At 10:24 AM 10/11/2006 -0400, Bill Arnold wrote:
...
> >Violence is not
strength.
> >compassion is not weakness.
> >revenge is the most worthless of causes....
> Next, I think most people in
the US hold these views. At
> least in a general sense.
But if that were the case, we wouldn't be in the jam we're
in.
No. You're forgetting the other premise that most believe in. Justice.
The real problem is terrorism. Terrorists believe they can achieve their
political goals through violence. Terrorist supporters believe they can
get their political desires by enabling terrorists. There has been a
growing desire for justice since terrorists started their actions (and it
wasn't just started at 9/11). For those that want to stand against
terrorism, there is a reasonable concern over how to do it. For most,
it's become obvious that the methods of the past - just trying to grab
the ones taking the direct action - isn't enough. The reason it isn't
enough is that there will always be someone filled with enough hate to go
out and do terrible things. So in addition to finding those that
perpetrate terrorism, you need to find those that fund them and aid
them.
> What you need to do is get on
the Muslim, N. Korean,
> etc blogs and tell THOSE people they need to embrace these
principles.
A quote from the Robert Fisk article I pointed to
yesterday:...
Dude! This guy is nuts! Maybe he's been immersing himself in the
commondreams website as well. If you want to understand what the
terrorists want, you need to go back 1,000 years or so. We weren't around
then. From what I've read and heard so far, the 'common' person in ME
(specifically Iraq) do want to be able to elect their own leadership. And
then most of the Islamic leaders (e.g. their 'priests' if you will) want
{quot}freedom{quot} from western ideas - they don't want equality for
women, they don't want people to make up their own minds, and they don't
want to get along with people of differing beliefs. I'll leave it for you
to decide which 'freedom' you think we should support.
As for root causes, you seem to keep turning a blind eye to the truth.
The root causes of our problems are hate, greed, etc. It's not because
we've enslaved or attacked them. They raise their children in a culture
of hatred. Terrorists don't desire any co-existence with others that
think differently.
You may want to listen to this again...
http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=nul
We wouldn't be over in Iraq if 9/11 didn't happen. We wouldn't've
gone in to Afghanistan if 9/11 didn't happen. And it's not all laid at
9/11's feet. The numerous terrorist attacks all over the world in the
past century have caused turmoil and destruction and have led to
increased violence. In a lot of ways, the current conflict isn't about
land or money, it's about whether or not the world wants to accept
terrorism as a viable political mechanism.
> I'll bet you any amount of
money that if those groups stop
> their violence, threats, terrorism, etc, that peace would
actually
break out....
emasculated by virtue of all those
(some 42) UN resolutions intended to
deal with Israel that were blocked by (only) America and Israel.
Other
countries of the world, and the ME in particular, took that to mean
{quot}one
sided{quot}, thus unfair, and thus a contributing root cause for
hostilities....
I'm not sure which 42 you mean. But there have probably been 100's
blocked by various Arab states, with the Soviet Union and China. And just
because a resolution is blocked, it doesn't mean it was a good resolution
to start with. Did you read each of those 42?
What about this... If all terrorists immediately stopped their actions,
do you see any way the {quot}neocons{quot} could continue their
{quot}conquest{quot} (if there is such a thing)? Nope. No way.
Conversely, we (the US) have 'had our guard down' for most of the
century. Did the terrorists stop? Nope. Sorry, to me it sounds like the
'first person' that needs to stop the violence is the terrorist. Another
way to look at it is this: from past evidence, it's clear that terrorists
see 'disarming' as weakness - that they're winning; also from past
evidence, we (the US et al) see 'disarming' as peace-seeking. So, by far,
the most likely way to get to peace is for the terrorists to 'disarm'
first.
Are you headed over to the Al-jazeera site now to try and convince them
to stop?
There's also the PNAC philosophy
factor, a profound statement calling
for the use of military power to achieve (their) goals. This isn't
a
statement of an attitude that says {quot}we'll make the world a better
place
so it's attractive to others{quot}, instead it's a statement of
authority
that literally begged a challenge - and it didn't fall on deaf
ears.
Are you quoting directly or paraphrasing. It seems any group that
believes military power as the ONLY way to accomplish their goal would be
pretty quickly dismissed. It seems more likely they believe that military
use has to be in the realm of possible actions, but not the only
one.
I know you think war can never be an answer. IMO, that is a noble, but
unfortunately deluded, outlook. The nature of things is that it is easier
to destroy than to build. It is 'easier' to take than to grow. You can't
overcome the destoryers and takers by building and growing more. You
either run or fight. There's no where left to run in the world. So it's
fight or die (or perhaps join in with the destroyers/takers). That is the
stark, sorry truth of today.
-Charlie
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
text/html (html body -- converted)
---
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
