FridgeMagnet
Administrator
well said ali, nice one
I'm new here from NYC, thoughts about the "War"
- Thread starter tribal
- Start date
J
Johnny Canuck
Guest
Britain 'walked away', and the war of Partition has been going on for the last 60 years. Yes, the problem is a local one now, but does that matter to someone killed at Amritsar?
Calico, the US has used 'aid' money to further its own ends. The Third World continues to be a shambles, and an indictment of the First World. However, post World War 2 Europe was part of that third world, complete with millions of refugees, starving people, and bombed out cities. The US aid of the Marshall Plan helped to get Europe and Britain back on their feet.
I believe the modern era is a consequence of the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the fact that the US was left as the only big/bad guy around. What is happening now is a restructuring, trying to right the imbalances created in 1989.
Paul, I expect that I am neither strange nor frightfully amazing. People on the internet do use pseudonyms. I believe that they tend to put things in a way that they might not do, if face to face. Most people, upon entering a casual conversation with a stranger, will not call that person a twat to his or her face. But it happens all the time on the net. I think we tend to be more polite in our 'in person' dealings.
Cause and effect are tough to figure out, you are right. It's hard to come up with a 'prime' cause for any event. Philosophers have been wrestling with that, and with free will and determinism, for centuries. Maybe they will get it someday. Maybe I will too.
Canute sat in his throne on the seashore to make a point to his courtiers about the futility of human action, as opposed to the might of God. Maybe he wasn't so stupid after all.
Fridge: That was my point; I tend to use purple prose at times(!), maybe to underscore a point. I don't know about all those other colors...
With respect, I don't use single events; I am pointing to courses of events. The US assistance of Israel is an ongoing occurrence, not a single event. By its ongoing nature, it has a continuing influence on other events.
You are right, just because something has worked in the past, is no guarantee that it will work in the future. However, if it has had some success before, and now, in the present, you are unsure what to do, the events of the past can give some guidance about how to proceed in future.
Thank you for 'counterfactual'. It is a word I didn't know.
The good thing about the theory of evolution is that it says things are - evolving, getting better. I think that is a hopeful theory. What is the alternative. That our activities are simply churning the dust, as it were?
The racist thing is humorous to me, for reasons of my personal life that you wouldn't know. But ask yourself this, by tarring me with such a broad brush, are you trying to demonize me, and therefore marginalize my ideas, much as you accuse us of doing to OBL and others?
I think I will end up where it all started: the vagina. I know, Calico, that you were calling me an idiot. My point is that when you, and others, really want to use a stinging swearword to belittle another, you use a word which refers to the female anatomy.
That sounds like a throwback to the bad old days when women were considered chattels and unclean, and had to segregate themselves during their periods, and had to cover their sinful bodies from head to toe, and couldn't go to school, and were circumcised through clitoridectomy and..... oh,oh; I'm losing it again...
good night.
Calico, the US has used 'aid' money to further its own ends. The Third World continues to be a shambles, and an indictment of the First World. However, post World War 2 Europe was part of that third world, complete with millions of refugees, starving people, and bombed out cities. The US aid of the Marshall Plan helped to get Europe and Britain back on their feet.
I believe the modern era is a consequence of the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the fact that the US was left as the only big/bad guy around. What is happening now is a restructuring, trying to right the imbalances created in 1989.
Paul, I expect that I am neither strange nor frightfully amazing. People on the internet do use pseudonyms. I believe that they tend to put things in a way that they might not do, if face to face. Most people, upon entering a casual conversation with a stranger, will not call that person a twat to his or her face. But it happens all the time on the net. I think we tend to be more polite in our 'in person' dealings.
Cause and effect are tough to figure out, you are right. It's hard to come up with a 'prime' cause for any event. Philosophers have been wrestling with that, and with free will and determinism, for centuries. Maybe they will get it someday. Maybe I will too.
Canute sat in his throne on the seashore to make a point to his courtiers about the futility of human action, as opposed to the might of God. Maybe he wasn't so stupid after all.
Fridge: That was my point; I tend to use purple prose at times(!), maybe to underscore a point. I don't know about all those other colors...
With respect, I don't use single events; I am pointing to courses of events. The US assistance of Israel is an ongoing occurrence, not a single event. By its ongoing nature, it has a continuing influence on other events.
You are right, just because something has worked in the past, is no guarantee that it will work in the future. However, if it has had some success before, and now, in the present, you are unsure what to do, the events of the past can give some guidance about how to proceed in future.
Thank you for 'counterfactual'. It is a word I didn't know.
The good thing about the theory of evolution is that it says things are - evolving, getting better. I think that is a hopeful theory. What is the alternative. That our activities are simply churning the dust, as it were?
The racist thing is humorous to me, for reasons of my personal life that you wouldn't know. But ask yourself this, by tarring me with such a broad brush, are you trying to demonize me, and therefore marginalize my ideas, much as you accuse us of doing to OBL and others?
I think I will end up where it all started: the vagina. I know, Calico, that you were calling me an idiot. My point is that when you, and others, really want to use a stinging swearword to belittle another, you use a word which refers to the female anatomy.
That sounds like a throwback to the bad old days when women were considered chattels and unclean, and had to segregate themselves during their periods, and had to cover their sinful bodies from head to toe, and couldn't go to school, and were circumcised through clitoridectomy and..... oh,oh; I'm losing it again...
good night.
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
Johnny-boy,
Britain walked away and there are problems with partition.
What's your solution? Bring the British back? How do you think they got their empire in the first place if it wasn't through killing as well as trade?
By your reasoning you might as well argue that America and Canada ought to have remained Britsh colonies. I mean - look at all the deaths caused by the wars for independence and the American civil war. And look at all the problems Americans are having with guns and drugs. Not to mention airjets flying into buildings.
You should've read up on your history before mentioning Amritsar. This is the place where hundreds of innocent men, women and children were shot dead by the British for simply having a peaceful meeting about Independence.
You will not have any Indian arguing in favour of the British Empire, so don't you even try to go down the path that somehow because the Americans and British are so 'superior' they're justified in interfering. They're not. And I hope it doesn't take more airplanes in buildings to convince Americans of that.
[ 18 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
Britain walked away and there are problems with partition.
What's your solution? Bring the British back? How do you think they got their empire in the first place if it wasn't through killing as well as trade?
By your reasoning you might as well argue that America and Canada ought to have remained Britsh colonies. I mean - look at all the deaths caused by the wars for independence and the American civil war. And look at all the problems Americans are having with guns and drugs. Not to mention airjets flying into buildings.
You should've read up on your history before mentioning Amritsar. This is the place where hundreds of innocent men, women and children were shot dead by the British for simply having a peaceful meeting about Independence.
You will not have any Indian arguing in favour of the British Empire, so don't you even try to go down the path that somehow because the Americans and British are so 'superior' they're justified in interfering. They're not. And I hope it doesn't take more airplanes in buildings to convince Americans of that.
[ 18 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
C
calico
Guest
Johnny, I am aware of huge and extreamly helpful aid the US gave to europe through the marshall plan. However, I would be careful about using the term "Third World" to describe Europe at the end of WWII. As deverstated as Europe was economicaly, most countries were still self-sufficiant.
The US, as Im sure you know, also put huge interests rates on the loans, and saw it as a chance to develope/maintain political hegemony on the rest of the world.
The US, as Im sure you know, also put huge interests rates on the loans, and saw it as a chance to develope/maintain political hegemony on the rest of the world.
J
johnwisehammer
Guest
To describe Europe as third world in 1945 completely ignores that development is not simply a question of physical capital but also psycho-social behaviour, human capital, insititutions and other non-material concepts.
Here we go:
"these are all moderate and rather stable arab countries, ruled by their own people, witout the 'imperialist' darth vader like US interfering with them"
Right, well they might be moderate as far as Islam goes, but they are certainly not moderate politically. There are no meaningful political rights in any of the peninsular states (with the possible exception of Yemen) and (indeed) there are riots in Qatar frequently.
"free trade and open markets 2. a non-radical and democratic/parliamentary monarchy govt (china is an exception). 3.the flexibility to adapt to a changing world and a changing economy."
The following countries are stable without these things: Singapore, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Maldives, Burma, Brunei, the UAE, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait (it's not a meaningful parliament), Saudi Arabia - and these are just the ones I can think of offhand.
