Anger, Revisionism and Terrorism

People who know me, either in real life or maybe just online, know I have a bad temper.

In response to a particularly egregious court verdict in 1995, I wrote the following:

In response to my anger, I won't go out and get a gun. I won't bomb a building. I won't hack my parents or husband or child to death. I'll just write, talk and keep writing and talking until this passes.

The mass shooting by a domestic terrorist in Arizona on January 8 makes me very angry for a number of reasons. Its chilling effect on societal freedoms. Its sheer waste. Its reason for happening.

I do not believe the Tea Party is completely culpable for this event, but they are partially responsible. Ultimate, the shooter himself is responsible for buying a legal semi-automatic weapon (with help from the NRA and the Republican party for keeping gun laws so loose), taking it to a public event, trying to kill Gabreille Giffords, a moderate Democratic Representative, then spraying the audience with the gun, killing at least six and wounding a total of 19. A Federal judge (ironically, who'd ruled against background checks for gun buyers), a 9-year-old child (ironically, born on 9/11/01) and four others were murdered in cold blood - but seem to have been "collateral damage."

So how is this not a terrorist act? If an Islamic man did this, Americans wouldn't hesitate to call this an act of terrorism. They'd scream for vengence.

But if people point out:

that the Arizona shooter was an anti-government type [[who praised Palin -- the Palin comment may be a rumor; I was wrong to have included an unverified rumor]]

that Sarah Palin had marked 20 Democratic Congressional
representatives for electoral removal - by using the
cross-hairs symbol (this graphic was, of course,
removed from Palin's Website by late in day on 1/8,
but we should never forget that it was up for many
months and was seen by many thousands if not
millions of people) [[her later "surveyor's symbols" comments have been generally denied by surveyors]]

that Jesse Kelly, Gabrielle's opponent in the 2010 election,
held a campaign event that was advertised with
this line: "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office
Shoot a fully automatic F16 with Jesse Kelly." This
archival calendar item was removed on 1/8.

that the atmosphere in Arizon is so poisonous that even the
sheriff of Pima county has said that political vitriol
was partially responsible for the shooter's rampage.

We're accused of politicizing a tragedy.

I don't believe that. The same people who think America should be run by the Tea Partiers also don't hesitate to blame Obama for every problem this country's had over the last two years, seeming to forget that the wars and the economic catastrophe started in the Bush administration.

[[Added later]] And, frankly, I think many Tea Partiers would love to see a revolution in this country - but don't have the legitimate political clout to do anything more than be obstructionists and cause problems locally.

So should we thank them for the reassurance that the attempted murder of Congressional Representative who'd been "targeted" by Palin and the Tea Partiers and shot by an anti-government white guy who then kept shooting is in no way political and is in no way terroristic?

I have a bad temper, and another thing that brings it out is revisionism. Usually, if I've gotten mad or been wrong about the wrong person/thing online/in real life, I've never gone back and re-edited my Website or my life. When real people are involved, I've often had to apologize. Sometimes, I've said, "I was wrong about X." Sometimes, I've changed my behavior about X. But I will always admit to and own my anger - I might have been wrong, but I won't lie about it. But it's amazing how quickly the Tea Partiers have been scrubbing their old publicity to make it seem that they never tried to equate guns with removing people from office.

I don't hear or see the Tea Partiers apologizing for any of the inciting speech they've been engaged in. Because they will never take any responsibility for their part in this act of domestic terrorism. [[Added later]] The one good thing about this horrific event was the way that Sarah Palin has finally demonstrated that she is completely unelectable, and most Republicans may finally realize this. Her attempts to make herself a victim in all this is simply appalling. She's done nothing but demonstrate she has no grasp of history. Eight years of Bush should have proven that it's dangerous to have an ignorant person as president.

A few months ago, I attended the Rally 4 Sanity in Washington. It was a great day for people who want to try to find solutions to our country's problems rather than encourage constant vitriol.

After an event like the Arizona terrorism incident, we do have every right to be angry. But I don't think we should be eterally angry. We should try to channel our anger in rational ways, not in terroristic ways.

[[Added later]] I was relieved to see the rational way many Arizonans welcomed President Obama to Arizona when he attended a service in honor of the shooting victims. I hope many of them become more politically active so Arizona has more balanced leadership.

Weapons of Mass Destruction Found in Texas!

Cyanide Found in Texas... ("60 pipe bombs, machine guns, silencers and remote-controlled bombs disguised as briefcases, plus pamphlets on how to make chemical weapons, and anti-Semitic, anti-black and anti-government books.

