Good to hear, I have a friend over there in Jerusalem, and anytime anything goes off, I have to sweat it out until I hear from her (so far two busses she takes, a grocery store she goes to, and the student cafeteria she eats at have been bombed over the past four years). You have my sympathy, and hope that all is as well as possible.
Posts: 91 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Remembering what it is like to experience such a thing (I live on the East Coast, many of my family work in Washington, and my mother teaches school in Summerset County, PA, no more than 5 miles where Flight 93 went down), but fortunately having only had to experience it once, I offer my deepest sympathies and my regret that I can't offer more....
I also offer my deepest wish, which is that we'll all come to realize that being Pro-Israel or Pro-Palestine or Pro-Any side in these modern terror wars has never brought and will never bring us any closer what I must hope is all of our ultimate goal: to live in peace.
Orson Scott Card and others defend Sharon's attacks on Palestineans, attacks which have killed hundreds of civilians, women, children as acts of "defense. " I remember Card speaking of Sharon "desperately trying to defend his people," apparently accomplished by cracking down upon the Palestinian people to the point where any hope for peace is destroyed.
Defenders of Palestinian actions, on the other hand, exalt as "freedom fighters." There is one thing they never really make clear, however, which is how murdering innocents for the crime of riding on a bus or going out to eat with their family in the name of a theocratic-fascist government has anything to do with "freedom."
Meanwhile, America is spiraling toward renewed war in the region, against Iraq, which would be nothing short of a multibillion dollar gift from the American taxpayer to Osama bin Laden, no matter how succesful the campaign is, setting the stage greater Arab-American conflict that he now only dreams about.
Elmis: I am sorry if I have said anything to offend you. I do understand what you are going through right now. It just infuriates me that the leaders of the world are the only people who stand to profit from war. From Bush to bin Laden to Sharon to Arafat, whether ideologically, politically, or monetarily, they are the only ones for whom war is a good thing, and yet we the people, who have the power to STOP the war, would much rather allow our leaders to brainwash us, allow us to be murdered, and impose a fascist state to "protect" us than actually DO anything to bring about the peace that we all genuinely, really want.
Animist, What exactly is it that you porpose that they do? And even if they did it would it be good enough for you? Or would you assume that whatever they do would be only for their own ends? Is it enough of a crime for you to simply be a leader? Posts: 98 | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
This one particular American is saddened once more by the deaths and injuries inflicted on your people.
I am also saddened by the people who would be so ignorant as to assign any kind of "equivalency" to the "sides" in your war with terrorists.
I truly cannot understand the hatred for your people expressed so often from Europe, in word and deed...BUT WORSE... in non-word and non-deed.
I must suppose that it is simply a matter of embarrasment. YOU and the remnant of YOUR PEOPLE are an embarrasment every day that you exist.
At the very same time, God knows, and I know, that a whole hell of a lot of Europeans put their lives and the lives of their families on the line trying to help your people survive. Many still do.
Please forgive us our cowardice and our equivocation here in The US. I know it might be hard for you to realize something though. We here in the MIGHTY USA ARE JUST AS MUCH A MINORITY AS YOUR PEOPLE THERE ARE.
In a world of what? 6 billion folks, we too are a tiny minority on the crowded stage WE inhabit.
Not only that, we have an entire generation of young people who have been SO protected, and SO buffered from reality, and SO removed from the concerns and hurts you deal with every day, that I sometimes despair if they will EVER stand for anything except their right to smoke dope and have safe sex.
That will surely END someday, and they will have to lay their computer aside and take a stand. Try to stick it out until that day, with the thoughts and prayers of we who admire your courage and your ideals.
You cannot be serious in attempting to apply a moral equivelency to this conflict. There is one honorable party in this conflict.
You need to go read my Islam slam thread or my sword thread.
These people have done nothing but try to live as members of a civilized western world, surrounded by terroristic and despotic radical leaders and extremist who do not even admit that the Jews are HUMAN.
