My two cents.... According to USN&WR "from the long Muslim "street" streching from Rabat to Jakarta, there came a contrary and deeply disturbing message. It said that the terrorists were righteous warriors engaged in a holy war against the Great Satan. It said, too, that Islam - true Islam-was locked in a struggle with the forces of Western modernism and secularism." You can read a lot about Islam, terrorism and its tentacles in the October 15, 2001 issue of US News & World Report. Basically there is a group out there which we label as "fundamentalists" that would like to go back to the 6th century where "Men are Men and the sheep run scared". There is nothing wrong for a group trying to go backwards in time - turn back the clock. Except that these group want the whole planet go back to 6th century and their view of the world. Had it been only a few people, we could care less. But their movement is growing and they are militant. They use violence as a means to spread their view. If five percent of Muslim population is in this category - that is about 60 million people. The worst part is , it is funded by the regular Moslems, directly or indirectly - including money pouring in from Saudi Arabia and other rich Gulf states. So, here is another ideology that wants us to go back to the 6th century, lose our freedom and the very thing that allows us to understand our place in the universe. They are Anti-technology, Anti-globalisation, Anti-knowledge, and Anti-future. They despise technological progress to feed the hungry, cure disease, explore deep space, make music and try to understand the very essence of our being. So mankind is about to reach a major crossroad. Go back to the prehistoric era or go forward. There will be at least 50 million out of 6000 million that will want us to go back to the prehistoric times of gender slavery and ignorance. They will use violence and terror to reach their goal. They will use our technology against us. They will create true hell on planet earth. These so called fundamentalists are not limited to Islam, they are in Christianity, Hinduism, Sintoism and any other -isms/cults out there. So, think carefully what needs to be done. As I have said many times in this forum, Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
Motive. I believe the hate these "terrorist" harbor for the US stems directly from the support the US provides for Israel. It has nothing to do with our "way of life". It may come as a shock, but not everyone wants to be Americanized/democratisized. Of course they will view America as "satan" when America acts as if though it is its holy and benevelant mission to make the world safe for capitolism. We should blame our foreign policy for these outragous, evil acts as much as we blame the people who carried them out. Do I in anyway condone the destuction of life? No. But I can see why the "terrorist" feel a desperate need to let the world know that America does not have unbloodied hands. I love America, but that does not mean I see it as a particularly moral and benevolant nation. Just because one is American does mean one should blindly rally behind everything the media tells them about Americas role in world events. These "terrorist" are not backwoods fundamentalist who terrorize because they hate the way Americans worship money and the corporate trinkets they can buy with it. They are not crazy. How many people would carry out an act which would lead to a sure death just for the thrill of committing an hideous, evil act? Not many I would think. We, I think, should not simply write these people off as evil or insane. That would be tantamount to putting our heads in the sand. Mabye some of them ARE evil and/or insane. But that does not mean we should not take a good look at ourselves to determine why anyone , evil or not, would want to harm us. The answer, if we have the courage, may surprise us. Saying that a group or person may have a reason to hate and attack us is not the same as supporting the evil acts of mass murder. It is merely a prudent question in as much as that mabye modifying our own behavior would be as effective and helpful to us as striking out towards those who hate us whether they are justified in hating us or not. For us to change some of our foreign policies so that we do not infringe on other peoples cultures for the sake of capitolism is not neccessarily giving in. In fact if that is what it takes to keep Americans safe, the the federal government is doing its people a disservice by endangering their lives to foward its own miltary goals. Should we sit on our hands and let people kill American civilians with impunity? Of course not. Their should be retaliation and people should be held accountable for their actions. We owe the victims families that much. But we should also consider what foreign policies should be modified to insure Americans will be safe. How would you respond if you found out some fundamentalist baptist had hi-jacked a plane in India and crashed it into skyscrapers in Calcutta? Would you be shocked or surprised if Indian warplanes bombed the shit out of Washington DC? What if, for the sake of argument, the