> > >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.
I think the crucial part is that terrorism is a police, not a military,
problem. Using the military has disastrous results, as we've seen in
Iraq and Jordan, where the vast majority of the killing is of civilians
who had nothing to do with the terrorists. Support for the enemy (they
aren't all terrorists) has grown exponentially as a result.
By "police action", I don't mean a detective and a few patrolmen, it can
be a large scale undertaking, depending upon the situation. Maybe it
would have taken thousands of people working under the auspices of such
a force, but it would be surgical in nature versus the military approach
that creates even more enemies.
We've been mislead on so many things, but one of them is the nature of
war. Even after Vietnam, people still think that we can have a war and
still go about our normal routine, like it's a side-issue. That's such a
lie! There are 2 sides in a war, and one side can't define what the
other side will and wouldn't do, and any presumptions at all are
dangerous at best, disastrous at the worst. Once the shooting starts, it
has a life of it's own.
That's really the whole thing with this war stuff. One cannot go to war
frivolously, but only when there is absolutely, positively no other
choice, and then it has to be an all-out basis - and I hate to say this,
but it's true - no holds barred - basis. The reward for half-stepping
and pulling punches is casualties and loss. As war progresses, it just
gets uglier and uglier.
The point is that war is not a casual thing, but we were duped into
letting it happen by zealots who didn't care and politicians who didn't
know, and now we're paying a really big price for it. A police action
might not have been perfectly successful, and may have lasted for 20
years or permanently, but we wouldn't be the mess we're in today.
> > 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.
But we agree that the world should be made better, right? So what's the
disagreement? Over how to accomplish this goal? Are you saying that the
military invasion approach was the right answer? Isn't it obvious by
now that approach isn't working and has made things worse?
> 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're focusing on terrorists, but that's not what we're fighting over
there. The fighting is between ages old religious differences and common
agreement to oust the occupier.
> You may want to listen to this again...
>
> http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=nul
I think each of her points should be listed and subject to critical
debate by both sides. She makes some good points, but others are
questionable.
> 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.
Police yes, military no. Terrorists are criminals. Killing people en
masse in response to terrorism is an even bigger crime.
> > 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
> 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?
Here's one link, there are others that examine this from other angles,
but this one summarizes it at the top by saying "This collection of
resolutions criticizing Israel is unmatched by the record of any other
nation."
http://www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/isreal_un_resolutions.htm
> What about this... If all terrorists immediately stopped
> their actions, do you see any way the neocons could continue their
> conquest (if there is such a thing)? Nope. No way.
You want a simple answer, but there isn't one. The neocons are a group
of people following a philosophy that states how they intend to deal
with the challenges of our times. In this context, terrorism is
incidental - but a catalyst for moving their agenda forward. What would
they have done without terrorism is a question we'll never really know.
> 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.
I don't like terrorists any more then you do. It seems we only disagree
on how to stop them. I say police, and I think you're saying military.
I'm also saying that if we get into a mode of leading the world to make
it a better place (make going after blights more important then
terrorists) that we'll undermine support for terrorism.
> Are you headed over to the Al-jazeera site now to try and
> convince them to stop?
I think we've got a great problem right here in America. We've got a
gov't that needs to be replaced, and that means the system itself has to
be fixed. And, yes, I actually am working on a thesis towards that end
(non-violent, of course). If only I had more time.
> 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.
Did you read their statement of principles?
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Back when this started, we (I, Ed, some others) did more homework on
this, and traced neocon history to Leo Strauss's teachings of several
neocon luminaries at the Univ of Chicago. If you read about his
teachings, among other things, you'll see that he taught it's okay to
lie to people to achieve goals. It goes on. I can dig out links if you
want, but you can search on Leo Strauss and probably find it.
> 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.
I think if we can agree terrorism needs to be fought by police, then
we're both saying the same thing.
Btw, you're email editor did some weird things to this post (I patched
it)
Bill
> -Charlie
_______________________________________________
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.
