terrorism, but I think the answer is twofold: First, there just really aren't all that many of these suicidal nutjobs. Second, when said carefully trained nutjobs arrive in America, blend in, and possibly make friends, quite a large number of them realize that they've been living a lie, and fade away.

My basic, but uninformed solution for the Israeli/Palestinian crisis: Build the wall. Put it on the green line. Evict or imprison Arafat and his cronies. PAY for the relocation of Israeli settlers back into Israel proper. PAY to establish an economy in Palestine. With some meaningful self-direction, a decent economy, and secular causes _removed_, the radicals will find themselves on the receiving end of massive internal hostility. Inform Israel that their military aid is contingent upon acceptance (at no cost) of this offer. Inform the new Palestine (or whatever the hell they call themselves), that _any_ spending on a formal military will be met with an increase in military aid to Israel double the expenditure, and a cessation of any economic aid whatsoever. Create "truth" commissions on both sides, offering amnesty for detailed information, cessation of activites, and surrender of all war materiel. Place Jerusalem under UN authority, making it an independent "sub-state", with its own elected council, evenly divided along religious lines. The oath of office is a binding oath to preach non-violence and tolerance. Build desalination plants on the coast and convey the water to the new palestine. Create a UN-sponsored, secular education system in the new palestine. Fund it so no family will ever need to send a child to a religious school again. Do I want to reward terrorism by just _giving_ people all this? Hell, no. But I want more terrorism even less. And for my global strategy, I need Israel and suroundings to be peaceful and prosperous, on both sides.

I have been thinking about something that I know is controversial, and I struggle with it. It is a formal policy of assassination. Essentially, any _public_ religious figure who _publicly_ advocates "death to america (or another western country)" AND demonstrably and provably supports terrorism, through guidance or resources or some such, without repudiation of those statements, is subject to this policy. Anywhere in the world, any time. The uttering of "death to america" puts us on notice of intent to kill our citizens, from a particular individual. It may be necessary to generate an equal and opposite reaction.