"you have a son. you feel that you are oppressed for one reason or another. so would you tell your kids to take fire bombs, rifles and stones, go up to soldiers and attack them?"
Then what else is there to do when your oppressors make sure that all the men of any decent age are unable to spend any time outside of sleeping, working and travelling to work? Sit back and be oppressed? The tokenistic violence and resistance of stonethrowing is nothing compared to the violence of occupation, ethnic cleansing, psychological warfare and terror.
Here we go:
"these are all moderate and rather stable arab countries, ruled by their own people, witout the 'imperialist' darth vader like US interfering with them"
Right, well they might be moderate as far as Islam goes, but they are certainly not moderate politically. There are no meaningful political rights in any of the peninsular states (with the possible exception of Yemen) and (indeed) there are riots in Qatar frequently.
"free trade and open markets 2. a non-radical and democratic/parliamentary monarchy govt (china is an exception). 3.the flexibility to adapt to a changing world and a changing economy."
The following countries are stable without these things: Singapore, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Maldives, Burma, Brunei, the UAE, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait (it's not a meaningful parliament), Saudi Arabia - and these are just the ones I can think of offhand.
"you have a son. you feel that you are oppressed for one reason or another. so would you tell your kids to take fire bombs, rifles and stones, go up to soldiers and attack them?"
Then what else is there to do when your oppressors make sure that all the men of any decent age are unable to spend any time outside of sleeping, working and travelling to work? Sit back and be oppressed? The tokenistic violence and resistance of stonethrowing is nothing compared to the violence of occupation, ethnic cleansing, psychological warfare and terror.
J
Johnny Canuck
Guest
My post might lead you to believe that I was advocating some kind of return to the British Raj; I wasn't. I was pointing out that while the removal of a colonial or otherwise outside power can have many benefits, it can also have negative consequences, such as the intensification of tribal, sectarian, etc. conflicts, that may have existed before the colonial power came, and then flare up when it goes. The Balkans after the end of the USSR are a good case in point.
I believe I was mentioning Britain/India in the context of Israel and the middle east. Yes, if the US abandons Israel, it will free things up for a 'local solution'. However, that solution may bring great harm both to the locals, and to the world at large.
I stand by my description of post war Europe. The 'third world' concept is an economic one. Frankly, I don't accept that most, if any, European countries were self sufficient after the war. They certainly were highly unstable. Look at the number of governments France and Italy had from 1945 - 1960. Europe was 'closed' for two years afterr the war; foreigners not on some sort of necessary business could not travel there, because things were so bad.
Many things have happened at Amritsar. I was speaking of the battle between Sikhs and the Indian Army at the Golden Temple.
I believe I was mentioning Britain/India in the context of Israel and the middle east. Yes, if the US abandons Israel, it will free things up for a 'local solution'. However, that solution may bring great harm both to the locals, and to the world at large.
I stand by my description of post war Europe. The 'third world' concept is an economic one. Frankly, I don't accept that most, if any, European countries were self sufficient after the war. They certainly were highly unstable. Look at the number of governments France and Italy had from 1945 - 1960. Europe was 'closed' for two years afterr the war; foreigners not on some sort of necessary business could not travel there, because things were so bad.
Many things have happened at Amritsar. I was speaking of the battle between Sikhs and the Indian Army at the Golden Temple.
hipipol
Peckham Wry
Amritsar-The Golden Temple.
An excellent example.
Mr Patel made reference to the murders carried out on the order of General Dyer, a filthy piece of work by anyones standards, but anyway that was 1918 or 1919, and the world has changed a great deal since then.
The example of Bindran Whalli is radically different, I think if you had understood it, you would not have used it.
The structure of India is federal, the history of India is not. Other than the brief periods of Moghul control or British, India has consisted of a large number of independant states or kingdoms. Mix into that language, cultural and ethnic diversity plus the very wide range of powers devolved to the States you have powerful forces acting to break the power of the centre, as the following of some of the excellent on-line editions of Indian newspapers will demonstrate.
In order to ensure control of the Lok Sabha Mrs Gandhi felt she had to rein in the power of the Akhali Dal, the largest and most powerful of the Sikh parties. In order to do this she covertly armed and supported the actions of Bindran Whalli who carried out assasinations of moderate Sikh leaders and other terrorist acts. This enabled her to claim that the Punjab was ungovernable and install Presidents rule. Somehow she assumed that once she had achieved her polical aims and had removed the power of the Akhali Dal Bindran Whalli would just fade away, why remains a mystery- he did not. He got more difficult as time went by with his calls for the establishment of Khalistan, an independant Sikh state, to which end attempted to ethnically cleanse the Punjab of Hindus.
He had for some time been storing weapons and men in the Golden Temple, she had it stormed and as a direct result, she was murdered by her Sikh bodyguards for defiling the temple.
The point of this story is that, if you meddle in soem one elses affair and attempt to run low level wars by proxy, arming them in the process, do not be surprised if they then turn around and bite you.
That is the point that a number of people are trying to make, interferring is highly dangerous and rarely produces the results you were seeking in the firsat place.
Thank for shedding light on this universal truth by the selection of such an excellent example.
PS It is a well known fact that Palestinians use their children to attack Israelis. That is why most of the dead are young men etc. They are brainwashed into hating Isrealis, etc
All Isreali citizens, provided they are Jews, must to military service, young men, teenagers- hmmmm, whose using children? Who is the child attck theory well known by?
Perhaps soon they will decide to make tank tracks too slippery to grip the road by throwing new born babies at them, eh?
PPS The UK did not recieve Marshall plan cash, France did and Germany in particular.
facts, dear boy, facts.
An excellent example.
Mr Patel made reference to the murders carried out on the order of General Dyer, a filthy piece of work by anyones standards, but anyway that was 1918 or 1919, and the world has changed a great deal since then.
The example of Bindran Whalli is radically different, I think if you had understood it, you would not have used it.
The structure of India is federal, the history of India is not. Other than the brief periods of Moghul control or British, India has consisted of a large number of independant states or kingdoms. Mix into that language, cultural and ethnic diversity plus the very wide range of powers devolved to the States you have powerful forces acting to break the power of the centre, as the following of some of the excellent on-line editions of Indian newspapers will demonstrate.
In order to ensure control of the Lok Sabha Mrs Gandhi felt she had to rein in the power of the Akhali Dal, the largest and most powerful of the Sikh parties. In order to do this she covertly armed and supported the actions of Bindran Whalli who carried out assasinations of moderate Sikh leaders and other terrorist acts. This enabled her to claim that the Punjab was ungovernable and install Presidents rule. Somehow she assumed that once she had achieved her polical aims and had removed the power of the Akhali Dal Bindran Whalli would just fade away, why remains a mystery- he did not. He got more difficult as time went by with his calls for the establishment of Khalistan, an independant Sikh state, to which end attempted to ethnically cleanse the Punjab of Hindus.
He had for some time been storing weapons and men in the Golden Temple, she had it stormed and as a direct result, she was murdered by her Sikh bodyguards for defiling the temple.
The point of this story is that, if you meddle in soem one elses affair and attempt to run low level wars by proxy, arming them in the process, do not be surprised if they then turn around and bite you.
That is the point that a number of people are trying to make, interferring is highly dangerous and rarely produces the results you were seeking in the firsat place.
Thank for shedding light on this universal truth by the selection of such an excellent example.
PS It is a well known fact that Palestinians use their children to attack Israelis. That is why most of the dead are young men etc. They are brainwashed into hating Isrealis, etc
All Isreali citizens, provided they are Jews, must to military service, young men, teenagers- hmmmm, whose using children? Who is the child attck theory well known by?
Perhaps soon they will decide to make tank tracks too slippery to grip the road by throwing new born babies at them, eh?
PPS The UK did not recieve Marshall plan cash, France did and Germany in particular.
facts, dear boy, facts.
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
Yes JC.
I understand what you're saying. But again, you're being selective with your facts. And you're giving us the same story of:
'Well look what happened in....'
'Well, if we leave then .......'
Which is fine. It's yet another justification for your stance by being selective. Which isn't wrong in itself, but you just have to admit that you're doing it, that's all.
I understand what you're saying. But again, you're being selective with your facts. And you're giving us the same story of:
'Well look what happened in....'
'Well, if we leave then .......'