Heavens Gate cult was against French foreign policy and operated many "cells", one of which hi-jacked four planes in France and crashed into the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre ect.. Lets say that many Americans did not like France nor its foreign policy. Would you really expect French fighter jets to fly into Someplace, USA and bomb Heavens gate training camps, killing some innocent townspeople? No. I understand ther are some big differences in the situations that I have described and the situation at hand, but you get the idea. I, of course, do not have all the anwers and may be wrong or misguided about a lot of things. I am just saying that mabye we should put as much thought into this whole ugly situation as we put munitions and blind hate. <RANT #14(c)2001 all rights reserved>
Re: Motive. I believe that you're half right. I wouldn't ascribe the global antipathy towards the US to something as simple as support for Israel, though. The problem as I see it is the US' attitude towards the rest of the world; this attitude can be summed up with the words 'fuck 'em'. Some examples: -The Kyoto summit. It isn't in america's financial interest to participate. In other words, fuck the rest of the planet; we'll help future generations breathe as long as it doesn't cost us money. -Afghanistan. The US is currently supporting the Northern Alliance, who are just as bad as the Taliban. In other words, we don't care who's running the country; once the Taliban are gone it's not our problem. -Free Trade. The US is using the WTO as a blunt instrument, bludgeoning the rest of the world into compliance. Free Trade could - and should - benefit everyone, but in its current form it's benefitting corporations to the huge detriment of developing economies. My attitude - and that of most people to whom I've spoken about this - is that America truly is represents the best and the worst of humanity. Unfortunately, it's the wost that seems to manifest itself abroad. The events of September showed the US that it's on the same planet as the rest of us.
It's a matter of where you are and who you are: perspective KMguru A couple things to nitpick first: we the United States of America don't seem to care about the very essence of anyone's being. It's a sad truth, but we hold up the best of our ambitions when we compare "very essence" and contrast those points against the worst we can find in people. Perhaps the fundamentalists are all that, but Islam, where it seems to oppose technology, knowledge, and globalization, actually opposes the effects of those processes. Specifically, our Western technology and knowledge are leading the globalization of the problems our society creates. It isn't the problems, even, themselves, but rather that we who advocate such a society haven't figured out how to control them. We might point out the American Christian lament of loose sexual standards; the difference is that American Christians live in the society that has the loose standards and the Muslims don't want to start down that road. Excess material devotion? Same thing. Islam has a long scientific and intellectual history, but resists the ramifications of the Western perspective. Anti-future? Don't Christians look forward to heaven? Don't Christians look forward to the day when God comes back and puts an end to this part of the charade? Sounds pretty anti-future to me. I'm just uncomfortable levelling a charge against a culture that matches a problem I see within my own nation's culture. This is a religious perspective. But to match it, it's not as if Christianity doesn't seek a Christian world. When I point out that American Christians try to purge society, we're seeing a relevant process. In the West, our aversion to murder is more overt; we accept fewer excuses because our educational standard teaches us a different basis of human value. We do have a 600-year head start on Islam in this religious evolution: only with economy and education can we empower the majority of the world's Muslims to share that basis of human value--it is something we might say, for the lack of a better term, we hope they attain or achieve. What were Christians up to 600 years ago? Trying to hold back time with fear and loathing and superstition. None of it changes the fact, though, that Christianity holds Islam to be heretical at best. Secularism? I'd say it extends from having reached a point in the Judeo-Christian lineage that necessarily departs from old perspectives; the indifference of Western secularism might arise from the incoherent nature of Christianity. Such arbitrary, sometimes contradictory faith as we see dominating the American religious-social landscape is frightening and ludicrous. (Europe's 19th century atheism largely held with Diderot that whether or not God exists, He has become the most sublime and useless of ideas. Its starry-eyed caprice makes religion dangerous because it toys with values greater than human life. Modernism? It seems to have brought all manner of social chaos; I wouldn't wish America's dark side onto anyone, no matter how brightly we think we shine. Eternal vigilance? So that implies