"Not only that, we have an entire generation of young people who have been SO protected, and SO buffered from reality, and SO removed from the concerns and hurts you deal with every day, that I sometimes despair if they will EVER stand for anything except their right to smoke dope and have safe sex."
Ken .. do you really think so little of young people?
I think that unfortunately (?) we have had so much peace, prosperity, and civility in the US that many have come to believe that the world is a civilized place "everyone wants peace, if we could just talk to them, make love not war, what if they gave a war and nobody came" ad nauseum . What if they gave a war and only one side showed up is a more relevant question. what if it were a(n american) football game and only one side wore pads? There are evil people in the world who do not want peace as we sometimes misdefine it (absence of armed hostility) they want peace as they define it - total destruction of the non-compliant. these people have made themselves into varelse. a child raised from birth to view jews as the sons of pigs and monkeys is not ever going to consider jews as ramen. In fact his world view is so distorted it may not be possible for him, even if he wanted to. Like the japanese gentleman I knew who was shocked as a nine year old in tokyo that the US occupation forces did not eat babies and rape women. Of course he developed a great fondness for americans so maybe everything I have said is wrong, except that it took essentially the end of the world for hin to be able to see the error of what he was taught.
I think many in the US act civilized under the misataken belief that the world is civilized. others are afraid to act uncivil because they are weak. Many criminals believe that the world is uncivilized and they try to capitalize on it. I fall into the weak category. I wirked with a guy who was a former body builder/power lifter, and then worked as a bouncer in a biker bar. but he was one of the most civilized person I have ever known because he KNEW that the world was not civilized, wasn't afraid of the dark side, could have gotten away with almost anything, but CHOSE to act civilly.
This website has some particularly good insites on avoiding terrorism.
Peace will never be bombed into being, and peace will never be legislated into being.
I don't have any one particular solution, but I do know this: The "solutions" that have been tried (They killed us, so why don't we go kill them; that'll teach 'em....What? They did it again! Those Godless coldhearted murdering bastards! Let's go bomb a shopping mall/invade a refugee camp, that'll teach 'em.) have failed UTTERLY.
Instead of doing something we KNOW will fail, we could all start doing NEW things which just MIGHT work (and which might not, in which case we can try something ELSE).
Daniel Quinn wrote something wonderfully applicable to the present situation: "Old Minds think: If it didn't work before, do MORE of it. New Minds think: If it didn't work before, do something ELSE."
Unfortunately, as the actions of the governments and armies and terrorist organizations of the world show us, as well as the rabid, thoughtless responses to my post by Ken Bean and others, the Old Minds are very much in control of the situation.
I assure you retaliation has not been a failure. It was quite successful in the US war with Native Americans. The results were devastating, and I'm sure everyone wishes that peace had been accomplished some other way. But when was the last time a tribe of Indians tried to attack the US?
The various Indian Wars saw non-state peoples confronting a civilization; in no case in which such a conflict has occured has the civilization not come out the winner.
The various conflicts I referenced (Our "War on Terror," the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the fighting in Sri Lanka) see modern states pitted against Islamic insurgents working within (and sometimes with the assistance) many different states.
If Al Qaida was a global network of hunter-gatherers, pastoralists, and subsistence horticulturalists your comments would be relevent.
I fail to see the distinction. The issue was not civilization against hunter-gather society. Native americans were finally "put down" because of sheer numbers and fire power. It's not a very good way of ending the violence, but it is doubtless effective
Posts: 549 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
I promise you that I am not "down" on our young people. Please see the maniacial Engineer's post again for some good backdrop on this post.
Animist's long post certainly doesn't represent HIS thinking. He doesn't have enough life experience to think those things, or try them on for size for a while in the harsh light of his own experience.
What he is expressing is the thinking of old farts like me. Well...not exactly like me.
He is simply regurgitating what he has heard from a bunch of "old hippies" in classrooms, and out of books, and on the boob tube.
I have read his (her?) posts quite carefully, to get a better handle on the mindsets and worldviews expressed there, and I have read NOTHING original or thoughtful, and I have read a LOT of the party line from the sixties and seventies.