Which is fine. It's yet another justification for your stance by being selective. Which isn't wrong in itself, but you just have to admit that you're doing it, that's all.
J
Johnny Canuck
Guest
Maybe Marshall money didn't go to Britain, but it did go to the rest of Europe, to help in the post war recovery.
England received its aid during the war in the form of Lend/Lease.
Patel, I'm being selective, because we have 'selected' a specific area to discuss, the Middle East.
I don't know what would happen if the US pulled all its interests out of New Zealand, for instance. That doesn't invalidate my contention that if the US abandoned Israel, there would be war there, sooner rather than later. The presence of the US may or may not promote a host of other ills, but a war of extermination probably won't take place so long as the US is propping up Israel.
That is the extent of the point.
We tend to be fairly familiar with matters Punjabi in Canada, because, like the UK, many people from there have moved here. They tend to maintain an active interest in news from the 'old country'.
You are no doubt right about the deep background to Amritsar. It doesn't change the fact that with a colonial power in place, local disputes tend to get frozen in time, the better to heat up when the colonial power leaves.
England received its aid during the war in the form of Lend/Lease.
Patel, I'm being selective, because we have 'selected' a specific area to discuss, the Middle East.
I don't know what would happen if the US pulled all its interests out of New Zealand, for instance. That doesn't invalidate my contention that if the US abandoned Israel, there would be war there, sooner rather than later. The presence of the US may or may not promote a host of other ills, but a war of extermination probably won't take place so long as the US is propping up Israel.
That is the extent of the point.
We tend to be fairly familiar with matters Punjabi in Canada, because, like the UK, many people from there have moved here. They tend to maintain an active interest in news from the 'old country'.
You are no doubt right about the deep background to Amritsar. It doesn't change the fact that with a colonial power in place, local disputes tend to get frozen in time, the better to heat up when the colonial power leaves.
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
Johnny,
I agree you are being selective but not because we have selected a topic of conversation, like discussing the weather here, in abstract.
It arises due to ignorance, something which we all possess in copious quantities.
Fact is, at least I can acknowledge it and try to work with it. I know that whatever my viewpoints on whether or not the British Empire or American involvement is any good, at the ned of the day it'll be all theeoretical.
I also know that people in other countries may or may not agree with me. Sometimes they won't, and especially when they have foreign troops on their terrotory, or when they're being bombed or when they have sanctions imposed on them and so on.
But that wasn't important. As long as the problem was out there, Americans didn't have to worry about whether they were right or wrong in what they believed and thought about it all. Most didn't care. If they did, they would have had the nice theoretical conversations that we're having here right now.
Fine. Except now the problem has come home. And irrespective of what people now say they believe and happen to be the case (which is subjective and selective), unless and until they have the courage to see things from a different viewpoint or at least attempt to, things will only get from bad to worse for them. Those who have been under the yoke of unwanted American intrusion will see to that, and they have nothing to lose.
I agree you are being selective but not because we have selected a topic of conversation, like discussing the weather here, in abstract.
It arises due to ignorance, something which we all possess in copious quantities.
Fact is, at least I can acknowledge it and try to work with it. I know that whatever my viewpoints on whether or not the British Empire or American involvement is any good, at the ned of the day it'll be all theeoretical.
I also know that people in other countries may or may not agree with me. Sometimes they won't, and especially when they have foreign troops on their terrotory, or when they're being bombed or when they have sanctions imposed on them and so on.
But that wasn't important. As long as the problem was out there, Americans didn't have to worry about whether they were right or wrong in what they believed and thought about it all. Most didn't care. If they did, they would have had the nice theoretical conversations that we're having here right now.
Fine. Except now the problem has come home. And irrespective of what people now say they believe and happen to be the case (which is subjective and selective), unless and until they have the courage to see things from a different viewpoint or at least attempt to, things will only get from bad to worse for them. Those who have been under the yoke of unwanted American intrusion will see to that, and they have nothing to lose.
K
kissthecat
Guest
England may have 'recieved aid' but all of Britain paid for it.
J
Johnny Canuck
Guest
Patel: I don't have much disagreement with what you have to say - this time. And yes, I confess my ignorance of many many things.
I believe you are restating my position. Before now, the US public was largely unaware, and largely unconcerned, about much that happened in the world. They were largely unaware that many people in the world considered them oppressors.
Thus, Sept. 11 was, amongst other things, a total shock to the American people. I think I used a phrase like 'they were innocents' when it came to world affairs. Naturally, I didn't mean it in terms of moral non-culpability, but in terms of, I suppose, guilelessness.
Now the object, possibly, of the terrorists, and the hope of other people in the wider world, was that Sept. 11 would serve as some sort of wake up call to get educated in the true ways of the world.
The problem is that the education of a country would, and will, take a lot of time, not to mention the will to bother.
In the meantime, you have this economically and militarily strong country, whose people are fully, if naively, confident in their own innocent, subjected to a horrific act of terrorism.
The likely reaction won't be to sit back and take stock, at least in the short run. It was, and is, to get mad at this assault, and to demand vengeance. That is what is happening now, and that is why the world is now in a very precarious situation.
And that is why, among many other reasons, the Sept. 11 attack was absolutely the wrong thing to do.
I believe you are restating my position. Before now, the US public was largely unaware, and largely unconcerned, about much that happened in the world. They were largely unaware that many people in the world considered them oppressors.
Thus, Sept. 11 was, amongst other things, a total shock to the American people. I think I used a phrase like 'they were innocents' when it came to world affairs. Naturally, I didn't mean it in terms of moral non-culpability, but in terms of, I suppose, guilelessness.
Now the object, possibly, of the terrorists, and the hope of other people in the wider world, was that Sept. 11 would serve as some sort of wake up call to get educated in the true ways of the world.
The problem is that the education of a country would, and will, take a lot of time, not to mention the will to bother.
In the meantime, you have this economically and militarily strong country, whose people are fully, if naively, confident in their own innocent, subjected to a horrific act of terrorism.
The likely reaction won't be to sit back and take stock, at least in the short run. It was, and is, to get mad at this assault, and to demand vengeance. That is what is happening now, and that is why the world is now in a very precarious situation.
And that is why, among many other reasons, the Sept. 11 attack was absolutely the wrong thing to do.
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
So Johnny,
You defend what you're saying because the likely reaction to the attacks was to get mad and take vengeance, and not to take stock?
And this is because America is uneducated but it's too much of a bother to get educated?
OK. So now we have it. Now AT LAST I know where you're coming from.
You defend what you're saying because the likely reaction to the attacks was to get mad and take vengeance, and not to take stock?
And this is because America is uneducated but it's too much of a bother to get educated?
OK. So now we have it. Now AT LAST I know where you're coming from.
J
Johnny Canuck
Guest
No, Patel, that's not what I said, and I trust that anyone else reading my post will understand that.
fractionMan
Custom Title
Johney: The first part of what you have written makes sense. It's the conclusion that doensn't follow, and is probably what PCS is getting at.
J
Johnny Canuck
Guest
What I was trying to say is that if you attack a group of people who, rightly or wrongly, believe totally in their own innocence and goodness, their reaction will at first be total bewilderment, then, likely, rage.
They will be angry because, in their minds, they have done nothing wrong, making the attack, in their minds, totally uncalled for and criminal.
They will then call for action. Call it what you will, vengeance, retribution, justice, evening the score, etc., it amounts to the same thing - a call for the head of the perpetrators.
Because the 'group of people'in this instance happens to be the most militarily powerful country, the reaction to the attack may, and probably will, have serious consequences for people everywhere.
Thus, instead of advancing a cause (unless that cause is war), or promoting the education of an allegedly ignorant people, the attacks will have the main effect, at least in the short run, of destabilizing the world, and promoting war. And I say that is wrong.
They will be angry because, in their minds, they have done nothing wrong, making the attack, in their minds, totally uncalled for and criminal.
They will then call for action. Call it what you will, vengeance, retribution, justice, evening the score, etc., it amounts to the same thing - a call for the head of the perpetrators.
Because the 'group of people'in this instance happens to be the most militarily powerful country, the reaction to the attack may, and probably will, have serious consequences for people everywhere.
Thus, instead of advancing a cause (unless that cause is war), or promoting the education of an allegedly ignorant people, the attacks will have the main effect, at least in the short run, of destabilizing the world, and promoting war. And I say that is wrong.
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
JC.