constant vigilance? So,uh ... how did it get this far? I suppose that's the queston. So as we are periodically vigilant, we have to compensate in the order of things with the intensity and nature of that vigilance. American history shows an increasing trend of only bothering to be vigilant when we get to shoot at something. If we were truly vigilant, we would know this situation was coming and have worked to prevent it entirely. But alas, we did not, and thus did not. (It's not that we didn't know this would happen someday, but for a people who didn't care to avert the disaster through their vigilance, I wonder why we're so upset.) thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That is because, people who are in a position to do something about it are burying their head in the sand, hoping the problems will go away. Recently, I watched interviews in CNN and even CBS 60 minutes with a Saudi Prince, a Muslim commentator and found that when they bring up what they feel is the issues, the interviewer looked bored and try to change the subject. Nothing at this magnitude happens without some serious causes. One sided thinking just does not work... If it is still there, it is hiding in the bunkers. Blowing up historical monuments (Statue of Buddha) is neither intellectual nor cultural. Turning women into slaves is not even civilised. Since 800 AD, Muslims have been invading India to rape and plunder the society. Ask any Indian, they will tell you a whole different story - and it is at least a 1000 year history. You may be uncomfortatble, but I am not. I am drawing my experience from my cultural root that is much much older than Islam. And as to our own nations culture, it is young and restless. As this melting pot culture gets older and wiser, we will move beyond our adolescent behaviour. Just watch for any virulent and mutant version of any culture that is poised to destroy the very essence of our being. Then again you may not care, but some do!
Km spanks another ball out of the park. Tiasssa sits on the mound with a bemused expression on her face. How did he do that she wonders.....
Observation is the act of proccessing perspective... 18:13 2001-10-08 ANATOLI BARANOV: AMERICA STARTED WARFARE. RUSSIA HAS ALREADY LOST The whole world has been waiting for this news for several weeks already, but anyway it has became a sensation. The U.S.A. and Great Britain started bombing Afghanistan. After the opinion polls in America showed the expectations of the war gained 6% within the recent week, the act of retribution became inevitable. The acts of terrorism in the States, despite their horror, were just to the point. America’s incursion in Afghanistan seems to be obvious, without the risk of loss. The movement Taliban is not scared – the U.S. prepared the movement. 50 missiles that were launched during the first attack on Afghanistan can not be compared with 2000 tomahavks, which bombed Yugoslavia; about 20 bombing planes can not be compared to 400-500 aircrafts that took part in the air raid over Belgrade. The Talibs realize that Washington is not planning for its “restricted contingent” to land in the 20-million Afghanistan. “Common Americans” are expecting the marines will land right in the rear of the Islamites. This will surely not happen for such an action would simply kill the American soldiers. Judging by the amount of the American land forces, which are openly concentrated in the region, there are not going to be large land operations held. In general, the idea of the warfare of the new Afghan war leaders has so much in common with the ideas of the Russian general headquarters before the beginning of the Chechen campaign. Pavel Grachev, Russia’s Defense Minister at the time, was going to seize Grozny (Chechnya’s capital) with the help of 1 regiment only. Donald Rumsfeld decided one battalion of the mountain shooters stationed not really far from the city of Tashkent (Uzbekistan republic) would be enough. Tashkent is already under the American control, but how long will it last? The offensive of the northern Alliance on Kabul amazingly resembles the tank attack on Grozny in the autumn of 1994. America is getting deeper into the regional conflict, which has a trend for extension. After the U.S.A. loses and leaves the region, the processes in it will become absolutely uncontrollable. The break-up of the Russian Federation will be the smallest of such consequences. The American military bases along the oil-bearing 40th parallel in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenia, Uzbekistan will cut Russia off the Central Asia, they will control the traffic ways from China and India – on the whole America may control the entire Eurasia. However, this strategic line may become a lump that can not be swallowed or spit out. The trump card of the American expansion - the economic well-being – may be topped by another card – the Islamic fundamentalism. It is not possible to outbid a person who is ready to die for his belief. It is not possible to frighten such a person, there is a chance some agreement may be achieved, but it is absolutely pointless to haggle. So the combination of the