The findings have led to one of the most extensive domestic-terrorism investigations since the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

What would the UN inspectors say about this?

What about those "good Americans" chasing after random men of Middle East extraction?

While I would love to take credit for these amusing responses, Jim came up with them (after watching Aliens...)

I'm curious that the people behind this store of stuff were arrested back in April of 2003, yet we're only hearing about this in January of 2004...

Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein

So what do they have in common?

Both have a penchant for wearing military uniforms and growing facial hair.

Both are absolute dictators over small countries.

Both are irrationally demonized by the U.S. government.

Sure, we should be wary of these two, but is there any rational reason to go to war?

In the case of Fidel Castro, we've contained him for years. Despite several adventures in the early '60s, Cuba has proven to be fairly harmless. When the Russians wanted to put nuclear missiles in Cuba and the US government said "No way," the Russian government collectively blinked and nothing further happened. Rationality triumphed.

In the case of Saddam Hussein, he tried to invade Kuwait (and was thrown out decisively), murdered a bunch of his own citizens, and is suspected to be developing "weapons of mass destruction."

It's clear that the Iraqis have had some bioweapon capabilities. They gassed a few hundred Kurds for almost no reason other than to say that they could do it. But, they haven't done anything else with those weapons since the early '90s.

It's not so clear that they have nuclear weapons. It's not that easy to enrich uranium. Uranium enrichment facilities are large and easy to spot from the air. It's also not that trivial to transport enriched uranium, so it would be tough to "secretly" bring it in from another country. [[I later heard a report from an independent source (since I'm extremely untrusting about anything the Bush administration would say about Iraq) that the Iraqis probably did have some amount of enriched uranium in about 1990). And, as we've just learned from North Korea, it is possible to enrich uranium and build bombs without the US knowing "for sure" (parentetical comments added 10/25/02)]]

And how would they deliver a nuclear weapon - by the post?

They don't have missiles and their Air Force is kept pretty busy due to US monitoring of the no-fly zone.

Have representatives of al-Queda met with representatives of the Iraqi government? Probably. And have representatives of al-Queda met with other governments? Almost definitely. We don't seem to be going after other governments (beyond getting the Taliban mostly out of Afghanistan).

There is no rational reason to go to war against Iraq. While Saddam Hussein is dangerous, he's much, much more dangerous to his own people than he is to the rest of the world. Containment has worked very well, and can continue to work.[[(Comment added 2015: Sadly, the war the Americans started in Iraq destabilized the country and led to an ugly civil war. So it turned out America was much more dangerous to Iraq than Hussein had been...)]]

I keep hearing we should be afraid of Saddam Hussein. It's as if we learned absolutely nothing from September 11 - we need to be more afraid of, more wary of the enemy we cannot see. Like Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein is more bluster, someone I refuse to loose any sleep over, despite the overly-earnest pronouncements of our government.

Frankly, it's embarrassing.

He's Probably Dead: Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden hasn't been seen publically since last fall, and he wasn't looking too good at the time. Remember, he was only 44 but was reported to have had severe kidney disease on top of living in a war zone for a few months.

And now, this:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/020910/80/d9bt2.html

Osama wasn't like Mullah Omar - he didn't completely shun cameras. He'd give a speech every once in a while or demonstrate a rocket launcher in front of video cameras.

The fact that he didn't give this self-congratulatory speech on video means he's probably dead. The fact that he has not been reliably photographed since last
fall, and isn't showing up on a recent video tape during this first anniversary of 9/11, means he's not around to worry about anymore.

But whether it's Osama or some fellow-traveler, his contention that history has been changed is nonsense. While his people did murder about 3,000 people in cold blood and ruin a few blocks of downtown Manhattan and part of the Pentagon, let's examine whose history has changed in the last year, shall we?

Americans, Europeans, et.c.: Few lifestyle changes;
more unemployment, some extra lines at
the airport, more focus on terrorism

Afghanistan: Taliban out, something less onerous in;
al Qaeda's movements greatly restricted
to caves and remote countryside (or underground).

As the crash of Flight 93 demonstrated, Americans woke out of their terrorism stupor pretty fast.

I think the best way to spend tomorrow is to try to acknowledge the hit we took without wallowing in the terror of the day. Living in terror means the terrorists win. I plan to go to work.

I don't believe all terrorists are gone, nor do I believe that we'll never have another terrorist attack. But, as I said last December, I believe we're more likely to have small-scale terrorist acts, not large flying bombs.

2013.02.20: And, OK, I was wrong on this one. Bin Laden was alive until May 2011.