There is nothing wrong with defending ignorance and rage, which is what you're doing.
So why not be honest about it? At least then people will know where you're coming from and what your stand is.
There is nothing wrong with defending ignorance and rage, which is what you're doing.
So why not be honest about it? At least then people will know where you're coming from and what your stand is.
J
Johnny Canuck
Guest
How can I make it any clearer? I, personally, felt a deep sadness, and intense anger after Sept. 11. I think all of you here saw a little of it in my posts.
Millions of people here in North America, and elsewhere, felt the same.
"Ignorance" is a loaded term. I don't choose to use it. I have said, and will repeat, that the majority of the US population likely didn't have a deep understanding of world affairs prior to, and even after, Sept. 11.
Patel; to say that I am defending ignorance and rage is incorrect. I am not excusing nor justifying it. I am merely trying to describe what I see as being the current state of affairs.
The US and others were enraged by Sept. 11. I say, with good reason; you may disagree.
These enraged people wanted to strike out. I say that is also understandable; you may disagree.
At times in the past, and even continuing into current times, the government of these people may have done things that were illegal and or immoral. That does not justify the committing of another crime on Sept. 11. From what I can tell, you do disagree with that.
Millions of people here in North America, and elsewhere, felt the same.
"Ignorance" is a loaded term. I don't choose to use it. I have said, and will repeat, that the majority of the US population likely didn't have a deep understanding of world affairs prior to, and even after, Sept. 11.
Patel; to say that I am defending ignorance and rage is incorrect. I am not excusing nor justifying it. I am merely trying to describe what I see as being the current state of affairs.
The US and others were enraged by Sept. 11. I say, with good reason; you may disagree.
These enraged people wanted to strike out. I say that is also understandable; you may disagree.
At times in the past, and even continuing into current times, the government of these people may have done things that were illegal and or immoral. That does not justify the committing of another crime on Sept. 11. From what I can tell, you do disagree with that.
this is exactly what im trying to tell you people, this is what im talking about, please read:
taken out of UKs Guardian
-------------------------
Fighting Islam's Ku Klux Klan
The Muslim world cannot forever attribute all its ills to the Great Satan, America, writes the Iraqi dissident, Kanan Makiya
War on Terrorism: Observer special BR>
The globalisation debate
Sunday October 7, 2001
The Observer
The Arab and Muslim worlds suddenly find themselves facing a civilisational challenge such as they have not had to face since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. For, in the years to come, the greatest price of the madness that was unleashed upon New York and Washington on 11 September will be borne by them and by all individuals of Arab or Muslim origin, wherever they might live in the world.
I am not talking about the next war in Afghanistan or greatly redoubled efforts to hunt down Muslim and Arab terrorists from Boston and Hamburg to Cairo and Karachi. The price I am talking about is not paid in blood or by being the victim of the kinds of humiliating slurs and racist attacks that are everywhere on the rise in the West. It is the much greater price brought about by continuing to wallow in the sense of one's own victimhood to the point of losing the essentially universal idea of human dignity and worth that is the only true measure of civility.
Arab and Muslim resentment at the West is grounded in many grievances, some legitimate, others less so. Without question, the West has blundered in its dealings with the Arab world. The United States has in recent years behaved unjustly towards the Palestinians. The Allied victory in the Gulf War of 1990-1991 was a lost opportunity to rectify this record, to show that the West, and the United States in particular, was capable of reaching out the hand of friendship and support to the peoples of the Arab world, to their democrats and civil libertarians, not merely to a host of tyrannical and unrepresentative regimes.
Like Germans after the First World War, Arabs felt they deserved a different lot after the Gulf War. They thought of themselves as having tried to change the ways they did politics in the past, and got nowhere. Palestinian living standards have actually declined since the Oslo accord in 1993, and Iraqi society (much less its polity and economy) is in a state of steady disintegration. So Arabs grew more resentful and angry at the West than at any other time in modern Arab history. This resentment can be felt everywhere; it has taken root in the most Westernised sections of the Arab population, among businessmen and students of science and engineering, and even among the sons of the mega-rich like Osama bin Laden.
However, grievances alone do not explain the apocalyptic act of fury that was unleashed upon New York and Washington. Arabs and Muslims need today to face up to the fact that their resentment at America has long since become unmoored from any rational underpinnings it might once have had; like the anti-Semitism of the interwar years, it is today steeped in deeply embedded conspiratorial patterns of thought rooted in profound ignorance of how a society and a polity like the United States, much less Israel, functions.
Attribution of all of the ills of one's own world to either the great Satan, America, or the little Satan, Israel, has been the driving force of Arab politics since 1967. As a powerful undercurrent of Arab culture and politics, it has been around much longer than that. After 1967, however, it became the legitimising cement upon which such murderous regimes as Saddam Hussein's Iraq were built.
From the hands of secular Arab nationalists, anti-Americanism was passed on to religious zealots. In 1979, it fused with anti-Shah sentiments to become the animating force of the Iranian revolution and, with that seminal event, major sections of the Islamic movement. Today, it has become a murderous brew of passions fuelled by paranoia and frustration.
In the five-page letter left in a suitcase in the car-park of Boston's airport, this passage, giving guidance to the hijackers in case they should meet resistance from a passenger, appears: 'If God grants any one of you a slaughter, you should perform it as an offering on behalf of your father and mother, for they are owed by you. Do not disagree among yourselves, but listen and obey. If you slaughter, you should plunder those you slaughter, for that is a sanctioned custom of the Prophet's, on the condition that you do not get occupied with the plunder so that you would leave what is more important, such as paying attention to the enemy, his treachery and attacks. That is because such action is very harmful [to the mission].'
This is not Islam any more than the Ku Klux Klan is Christianity. No concessions can be made to either mindset which have more in common with one another than they do with the religions they claim to represent.
To argue, as many Arabs and Muslims are doing today (and not a few liberal Western voices), that 'Americans should ask themselves why they are so hated in the world' is to make such a concession; it is to provide a justification, however unwittingly, for this kind of warped mindset. The thinking is the same as the 'linkage' dreamed up by Saddam Hussein when he tried to get the Arab world to believe that he had occupied Kuwait in 1990 in order to liberate Palestine. The difference being that if the argument was intellectually vacuous then, it is a thousand times more so now.
Worse than being wrong, however, it is morally bankrupt, to say nothing of being counterproductive. For every attempt to 'rationalise' or 'explain' the new anti-Americanism rampant in so much of the Muslim and Arab worlds bolsters the project of the perpetrators of the heinous act of 11 September, which is to blur the lines that separate their sect of a few hundred people from hundreds of millions of peace-loving Muslims and Arabs.
But it is now up to Arabs and Muslims to draw the line that separates them from the Osama bin Ladens of this world just as it was up to Americans to excoriate, isolate, outlaw, imprison and eventually root out the members of the Klan from their midst. Mercifully, the very same Western leaders who are preparing for the coming 'War Against Terrorism' are trying hard, and genuinely, to say their efforts are not directed at Muslims and Arab or Muslim culture. Constantly, they are being seen with Muslim clerics and visiting mosques. That is all for the good.
But it is not enough to turn the tide of public opinion which will increasingly need and want to know who is 'the other' in this coming war. Terrorism is a tactic, after all, not a side. Usage of the word 'war', however understandable, was a strategic mistake by the American President. For like the wars on drugs or poverty it inculcates expectations at the risk of showing few results. The problem is deeper than bin Laden and his associates, and will not end with their demise. As I wrote in Cruelty and Silence, citing the 1930s Iraqi alter ego of Tom Lehrer, Aziz Ali, Da' illi beena, minna wa feena: 'The disease that is in us, is from us and within us.' Against this kind of enemy the West can do nothing. We have to do it ourselves.
Muslims and Arabs have to be on the front lines of a new kind of war, one that is worth waging for their own salvation and in their own souls. And that, as good out-of-fashion Muslim scholars will tell you, is the true meaning of jihad, a meaning that has been hijacked by terrorists and suicide bombers and all those who applaud or find excuses for them. To exorcise what they have done in our name is the civilisational challenge of the twenty-first century for every Arab and Muslim in the world today.