missile strike and humanitarian aid looks idiotic. America has already demonstrated the absolute incomprehension of the things going, when the American mass media could not say anything definite regarding the events of September 11. According to CNN, the major reason, which caused all that was…cowardice. It would be silly to believe there are no oriental or Islam experts in the U.S., who would perfectly realize the sense of the civilized discrepancy between the “diplomacy of aircraft-carriers” and “the holy Jihad.” The red tape played a bad joke on America in this respect: the people, who are in the decision-making-process are not really competent (as a rule) in the questions they have to decide. The experts are competent, but they are invited just to confirm the accuracy of the decision, which has already been made. There hardly was an expert who noticed that the radical, the orthodox Islam to be more precise, found its place in the countries of the third world – having taken the place where communism used to be. Until the war between the Talibs and the Northern Alliance is the inner affair of the Afghans, their forces are in some dynamic balance. But as soon as the alliance tries to enter Kabul on aggressors’ shoulders, the Taliban will get the colossal moral advantage in front of their adversaries. This was the effect caused by bin Laden’s TV appearance. The Americans were surprised to see he had no horns and the Muslims saw the determination to take it right to the very end. The military success is likely to follow in the beginning, but it will be very difficult to keep the seized objects under control – the military force of the enemy will remain undestroyed, the enemy has the absolutely unlimited mobilization reserve. The States will have to leave the region, but Russia and its CIS allies will remain in that hot spot, being involved in the colossal conflict. The Talibs can now mobilize the citizens of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan. Russia may face the prospective of the urgent military operation. The forecasts pertaining to the outcome of the new Afghan war are vague and mostly unfavorable. It is very hard to say for sure, if Russia is going to be able to defend the communications 10 thousand kilometers long. Anatoli Baranov PRAVDA.Ru
Like I said, perspective KMGuru In addition to summarizing Seuss' sentiments during WWII, you've also hit on a key issue here. What bin Laden and other terrorists demand when speaking of Palestine, of American intrusion in the Islamic world, and other political issues, is nothing new among the Islamic world. Rather than hiding our heads in the sand, our elected leaders prefer to pretend there's not an issue; it amounts to the same thing. Is it merely our duty to seek revenge? Or is it our duty to bring peace? It isn't that I won't back warfare to secure peace, but this current military action is somewhere between tragic and ludicrous. Was the Muslim commentator interviewing or interviewed? Was the Muslim an American Muslim or from elsewhere? Consider the appearances made on CNN by the Northern Alliance envoy. Sure, the NA has a nasty reputation for brutality, but cut and style his hair, and dress him up in a blue suit, and he looks pretty much like "us". No turban, no beard ... funny how they took him out of his normal garb, eh? This is a simple propaganda move in the "Us vs Them" mentality. Make him look like one of Us, and the people will accept him more. But I must await the details I've asked, but I think the reason is obvious: if the interviewer was Western, we can expect him to change the subject whenever the "issues" come up. But I can't tell from your sentence who's who or what. What has that to do with anything? Seriously. We are talking about the Taliban, here; we know they're nuts. But this invites the question: why do these issues matter now when they didn't matter before 9/11? And what is this thing with degrees of civilized disrespect? I agree that turning people into slaves isn't civilized, but misogyny is a longstanding tradition in American religion, too. Just because we chose to take God's admonitions less seriously doesn't make us right or wrong, but it also doesn't excuse us for treating women poorly. Sure, we're not enslaving them in a comparable sense, but to treat people wrongly is to treat people wrongly. If we're using the severity of the Taliban as an excuse now, and didn't care before 9/11, I tend to think it's all a load of dishonest crap being flung at the people to justify a military campaign. A 1,000 year history? You know darn well that at Sciforums, what happened 1,000 years ago is not acceptable in moral debate. Now, to the other, you have a valid point. But since the first century of the common era, Christians have been trying to usurp the world. Perhaps we need to subject Islam to the same enlightenment: if they recognize money as more important than God, then profit, and not death, will be the solution. As long as we're clear on that point: that you're comfortable with being hypocritical. Doesn't matter how old a culture is; if it's hypocritical, it's hypocritical. Youth and restlessness might