For those old hippies, there has been no relevant history prior to Viet Nam.
My adulteryhood began during those same days.
I have posted here before concerning that conflict. It was a mess. Our soldiers did their jobs pretty well, but their leadership was awful, and(President)Johnson was a moral coward.
Nevertheless, I showed up when I got my draft summons in '68.(college graduation) Mainly because I felt I had to pay my dues for being allowed to grow up in America. A very personal decision, made soberly and very aware of the mess Nam had become. I volunteered for medical evac choppers. Thought I could do my bit to at least help some of our guys come home.
Animist wants to "save the world". From what, or who?
Who does he want to save the world for? trees? bushes? snail darters? spotted owls?
What world does he want to save? The "world" we Americans are priviledged to inhabit? The world the starving aids infected babies in Africa inhabit? The world the Indian people inhabit? The world the Palestinians inhabit? The world the Israelis inhabit?
He certainly doesn't know. His ivory tower mentors haven't filled him in on those questions yet.
Those mentors are the ones I am surely "down on". I knew them when they were young snivvling cowards in their hippie vans, smoking dope. They have one answer to everything: "Let someone else handle "it" while I smoke my dope and blabber real cool sounding words and age old philosophies I just made up."
No Locus, I'm certainly not down on the young people. I am saddened by the propaganda they have swallowed hook line and sinker, and I visit here to suggest another point of view on various issues. My hope is that I can at least open a window on a more reasoned and knowledgeable approach to the world we live in.
As our resident engineer pointed out, sorta it takes a lot of heat to temper a metal or a person.
Many of our more priviledged young people cannot be blamed for not having felt any heat. I am saddened by their so careful avoidance of heat though.
I don't see many of them signing up to go overseas and save the world or helping out a little bit......somewhere except in front of their computer.
Please point out one thing I've said that was "party line from the sixties and seventies."
My posts reflect my desire to live in peace, freedom, and safety. Surely I have the life experience to want those things.
As for signing up to "go overseas and save the world," how would you suggest I do that? Is there a specific place outside of the United States (and, presumably, outside the American continents, if I'd have to go overseas to get there) in which the world is being saved? If so please let me know; I hadn't heard about it.
Finally: You do not know a god damn thing about me, and I will thank you to not pretend you do.
Kyle: Food production has everything to do with it. The soldiers who fought the Lakota, the Cheyenne and other Plains Indians were supported by full-time farmers thousands of miles away; their enemies, on the other hand, had no division of labor; each warrior was in part responsible for his own food. The Plains Indians' primary food source was the buffalo; it was easy enough to defeat them by eliminating that food source.
We could kill all the wild game animals in every Muslim country in the world, and we would not defeat Al Qaida.
Animist, I don't think you understand the level of degredation that the Native American went through. It wasn't a food shortage that sent the Cherokee on a 1000 mile cold march to Oklahoma. They had plenty of food. They had farms and newspapers. They also had rumors of gold on their land and a racist US president to deal with. It wasn't a lack of food that convinced Geronimo to give up his terrorist tactics on US citizenry. It was when he was brought to the point where fighting could only endanger the Apache people, where even his own family was against him, that he finally surrendered.
It may not be the best way, but a guaranteed method to put an end to hostilities is to beat down the enemy until they have no more will to fight. When a people has lost all hope, they will give up.
Al Qaida is also organized much differently from the Apaches.
The Apaches were their own nation, living among their own territories. Each individual band and tribelet (Bedonkohe, Chiricahua...) had its own formal organization, but they were all Apache, all members of the larger ethno-cultural-linguistic group.
It would be different if the Apache were scattered among 60 different modern states of similar ethnic and religious (and ideological) backgrounds, and if all you had to do to become an Apache was to worship Usen, hate Western culture, and form a local Apache cell.