© Kanan Makiya. The author, who was born in Iraq, now teaches in the US. His books include Cruelty and Silence: War, Tyranny, Uprising and the Arab World and the forthcoming The Rock.
taken out of UKs Guardian
-------------------------
Fighting Islam's Ku Klux Klan
The Muslim world cannot forever attribute all its ills to the Great Satan, America, writes the Iraqi dissident, Kanan Makiya
War on Terrorism: Observer special BR>
The globalisation debate
Sunday October 7, 2001
The Observer
The Arab and Muslim worlds suddenly find themselves facing a civilisational challenge such as they have not had to face since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. For, in the years to come, the greatest price of the madness that was unleashed upon New York and Washington on 11 September will be borne by them and by all individuals of Arab or Muslim origin, wherever they might live in the world.
I am not talking about the next war in Afghanistan or greatly redoubled efforts to hunt down Muslim and Arab terrorists from Boston and Hamburg to Cairo and Karachi. The price I am talking about is not paid in blood or by being the victim of the kinds of humiliating slurs and racist attacks that are everywhere on the rise in the West. It is the much greater price brought about by continuing to wallow in the sense of one's own victimhood to the point of losing the essentially universal idea of human dignity and worth that is the only true measure of civility.
Arab and Muslim resentment at the West is grounded in many grievances, some legitimate, others less so. Without question, the West has blundered in its dealings with the Arab world. The United States has in recent years behaved unjustly towards the Palestinians. The Allied victory in the Gulf War of 1990-1991 was a lost opportunity to rectify this record, to show that the West, and the United States in particular, was capable of reaching out the hand of friendship and support to the peoples of the Arab world, to their democrats and civil libertarians, not merely to a host of tyrannical and unrepresentative regimes.
Like Germans after the First World War, Arabs felt they deserved a different lot after the Gulf War. They thought of themselves as having tried to change the ways they did politics in the past, and got nowhere. Palestinian living standards have actually declined since the Oslo accord in 1993, and Iraqi society (much less its polity and economy) is in a state of steady disintegration. So Arabs grew more resentful and angry at the West than at any other time in modern Arab history. This resentment can be felt everywhere; it has taken root in the most Westernised sections of the Arab population, among businessmen and students of science and engineering, and even among the sons of the mega-rich like Osama bin Laden.
However, grievances alone do not explain the apocalyptic act of fury that was unleashed upon New York and Washington. Arabs and Muslims need today to face up to the fact that their resentment at America has long since become unmoored from any rational underpinnings it might once have had; like the anti-Semitism of the interwar years, it is today steeped in deeply embedded conspiratorial patterns of thought rooted in profound ignorance of how a society and a polity like the United States, much less Israel, functions.
Attribution of all of the ills of one's own world to either the great Satan, America, or the little Satan, Israel, has been the driving force of Arab politics since 1967. As a powerful undercurrent of Arab culture and politics, it has been around much longer than that. After 1967, however, it became the legitimising cement upon which such murderous regimes as Saddam Hussein's Iraq were built.
From the hands of secular Arab nationalists, anti-Americanism was passed on to religious zealots. In 1979, it fused with anti-Shah sentiments to become the animating force of the Iranian revolution and, with that seminal event, major sections of the Islamic movement. Today, it has become a murderous brew of passions fuelled by paranoia and frustration.
In the five-page letter left in a suitcase in the car-park of Boston's airport, this passage, giving guidance to the hijackers in case they should meet resistance from a passenger, appears: 'If God grants any one of you a slaughter, you should perform it as an offering on behalf of your father and mother, for they are owed by you. Do not disagree among yourselves, but listen and obey. If you slaughter, you should plunder those you slaughter, for that is a sanctioned custom of the Prophet's, on the condition that you do not get occupied with the plunder so that you would leave what is more important, such as paying attention to the enemy, his treachery and attacks. That is because such action is very harmful [to the mission].'
This is not Islam any more than the Ku Klux Klan is Christianity. No concessions can be made to either mindset which have more in common with one another than they do with the religions they claim to represent.
To argue, as many Arabs and Muslims are doing today (and not a few liberal Western voices), that 'Americans should ask themselves why they are so hated in the world' is to make such a concession; it is to provide a justification, however unwittingly, for this kind of warped mindset. The thinking is the same as the 'linkage' dreamed up by Saddam Hussein when he tried to get the Arab world to believe that he had occupied Kuwait in 1990 in order to liberate Palestine. The difference being that if the argument was intellectually vacuous then, it is a thousand times more so now.
Worse than being wrong, however, it is morally bankrupt, to say nothing of being counterproductive. For every attempt to 'rationalise' or 'explain' the new anti-Americanism rampant in so much of the Muslim and Arab worlds bolsters the project of the perpetrators of the heinous act of 11 September, which is to blur the lines that separate their sect of a few hundred people from hundreds of millions of peace-loving Muslims and Arabs.
But it is now up to Arabs and Muslims to draw the line that separates them from the Osama bin Ladens of this world just as it was up to Americans to excoriate, isolate, outlaw, imprison and eventually root out the members of the Klan from their midst. Mercifully, the very same Western leaders who are preparing for the coming 'War Against Terrorism' are trying hard, and genuinely, to say their efforts are not directed at Muslims and Arab or Muslim culture. Constantly, they are being seen with Muslim clerics and visiting mosques. That is all for the good.
But it is not enough to turn the tide of public opinion which will increasingly need and want to know who is 'the other' in this coming war. Terrorism is a tactic, after all, not a side. Usage of the word 'war', however understandable, was a strategic mistake by the American President. For like the wars on drugs or poverty it inculcates expectations at the risk of showing few results. The problem is deeper than bin Laden and his associates, and will not end with their demise. As I wrote in Cruelty and Silence, citing the 1930s Iraqi alter ego of Tom Lehrer, Aziz Ali, Da' illi beena, minna wa feena: 'The disease that is in us, is from us and within us.' Against this kind of enemy the West can do nothing. We have to do it ourselves.
Muslims and Arabs have to be on the front lines of a new kind of war, one that is worth waging for their own salvation and in their own souls. And that, as good out-of-fashion Muslim scholars will tell you, is the true meaning of jihad, a meaning that has been hijacked by terrorists and suicide bombers and all those who applaud or find excuses for them. To exorcise what they have done in our name is the civilisational challenge of the twenty-first century for every Arab and Muslim in the world today.
© Kanan Makiya. The author, who was born in Iraq, now teaches in the US. His books include Cruelty and Silence: War, Tyranny, Uprising and the Arab World and the forthcoming The Rock.
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
Tribal,
I don't think anyone would have any qualms with a lot of what is written above - with one exception below.
The reply that Arabs and Muslims will give in return is 'Get your own house in order first before you lecture others'.
Double standards is the key. While terrorists might be terrorists, they rightly see one set of standards applied to terrorists who are enemies of the West, and another set of standards to terrorist who either do not threaten the West, or actively support Western interests.
So the exception that I disagree with is this:
This is sheer rubbish. However unjustified these acts, Americans should indeed look at their own acts and see if they're not sowing the seeds of their own destruction by outside forces. Now it is involved in a war of attrition (terrorism, in the eyes of most Muslims) against the people of Afghanistan who up until now bore no grudge against the States. Now they will.
As one US official has been quoted today 'The gloves are off' after the 10-year son of a prominent Taleban leader was deliberately killed in a bombing raid. So now the west is going to fight dirty and it's going to get all personal. The US knows that most of the men have been taken to the front line to fight against the Northern Alliance and any US ground forces, and only the women and children are left. Five more bodies of woman and children were seen by AP reporters today.
What sort of message will potential terrorists take from all this? What sort of message would any sane person take?
Instead of seeking justification for their actions by an enforced coalition (which most of the Muslim and Arab world is dead against) the West should be seeking ways to prevent further acts of violence.
It's all about assuming responsibility and not absolving from this responsibility by making an excuse that the Muslim world is not getting it's act together. In the eyes of Muslims, it is the west that has not got it's act together.
You can only get out of this circle by not pointing fingers and not getting into the culture of blame in the first place.
[Edited to add]
PS. It is nice to see you coming up with some arguments (even if they're cribbed from someone else) instead of what we saw when you made your first posting at the beginning of this thread.
[ 21 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
I don't think anyone would have any qualms with a lot of what is written above - with one exception below.
The reply that Arabs and Muslims will give in return is 'Get your own house in order first before you lecture others'.
Double standards is the key. While terrorists might be terrorists, they rightly see one set of standards applied to terrorists who are enemies of the West, and another set of standards to terrorist who either do not threaten the West, or actively support Western interests.
