On September 17, 2001 08:09 am, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
> But if we look at the bin Laden complaint against the US:
>
> - The US currently has a state of military occupation in
> KSA (Saudi Arabia). The US came when Iraq acted up, but they
> have not left.
>
And Sadam is still in power, refuses to adopt a peaceful posture toward his
neighbours and is still a significant threat. If Kuwait or Saudia Arabia
asked the US to leave, they would as they did in the Philippines.
> - bin Laden has problems with the KSA royal family. He, and
> many others too afraid to say so, would prefer a proper
> Islamic setup, perhaps like in Iran these days. However,
> the US is, effectively, supporting continued suppression of
> the Saudi peoples by their support of the royal family.
>
Many people in Iran don't like that regime either. None of these countries
are open democracies as we are used to in the west... but then they are
different cultures. The point is that there is significant dissent everywhere
in that region, with the possible exception of Jordan.
> - So, he wants the US out of KSA so the country can move forward.
> As long as the US stays, he feels it is a military occupation
> that does more to support the royal family than to deter Iraq
> or increase peace in the area. And, peace in KSA and the Gulf at
> the price of attacks at home?
>
> In no way does this justify September 11th. But if the US would just
> stay out of some problems, all might be better off. As to the concern over
> oil, well, there are other sources than KSA. If an Islamic regime started
> by cutting back on oil, then so be it. Conserve. It is possible.
>
So, your answer to murder is to stay out of the murderers sight and not do
anything to attract their attention? A bit simplistic perhaps, but you normal
people don't go out and muder 5,000 people becuase you disagree with their
approach to religion, politics or economics.
> I still agree with Keith that terrorism will not go away. There will
> never be a time when everyone is content. So why go out of your way
> to be a target?
>
Don't look now, Roger, but your 'low principles' warning light is on.
I think what you are proposing is to cower in your home just in case, by
going out after dark, you might attract a bully, a thief, a murderer, or a
rapist. And if you do, well, then it was your fault and you should
apologize. I don't mean this personally, but people with ideas such as that
deserve to be subjegated by terrorism and are a threat to their own freedom
and that of their neighbours. BTW, Canada lost about 100 of our citizens in
that attack and we have done nothing to Saudia Arabia, Islam, or,
unfortunately, Usama bin Laden.
No matter how you try to explain and excuse it, killing 5,000 innocent people
in a massive atrocity is not "alright" or "understandable" no matter how you
slice it. It is wrong, it is an outrage and it is an affront to all people
who have any sense of fairness, compassion or human decency. Obviously, YMMV.
--
burns
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2001 19:19:48 -0400
>
> burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On September 17, 2001 03:30 am, Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
> | > I think the US has always done this. It is the 'correct and proper'
> | > part that has been the problem. What we consider to be so is not what
> | > everyone considers to be so. The US would do much better to just stay
> | > out. Do nothing. Let people complain about that. By not doing anything
> | > we do not take sides. OK, through inaction, but if it is how the US
> | > always does things, everyone will pretty much be treated the same. The
> | > world will go to hell if the US sits back? There is another problem.
> | > Ego. The US just has to accept the fact that they cannot make the world
> | > safe. To paraphrase Keith, as long as there are humans, there will be
> | > those who cause problems.
> |
> | "Doing nothing is itself a course of action, but inevitably a bad one"
> |
> | This isn't about going around fixing other people's problems. Terrorism
> | affects us all, directly. It has been a long festering sore. It's now
> | erupted into a putrid cancer that must be dealt with. I don't think free
> | countries of the world will tolerate this anymore. They have said "OK,
> | this has gone too far. We're pissed off and morally outraged. Now we're
> | going to deal with this."
> |
> | To this end, I don't think 1939 Chamberlain appeasement or inactivity is
> | either practical or appropiate, given what has occurred. In WWII some
> | countries capitulated politically to the Nazis. Others simply stood back
> | and allowed them to roll through their country to commit atrocities upon
> | their neighbours. They have since been struggling to downplay and expunge
> | a part of their history that they are not very proud of. But the stigma
> | will always remain - when the time came to do the right thing, they did
> | nothing.
> |
> | Peace is a noble goal we all strive for. But not at ANY cost.... not when
> | the price is the diginity of a nation and the future security and
> | well-being of our children. There comes a time when good people must act.
> |
> | How would you feel if you did nothing and next year one of your own
> | children were killed by these same terrorists?
> | --
> | burns
> | _______________________________________________
> | http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc
> | ->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
--
burns
_______________________________________________
http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives, Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, Etc
->http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