If you exterminated the Chiricahua then the Chiricahua were gone; if you extermine an Al Qaida cell (like the recent strike in Yemen) you might create 6 more Al Qaida cells (or you might not). Even more to the point, if you start massacring every man, woman, and child connected with Al Qaida (as, of course, happened over and over and over and over and over again here in America) you're GUARANTEED to quadruple the group's membership at least, as well as turn the attention of full-scale states with standing armies against you.
My understanding is that isreal has a policy of destroying the home of the family of a suicide/homicide bomber. So the family, instead of being lauded as heroes (or maybe in adition to) is now homeless and destitute. the Palestinian leadership isn't sending THEIR kids, Yasser's kid lives, iirc, in ffrance, with bodyguards, who would probably kill anyone trying to blow them up using suicide tactics. The palestinian joe-sixpack (ahmed-tea service? )isn't going to send his kids into battle if it gets things that much worse. Using a religious precedent, god set a mark on cain and said he would be avenged 7 fold to discourage anyone from killing him. There may be something to that. If nations realize that harboring al quaeda will land them in the same rubble pile as the taliban, they will certainly be less open, less overt, ad less free with their support of same. I don't care if they love us (thouhg that would be nice) but they dang well better not kill us. ho chi min said something like 'they will kill ten of us for each one that we kill, but they will tire first' and he was right. But the problem was that we were trading lives, and our culture places a higher value on individual life than his culture (the totalitarian part, not necessarily the vietnamese part) did. In Islam family and face and avoidance of shame are important. Bagdhad has men whose job is 'the violation of women's honor' ie rape. If a palestinian proto-terrorist knows that his actions will hurt his cause, his family, his religion, he may rethink, even if he still hates israelis. Its not the best flavor of peace, but its better than what we have now. to clarify, my hierarchy is 1) peace throught mutual respect 2) peace through intimidation 3) just war of self defense 4) 'peace' through appeasement 5) unjust war 6) barabarism and anarchy I think 3 leads to 2, which can gradually lead to 1 ( the leaven that leavens the whole loaf). I think that 4 leads to 5 leads to 6. I think that right now we are trying to decide between 3 and 4. and like a non-minimum phase control problem (example: balancing a stick vertically on your finger) you have to make an initial move that seems opposite of what you really want. right now we need armed conflict to move towards peace. and if we do the less violent thing now we end up with less (or no) peace. (edited to add rambling obscure controls theory analogy - sorry)
[This message has been edited by maniacal_engineer (edited November 05, 2002).]
Maybe the subject changed and I wasn't aware of it. I'm not particularly worried about Al Qaida. The impression that I'm under right now is that nearly every civilized nation in the world is dead-set against anyone who practices terrorism as a form of political activism. What group publicly supports Al Qaida? Who would dare admit that they were Al Qaida? Force seems to have been particularly effective in subduing attempts terrorize the United States. You seem to be implying that the way to stop terrorism is to give terrorists what they want. This does little to discredit the attempts of those who wish to make terrorism an acceptible form of political activism.
But I thought we were discussing methods of eliminating suicide bombing in Israel. As far as I am concerned, suicide bombers and the needs and rights of the Palestinian people are two separate entities. The only reason that can be given as to why not to consider the needs of the Palestinian people is that somebody might misconstrue this to mean suicide bombing is a legitimate method of enforcing your demands. It is not, nor can it ever be.
The Apache were not necessarily scattered, but they were nations of similar ethnic and religious and ideological backgrounds. Certainly there were all kinds of variations, but there are variations among Arab peoples as well, religious as well as political. I think it's pretty much a given that plains indians could be said to hate Western Culture. They certainly hated the United States (many still do) and were certainly antithetical to many "western" ideas, such as private property. When the US army gathered the Navajo together like so many sheep and brought them to the point that they realized the only way to get what they wanted was to stop attacking, this did not encourage other tribes to take up the cause. I fail to see how doing whatever is necessary to convince palestinian suicide bombers that the only way to get what they want is to quit attacking will create more attackers. Terrorism is in fact fast losing credibility. More people are realizing that if they want to be heard, the one thing they must not do is anything that can be perceived as terrorism. This is generally a good thing.