So the exception that I disagree with is this:
This is sheer rubbish. However unjustified these acts, Americans should indeed look at their own acts and see if they're not sowing the seeds of their own destruction by outside forces. Now it is involved in a war of attrition (terrorism, in the eyes of most Muslims) against the people of Afghanistan who up until now bore no grudge against the States. Now they will.
As one US official has been quoted today 'The gloves are off' after the 10-year son of a prominent Taleban leader was deliberately killed in a bombing raid. So now the west is going to fight dirty and it's going to get all personal. The US knows that most of the men have been taken to the front line to fight against the Northern Alliance and any US ground forces, and only the women and children are left. Five more bodies of woman and children were seen by AP reporters today.
What sort of message will potential terrorists take from all this? What sort of message would any sane person take?
Instead of seeking justification for their actions by an enforced coalition (which most of the Muslim and Arab world is dead against) the West should be seeking ways to prevent further acts of violence.
It's all about assuming responsibility and not absolving from this responsibility by making an excuse that the Muslim world is not getting it's act together. In the eyes of Muslims, it is the west that has not got it's act together.
You can only get out of this circle by not pointing fingers and not getting into the culture of blame in the first place.
[Edited to add]
PS. It is nice to see you coming up with some arguments (even if they're cribbed from someone else) instead of what we saw when you made your first posting at the beginning of this thread.
[ 21 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
J
Johnny Canuck
Guest
When I see such posts from Patel and Tribal, I begin to feel some small flame of hope reigniting...
"you can only get out of this circle by not pointing fingers and not getting into the culture of blame in the first place" Perhaps the wisest thing to flash across my screen from the keyboard of Patel.
And there lies the difficulty. The article posted by Tribal has the ring of truth and good sense about it. Yet the articles about US foreign policy wrongs, both intentional and unintentional, can also be factual.
As with most disputes in life, there is usually a measure of truth and/or justice backing up each side's position. They way of error lies in trying to paint one side as absolutely good, the other absolutely evil.
There has been much condemnation in these groups, of the recent attack on Afghanistan. It is invariably called the wrong answer to Sept. 11.
Please tell me: what is the right one?
Whatever else one might say, Sept. 11 was a day of incredible fear and horror, a day of enormity, a day of history. A day that will not be ignored.
What should the leadership of the US do when faced with such a day?
With respect, I don't think the issue can be resolved by suggesting "the American people should become educated" or "the US should reexamine its foreign policy", or other broad statements like that.
I do not disagree that those and other far reaching things should take place. I expect that they will take place. But the enormity of the day, the act, calls for something else, something more.
If you are thinking of an answer, I believe that one must think of a solution that is workable in terms of the real world that we live in, not a solution that would work in some ideal world we would like to see.
In this world, our world, many things are flawed. Most people must operate with incomplete information. Good intentions are often led astray by misconceptions. Appearances often hide the truth. Many people put much stock in appearances.
This is the world in which the US leadership must decide upon an answer to Sept. 11. They have chosen war. You disagree with that answer. What is your answer?
"you can only get out of this circle by not pointing fingers and not getting into the culture of blame in the first place" Perhaps the wisest thing to flash across my screen from the keyboard of Patel.
And there lies the difficulty. The article posted by Tribal has the ring of truth and good sense about it. Yet the articles about US foreign policy wrongs, both intentional and unintentional, can also be factual.
As with most disputes in life, there is usually a measure of truth and/or justice backing up each side's position. They way of error lies in trying to paint one side as absolutely good, the other absolutely evil.
There has been much condemnation in these groups, of the recent attack on Afghanistan. It is invariably called the wrong answer to Sept. 11.
Please tell me: what is the right one?
Whatever else one might say, Sept. 11 was a day of incredible fear and horror, a day of enormity, a day of history. A day that will not be ignored.
What should the leadership of the US do when faced with such a day?
With respect, I don't think the issue can be resolved by suggesting "the American people should become educated" or "the US should reexamine its foreign policy", or other broad statements like that.
I do not disagree that those and other far reaching things should take place. I expect that they will take place. But the enormity of the day, the act, calls for something else, something more.
If you are thinking of an answer, I believe that one must think of a solution that is workable in terms of the real world that we live in, not a solution that would work in some ideal world we would like to see.
In this world, our world, many things are flawed. Most people must operate with incomplete information. Good intentions are often led astray by misconceptions. Appearances often hide the truth. Many people put much stock in appearances.
This is the world in which the US leadership must decide upon an answer to Sept. 11. They have chosen war. You disagree with that answer. What is your answer?
bezzer
!i!iCommodore 64!i!i
You would make a very good (new labour spin doctor Johnny). The constant bewildered need to ascertain the fragments of truth in this dented world, you solemnly disregard the dreamy idealists, that morally take the high ground and become deserted in ivory towers of fantasy.
Well is it is easy to take your view point, when you agree with the real life events that are taking place, in essence you agree with the rules of the game, and you sthubanley acknowledge and welcome the actions taking place. So you want answers to your questions? Why is that, so you can inform us its unrealistic? Idealistic? … If you were posting on these boards in the immediate aftermath of September the 11th, would you have asked peoples alternatives to this war? Would you have been happy with there response? It’s not much to ask… a reason? …Some evidence? Why there friends or familie members have to go to a foreign country… and possibly to die.
What circumstances would it take for you… to take a bullet in your stomach, in Afghanistan? Would you not want to know the real reason why you are bleeding to death, if you were a solider in Afghanistan, that had just been shot ?
If you were an American in the aftermath of September the 11th… perhaps one of your family, was in the twin towers… would you not want to know who killed them? Do you think you could ever heal inside not knowing fully… why they died? But instead have a gong ho republican administration, warmonger in the worlds poorest country, possibly causing the death of many millions of the worlds most desperate people.
Its about justice… justice for the relatives and friends of the people that died on September the 11th, justice for American, afghan, soldiers… justice for the afghan people that are starving and grieving and justice for the American population that are grieving….. Its called truth.
[ 22 October 2001: Message edited by: bezzer ]
Well is it is easy to take your view point, when you agree with the real life events that are taking place, in essence you agree with the rules of the game, and you sthubanley acknowledge and welcome the actions taking place. So you want answers to your questions? Why is that, so you can inform us its unrealistic? Idealistic? … If you were posting on these boards in the immediate aftermath of September the 11th, would you have asked peoples alternatives to this war? Would you have been happy with there response? It’s not much to ask… a reason? …Some evidence? Why there friends or familie members have to go to a foreign country… and possibly to die.
What circumstances would it take for you… to take a bullet in your stomach, in Afghanistan? Would you not want to know the real reason why you are bleeding to death, if you were a solider in Afghanistan, that had just been shot ?
If you were an American in the aftermath of September the 11th… perhaps one of your family, was in the twin towers… would you not want to know who killed them? Do you think you could ever heal inside not knowing fully… why they died? But instead have a gong ho republican administration, warmonger in the worlds poorest country, possibly causing the death of many millions of the worlds most desperate people.
Its about justice… justice for the relatives and friends of the people that died on September the 11th, justice for American, afghan, soldiers… justice for the afghan people that are starving and grieving and justice for the American population that are grieving….. Its called truth.
[ 22 October 2001: Message edited by: bezzer ]
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
Johnny,
But this completely contradicts your stance on what the States is doing now, which is putting the blame firmly not only on OBL, and not only on the Taleban, but on the people of Afghanistan, because why else are they suffering for the sins of a few?
Now I know why. Because in your eyes and in the eyes of most Americans, the attack was a defining moment in their lives which warranted a reaction, right or wrong. So insulated, and so insular, has America become from the realities of what some parts of the world have to face, that it self-righteously demands a disproportionate response when under similar circumstances. The discussion is completely centred around what America has suffered, and what other people suffer is completely ignored.
In any case, I am glad that you now are acknowledging that it is indeed the States that has chosen this so-called 'war'.
It is an action that is bourne out of ignorance and hatred, which is not in dispute between ourselves I think.
Given that this is the choice that the States has made, none of us can argue that it has made the choice for the reasons you gave (ignorance and hatred). The fact is, the States made that choice.
So I'm not going to go into a discussion why I think this is a bad thing. We disagree of this, and repetitive arguments can be very boring.