excuse American hypocrisy, except that American hypocrisy demands a large human toll. Islam, too, can move past its difficulties; education and economy pretty much do the trick. But since this takes longer than any one single lifetime, I understand why Americans would never think of this. So I should watch out for the American culture? I already knew that, and so does most of the world. Terrorists, however, seem to have dispensed with watching out and have undertaken the task of doing something about it. Whether bin Laden is right or wrong changes nothing about the fact that Americans offer a virulent and mutant version of liberty, of economy, and of compassion. So you're right; some of us do care. I just wonder why you hate your human brethren so much that you'd rather kill them than learn about, understand, and help them. Was that last sentence a little over the top? It's included just to remind you that I can waste sentences taking my jabs, too. I can be an American car; I can be an American house; I can be an American citizen. Whether I was American or Japanese or German or whatever, it would not change that I am a car, or that I am a house, or that I am a citizen. I am a human being. I cannot change that. Whether I am an American, a Japanese, a German, or otherwise, I am still a human being. The constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land in which I live; I am, however, a human being. In most things, I will choose being American over anything else. But in this, I must recognize my own humanity. I will stand with my human brethren; if I am to be dispassionate about an IRA bomb, or Ulsters throwing rocks and firebombs at children; if I am to be dispassionate about all of the violence in the world that kills my fellow humans, then I must be dispassionate about this. What happened on 9/11 is a terrible thing; we must not let pride lead us further astray. I am a human being: do you understand that my primary sympathies are human, and not national? And perhaps warfare helps nations, but it solves nothing and, at best, advances humanity none at all. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am not sure, what we are debating about. But I will re-read the postings and comment later. A quick note: I am not after blood per se. I like to solve problems before they happen so that you preserve life and live in harmony. When dealing with after the facts - because someone was sleeping at the wheel, it becomes difficult to come up with a solution. It is like a person that was abused from child and can not see what is right or wrong and breaks the social law. We could ask for severe punishment. But where were we when the child was getting abused? Hind sight is always 20/20. Life is full of cause and effect...some effects take a long time to mature....
Tiassa, why do you apologize for the actions of the Arabs? If you lived in their society, they would have stoned you for stating your opinion. As a woman you are worth less in their society than their catttle. We are not attacking Afghanistan because they have a violent sadistic culture that thrives on torturing their own civillians... we are attacking them because their leaders were involved in a premeditated act of violence on America. We are going to go in there and we are going to kill their leaders, we are going to wipe out the terrorist networks and the terrorists and then we are going to leave. We will leave the animals to their own devices as long as they are satisfied with murdering and raping their people only. This is going to happen sooner than later. Tiassa, this network is spread across many countries. They have struck in India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia, the Balkans, France, England, etc.... They aren't just attacking America, they are attacking everbody. Their goal is world dominion. Their dream is a world where only Islam is permitted. We are fighting for survival here. Most Americans are smart enought to realize that. As we are fighting for survival, it is mandatory that we take the gloves off. We must be willing to see these islamic scum die in mass quantities. If they want to die for Allah, we should give them exactly what they want. The Brad Rules plan is simple... kill Saddam and wipe out his government (destroy all of his biological/nuclear weapon stores), wipe out the Taliban and Bin Laden, overthrow the Iranian, Libyan and Syrian governments... eviscerate their armies and wipe out the terrorist networks residing there. Might makes right... survival of the fittest. We are the superior society, it is about time we start making inferior societies go extinct. We allow these countries to threaten us because of our benevolence. If we treat them like the Spainards treated the Incas, we could have the entire middle east completely under our control within a month or so. Kill a few million people and you will suddenly find that once belligerent countries are not so anxious to fight anymore. America needs to demonstrate that it is perfectly willing to act like it did in WWII. By specifically targeting civillians, America was able to conclude that war with far fewer American casualties.