Exterminating the entire palestinian people will turn the attention of full scale states with standing armies against you. Slabodan Milosovic will attest to that (then again, perhaps he won't attest to anything he's done). Perhaps anything that is percieved by the public as out of proportion to the crime will also create such a public uprising, as the debacle of the 1916 Easter Uprising did in Ireland. But Israel isn't practice ethnic cleansing or mass executions. They show no indications that they intend to. Israel does not bomb palestinian towns. They send in soldiers and systematically remove violent threats at great risk to their own lives. They destroy buildings that they think have explosives or other terrorist supplies. When they destroy a building, they give notice and tell people to evacuate. All in all, they act with the utmost discretion. The only alternative you have given, that I can see, is instead of using military action, to cut off the food supply. Are there no better alternatives?
quote:They killed us, so why don't we go kill them; that'll teach 'em....What? They did it again! Those Godless coldhearted murdering bastards! Let's go bomb a shopping mall/invade a refugee camp, that'll teach 'em
That's hardly fair animist. Israel kills Terrorists, NOT civillians. And I think you'll agree that bombing houses is no where near as bad as bombing civillians.
quote:Daniel Quinn wrote something wonderfully applicable to the present situation: "Old Minds think: If it didn't work before, do MORE of it. New Minds think: If it didn't work before, do something ELSE."
But to make such a statement, which you seem to base a lot of your ideas on, you have to first accept that our methods are failing. Why are you so sure there are?
Do you have any idea how many terrorists are stopped each and every day before getting into Israel? They don't mention those terrorists, they only mention the ones that succeed. But there are a lot of terrorists stopped right now before they manage to kill innocents.
Since I don't believe there is ANY way to completely stop terrorism (they'll allways find some way through every security) the very fact that we're stopping so many people is proof that what we're doing IS working, or at least is better than not doing anything.
Altho I like your idea. Let's STOP what we're doing, and try something new. Never mind that all those terror attacks that are currently stopped might succeed and how many hundreds more would lose their lives for your experiment?
You see, I thought we were discussing larger issues of terrorism as they affect anyone, anywhere: Israel, America, or Sri Lanka.
I certainly don't think the Al Qaida threat is neutralized; look at the recent bombing of that French ship, for example.
No, Israel isn't comitting the absolute genocide of the Palestinian people, (though they certainly are doing their best to beat them mercilessly into submission), but that's what you seemed to be advocating by using the Indian Wars as a comparison.
The Indian Wars saw full-scale genocide repeated over and over and over; this was how victory was secured, by full-scale massacre and forced removal. Those tactics could never ever ever work in Israel today, if only because, again, the world would not countenance it.
Thus the "success" of the Indian Wars at enforcing peace by violence is therefore NOT applicable to the situation in Israel today.
You're also operating on the premise that everything the Israeli military does is right, with every civilian casualty an accident ("In war these things happen") while everything Palestinian insurgents do is wrong, a bloody act of terrorism. I WILL NOT ATTEMPT TO ARGUE WITH YOU because I know it is impossible.
If you've picked one side to be the "good guys" then you will overlook or explain away every one of their crimes and there is not one thing I can do about it; I don't care to try.
Did you, by chance, visit the link I posted? If not: It contained advice for avoiding terrorism in America based on TWENTY YEARS of experience in Sri Lanka. Among two of the points made were: "Everything each side says about the other is true. Everything they say about themselves is false," and "The government and the insurgents are fighting two separate wars."
quote:You're also operating on the premise that everything the Israeli military does is right, with every civilian casualty an accident ("In war these things happen") while everything Palestinian insurgents do is wrong, a bloody act of terrorism. I WILL NOT ATTEMPT TO ARGUE WITH YOU because I know it is impossible.