If the States goes down the road that it has, it will have to accept the responsibility of what happens later. In my view, what will happen later is more reprisals against the States. You might disagree with me on this, but then again the States has chosen it's own path, with the backing of an awkward 'coalition' (which is not really a coalition at all, since most people of those member states violently disagree with their puppet leaders' stances) and as you say, it must do what is must.
So then, what is the reason for your arguments? What more can you possibly get, Johnny, to persuade people of the righteousness or otherwise, of what the States has done? After all, the path has been chosen and is being executed even as we're discussing the rights and wrongs of it.
So really, there is no room for argument here is there. Unless of course, you're really interested in the alternatives to bombing. In which case read my comments from
here onwards.
They accord with the views of an Afghan lady here
[ 22 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
But this completely contradicts your stance on what the States is doing now, which is putting the blame firmly not only on OBL, and not only on the Taleban, but on the people of Afghanistan, because why else are they suffering for the sins of a few?
Now I know why. Because in your eyes and in the eyes of most Americans, the attack was a defining moment in their lives which warranted a reaction, right or wrong. So insulated, and so insular, has America become from the realities of what some parts of the world have to face, that it self-righteously demands a disproportionate response when under similar circumstances. The discussion is completely centred around what America has suffered, and what other people suffer is completely ignored.
In any case, I am glad that you now are acknowledging that it is indeed the States that has chosen this so-called 'war'.
It is an action that is bourne out of ignorance and hatred, which is not in dispute between ourselves I think.
Given that this is the choice that the States has made, none of us can argue that it has made the choice for the reasons you gave (ignorance and hatred). The fact is, the States made that choice.
So I'm not going to go into a discussion why I think this is a bad thing. We disagree of this, and repetitive arguments can be very boring.
If the States goes down the road that it has, it will have to accept the responsibility of what happens later. In my view, what will happen later is more reprisals against the States. You might disagree with me on this, but then again the States has chosen it's own path, with the backing of an awkward 'coalition' (which is not really a coalition at all, since most people of those member states violently disagree with their puppet leaders' stances) and as you say, it must do what is must.
So then, what is the reason for your arguments? What more can you possibly get, Johnny, to persuade people of the righteousness or otherwise, of what the States has done? After all, the path has been chosen and is being executed even as we're discussing the rights and wrongs of it.
So really, there is no room for argument here is there. Unless of course, you're really interested in the alternatives to bombing. In which case read my comments from
here onwards.
They accord with the views of an Afghan lady here
[ 22 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
P
philipgreenwood
Guest
We (humans) need to stop acting like the goody-two-shoes that we all think we are.
Does not matter which strain of human you are, we all suck the life out of each other in various ways.
Yankie-sponsored military maneovers, IslamIsBad-coward tactics, Chinese atrocities, Russian-bullying, blah blah = we are one clump of homogeneous nastiness.
Handle it.
Does not matter which strain of human you are, we all suck the life out of each other in various ways.
Yankie-sponsored military maneovers, IslamIsBad-coward tactics, Chinese atrocities, Russian-bullying, blah blah = we are one clump of homogeneous nastiness.
Handle it.
System of a Down
Set my people free !!!
Probably once again due to the recent events, I seriously question myself on the groups of "membership" we often hear about, and more often hear we belong to. After all, such group should share the same view over concept, as singular as it could seems to be. The thread "us and them" was interesting about that matter. For my concerns, not many movements has reach me sincerly. Many ideas has tried to makes us fit into certain concepts, rationnal or not, depending on the country we were born, sometime calling it "culturaly influenced society", sometime clamping on them with iron fists, but always seen as our only chance of salvation.
The question I'm eximining is once again concepts, using direct rationnal definitions. As for the concept "human" and "being", we're pretty far from the individual term, but still related. Those human individuals are all stuck into a piece of land, ressourcefull or not, civilized or not, well, you know where i'm getting at. All of them has different ways of percepting the common reality, but they all have this surviving instinct, the most basic, which leads them to a common goal anyway.
So if my ideas, my solutions to the reality problems encountered aren't the same as the one who is taking the big decisions, even if this man did not experiment my path, my knowledge and part of wisdom he is most probably lacking, and even if those decicions may change my life against my intention, for this man best interests am I not in his group. This means in theory i'm not american, nor canadian, nor quebecer even tho i was born in this land, since the public opinion has restreign the two different concept into one idea.
But in such situation as the one we are confronted to nowadays, this is worthless. The groups called "we" has been so generalized, that into many people mind and culture, desinformation and ignorance has wreck and fade the truth away. But this is serious, because of this sopphism, people are dying and I may die. I know the chances are small, but its still there and suprising me. I'm stuck in these war traditions, because it is supposed that my opinion is worthless or propably just like any others or probably aproving the war acts, to the eyes of this or this nation.
But to my eyes, which I think are the most important to me, I am not concerned. Lucky, i'm really not affraid to die and I am not going to make acts that require the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of my opinion for as much.
The question I'm eximining is once again concepts, using direct rationnal definitions. As for the concept "human" and "being", we're pretty far from the individual term, but still related. Those human individuals are all stuck into a piece of land, ressourcefull or not, civilized or not, well, you know where i'm getting at. All of them has different ways of percepting the common reality, but they all have this surviving instinct, the most basic, which leads them to a common goal anyway.
So if my ideas, my solutions to the reality problems encountered aren't the same as the one who is taking the big decisions, even if this man did not experiment my path, my knowledge and part of wisdom he is most probably lacking, and even if those decicions may change my life against my intention, for this man best interests am I not in his group. This means in theory i'm not american, nor canadian, nor quebecer even tho i was born in this land, since the public opinion has restreign the two different concept into one idea.
But in such situation as the one we are confronted to nowadays, this is worthless. The groups called "we" has been so generalized, that into many people mind and culture, desinformation and ignorance has wreck and fade the truth away. But this is serious, because of this sopphism, people are dying and I may die. I know the chances are small, but its still there and suprising me. I'm stuck in these war traditions, because it is supposed that my opinion is worthless or propably just like any others or probably aproving the war acts, to the eyes of this or this nation.
But to my eyes, which I think are the most important to me, I am not concerned. Lucky, i'm really not affraid to die and I am not going to make acts that require the ultimate sacrifice for the sake of my opinion for as much.
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
Quite....quite....
J
Johnny Canuck
Guest
Patel: By George, I think he's got it!
Thank you, thank you, thank you, we are making progress!
You have stated my most important point: Sept. 11 was a defining moment in the lives of most North Americans. It will join earlier dates like the day Kennedy was shot, and Dec. 7, 1941. I am sometimes at a loss to explain the enormity of the effect on the psyches of those living here.
I have been trying to explain this in these groups. I've been doing this, mainly to explain what has been, and will be, happening on the world stage. Not to justify, merely to explain.
I was impressed with your 'finger pointing' comment. I would be willing to recommend the cessation of finger pointing, so long as both sides were prepared to put away their fingers.
In other words, many are quick to condemn the US for finger pointing. However, in order for the terrorist attacks to occur, it was necessary for someone to point the finger at the US as being an aggressor or tyrant in some way, then decide to retaliate.
Your point, and that of others, is that Sept. 11 was retaliation for past US deeds. That is finger pointing.
Therefore, if you are prepared to give up childish finger pointing and blame, and instead search for solutions, so will I.
You have said that ignorance and hatred are behind war. It seems to me that from time immemorial until yesterday, ignorance and hatred have been prime motivators in human relations. I don't expect that to change today, or tomorrow.
If ignorance and hatred spawned the US action, surely it also spawned the actions of the terrorists.
You state that if the US retaliates, it is responsible for whatever happens to it next.
But once again, surely, if Sept. 11 was retaliation against the US for its misdeeds, the terrorists and their sponsors are responsible for whatever happens to them by way of US reaction.
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
With respect to what to do after Sept. 11, I believe what you and the Afghani lady are saying is: enter into a dialogue, find out what the root problems are, see if there is common ground.
I will repeat myself; I have no real disagreement with that. However, it cannot be the first thing that happens.
In a nutshell you are saying - terrorists commit an atrocity, kill thousands. Accept the deaths as a 'wake up call', and begin a process of self examination to determine how you have wronged others. Then, talk to them to see what you can do to make things right.
In other words, show to the world that when a group is having difficulty getting someone's attention, commit an act of spectacular violence, so that they pay attention to you.