You're talking to me I assume, right? [He wasn't in the end ]
So I'd like to officially thank you for not arguing with me. After all, I allready said that I hold a differnet view to you. Obviously that means I am a war-monger with a closed mind who won't accept any alternative views, and it would be a waste of time trying to talk to me like I have a mind (everyone with a mind agrees with you no?)..
[sarcasm for anyone that didn't notice]
But I will try and argue with that anyway.
I don't assume *everything* the Israeli government does is right. I really don't.
As for the Palestinians, if we're talking about the terrorists that kill innocent Israeli civillians, then yes I definitely think what they're doing is wrong. You don't?
Elimis EDIT: I didn't read your link, I'll read it after school.
[This message has been edited by Elimis (edited November 06, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Elimis (edited November 06, 2002).]
Actually, I'm pretty sure he was refering to me, since he was responding to my quote.
I'm afraid you're right that I didn't read your link. It didn't connect that that was supposed to be your list of tactics for discouraging terrorism. I'll see if I can get around to reading it. I can't really complain if people don't read my links, if I never read theirs.
I'm not operating on the premise that everything the israeli military does is right. I am operating under the misguided premise that Israel is my people and that suicide bombers constitute the people who want to kill my people. I have more patriotic feelings for Israel than for the United States, so I won't accept any activity that I feel is detrimental to the security of the Israeli state. Palestinian civilian casualties are not an accident. They are a deliberate, controlled response. People who throw rocks at armed soldiers are likely to get shot, even if they're children. This is a necessary policy when the children are just as likely to be throwing hand grenades and molotov coctails.
I haven't picked one side to be the good guys. I've picked one side to be my people. My people could always use a more effective policy; my people sometimes make mistakes. But they are still my people.
1. the war could go on forever... lesson #1 violence never resolves anything.
this is the ivory soap of non sequiturs 99.44% pure. the rest of the site is comparable for instance
quote:3. WHAT EACH SIDE SAYS ABOUT THE OTHER IS TRUE. WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT THEMSELVES IS NOT. Each maximizes the sins of the other, while minimizing their own. Both sides commit atrocities. Each justifies its actions while vilifying the actions of the other. Because of anger, history and psychological filters, the two sides cannot see or hear each other. They each seem unreasonable, “evil”, to the other.
America: The US government refers to Al Qaeda as “terrorists” and “evildoers” and stresses their unprovoked attacks on unarmed civilian populations. Al Qaeda refers to the US government as invaders and oppressors and “evildoers”. They stress the military’s occupation of Muslim land and the hundreds of thousands of Muslim deaths at the hands of the American military. Each claims that God is on their side. (Either God is very busy, or both sides are deluded into thinking that God is on the side of the violent.)
Lesson #3: Articulate the “third way” position that is against VIOLENCE, not against either of the parties to the conflict. Help both sides understand that their actions are part of the problem, and that all sides, including “the enemy”, is part of the solution.
except that we are not, as a matter of objective fact, invaders of muslims countries (at least not yet) we defended kuwait and Saudi Arabia and we maintain troops there, but we aren't running the countries, and the Saud piss us off all the time with stupid things they do. we are no more invaders than the hired security guard is oppressive to the owners of the building who hire him. As far the hundreds of thousnds of deaths at american hands - huh? sanctions are because of saddam, and in the balkans we came in on the side of the muslims. So while both sides see the other as evil, saying it doesn't make it so. There is infact a reality and in reality the US, while not perfect, is pretty well behaved, and alqda is not. One thing I agree with on that site is that it is important to come up with creative solutions tothe problem. But in my mind that could be s way of more specifically targeting the enemy, not necessarily sitting around singing kumbaya.
I'm sorry. My last post was written over the course of about an hour and a half, and was in its entirety a response to Kyle and only to Kyle; I didn't know that you posted after him until today.
Maniacal Engineer: Your response to Point #3 ignores Point #2, the government and the terrorists are fighting completely different wars. In the view of bin Laden we have indeed invaded Islamic lands (and we certainly killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq).
Kyle: More later.
Everyone: I wish I had thought a little bit longer before getting into an Israel debate on this message board...