Are you telling me that violence to achieve ones objectives is ok for some (terrorists) but not others (US). Doesn't that take us back to that asymmetrical finger pointing?
Can you really expect any people to accept the killing of thousands of their citizens with equanimity?
System: you may choose not to be included in certain groups; you may consider yourself an outsider. That's fine.
Maybe unfortunately for you, others will tend to categorize you into various groups,due to certain characteristics.
For example, if you live in North America, maybe as a Canadian or American, certain terrorists will likely tar you with the same brush as the rest of us, and consider you an acceptable target. Thus, if you are in some shopping mall on the weekend, and it is destroyed by a bomb, you will die just as surely as those North Americans around you who consider themselves 'members' of the larger society.
You may have these feelings of separation, you may even feel sympathy or understanding for the terrorists' cause. None of these will protect you from the debris spit out by a nail bomb.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, we are making progress!
You have stated my most important point: Sept. 11 was a defining moment in the lives of most North Americans. It will join earlier dates like the day Kennedy was shot, and Dec. 7, 1941. I am sometimes at a loss to explain the enormity of the effect on the psyches of those living here.
I have been trying to explain this in these groups. I've been doing this, mainly to explain what has been, and will be, happening on the world stage. Not to justify, merely to explain.
I was impressed with your 'finger pointing' comment. I would be willing to recommend the cessation of finger pointing, so long as both sides were prepared to put away their fingers.
In other words, many are quick to condemn the US for finger pointing. However, in order for the terrorist attacks to occur, it was necessary for someone to point the finger at the US as being an aggressor or tyrant in some way, then decide to retaliate.
Your point, and that of others, is that Sept. 11 was retaliation for past US deeds. That is finger pointing.
Therefore, if you are prepared to give up childish finger pointing and blame, and instead search for solutions, so will I.
You have said that ignorance and hatred are behind war. It seems to me that from time immemorial until yesterday, ignorance and hatred have been prime motivators in human relations. I don't expect that to change today, or tomorrow.
If ignorance and hatred spawned the US action, surely it also spawned the actions of the terrorists.
You state that if the US retaliates, it is responsible for whatever happens to it next.
But once again, surely, if Sept. 11 was retaliation against the US for its misdeeds, the terrorists and their sponsors are responsible for whatever happens to them by way of US reaction.
Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
With respect to what to do after Sept. 11, I believe what you and the Afghani lady are saying is: enter into a dialogue, find out what the root problems are, see if there is common ground.
I will repeat myself; I have no real disagreement with that. However, it cannot be the first thing that happens.
In a nutshell you are saying - terrorists commit an atrocity, kill thousands. Accept the deaths as a 'wake up call', and begin a process of self examination to determine how you have wronged others. Then, talk to them to see what you can do to make things right.
In other words, show to the world that when a group is having difficulty getting someone's attention, commit an act of spectacular violence, so that they pay attention to you.
Are you telling me that violence to achieve ones objectives is ok for some (terrorists) but not others (US). Doesn't that take us back to that asymmetrical finger pointing?
Can you really expect any people to accept the killing of thousands of their citizens with equanimity?
System: you may choose not to be included in certain groups; you may consider yourself an outsider. That's fine.
Maybe unfortunately for you, others will tend to categorize you into various groups,due to certain characteristics.
For example, if you live in North America, maybe as a Canadian or American, certain terrorists will likely tar you with the same brush as the rest of us, and consider you an acceptable target. Thus, if you are in some shopping mall on the weekend, and it is destroyed by a bomb, you will die just as surely as those North Americans around you who consider themselves 'members' of the larger society.
You may have these feelings of separation, you may even feel sympathy or understanding for the terrorists' cause. None of these will protect you from the debris spit out by a nail bomb.
J
Johnny Canuck
Guest
One other thing; surely nothing can justify the spreading of a loathsome disease.
It hasn't been proven that it (the anthrax) is the same people who brought us Sept. 11, I will admit.
But can anything justify this?
They are now worried about smallpox, that is highly contagious, and kills 50% of those who contract it. It leaves the survivors badly scarred.
Most people born after 1970 know little about it. Go on the internet and try to find a picture of a smallpox sufferer.
The Indian subcontinent was one of the last places where it was eradicated. If you have any connection with India, I suspect that you know what I'm talking about.
Yes, we kill each other, in many ways. But in my opinion, the spreaders of disease in the name of some 'cause', have removed themselves from the human commonality.
It hasn't been proven that it (the anthrax) is the same people who brought us Sept. 11, I will admit.
But can anything justify this?
They are now worried about smallpox, that is highly contagious, and kills 50% of those who contract it. It leaves the survivors badly scarred.
Most people born after 1970 know little about it. Go on the internet and try to find a picture of a smallpox sufferer.
The Indian subcontinent was one of the last places where it was eradicated. If you have any connection with India, I suspect that you know what I'm talking about.
Yes, we kill each other, in many ways. But in my opinion, the spreaders of disease in the name of some 'cause', have removed themselves from the human commonality.
PatelsCornerShop
watching you watching me
No Johnny. I don't think you've got the point yet.
Finger-pointing by bombing the hell out of innocent civilians is not the same as criticising what America is doing by trying to avoid needless killing.
Finger pointing by bombing the hell out of innocent civilians is the same as those hijackers who blamed America for everything as they crashed their planes into the WTC. You've dressed it up in the language of justification, that's all.
You mentioned India. The one thing I know about India is that thousands of people died in Bhopal because Union Carbide, an American chemicals company in that city, released a toxic gas that engulfed the whole town.
To this date, most of these victims have either not been compensated or have received a token amount of compensation.
Most Americans don't know about Bhopal.
The reason why I'm telling you this is because what might seem like a defining moment for America is something that has happened to lots of people the world over. In their case however, they haven't had the luxury of creating a big noise about it, like Americans have. They haven't had the pleasure of pursuing who they thought was to blame and drag the whole of the world behind them, like Americans have.
In India's case, their finger pointing was justified and proved. In America's case, the finger-pointing in itself is not a problem because obviously, people can feel free to do what they like, even if it is unjustified and unproved. It is when that unjustified finger-pointing turns into abuse and killing is when we begin to have problems.
And this is what has happened in Afghanistan. The reality of the situation is that America can afford to bully because it is a world superpower and no-one is capable of challenging America on a military level at least. Deep down, Americans know that this is the case but can't quite bring themselves round to admitting it. They know that innocent people are being killed but that's justified because their misplaced wrath is more important. But no-one else will accept for one moment that this is any kind of a 'just war' so Americans should stop pretending that it is.
This is really a wake-up call for Americans and their supporters. They're going to have to climb out of the delusion that they're invincible and unaccountable. Terrorism exists. There are no guarantees about getting rid of terror altogether, but actions can be taken to ensure that Americans don't provoke this upon themselves. Hence changes in foreign policy.
Irrespective of the fact that there are alternatives available, America's actions are ignorant and malicious, as you yourself admitted above. It will, in my view, be counterproductive for America.
You're just coming from the angle: 'Something happened. X will pay for it.'
The rest of us say: 'Something happened. Let's find out who did it first.'
[ 23 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
Finger-pointing by bombing the hell out of innocent civilians is not the same as criticising what America is doing by trying to avoid needless killing.
Finger pointing by bombing the hell out of innocent civilians is the same as those hijackers who blamed America for everything as they crashed their planes into the WTC. You've dressed it up in the language of justification, that's all.
You mentioned India. The one thing I know about India is that thousands of people died in Bhopal because Union Carbide, an American chemicals company in that city, released a toxic gas that engulfed the whole town.
To this date, most of these victims have either not been compensated or have received a token amount of compensation.
Most Americans don't know about Bhopal.
The reason why I'm telling you this is because what might seem like a defining moment for America is something that has happened to lots of people the world over. In their case however, they haven't had the luxury of creating a big noise about it, like Americans have. They haven't had the pleasure of pursuing who they thought was to blame and drag the whole of the world behind them, like Americans have.
In India's case, their finger pointing was justified and proved. In America's case, the finger-pointing in itself is not a problem because obviously, people can feel free to do what they like, even if it is unjustified and unproved. It is when that unjustified finger-pointing turns into abuse and killing is when we begin to have problems.
And this is what has happened in Afghanistan. The reality of the situation is that America can afford to bully because it is a world superpower and no-one is capable of challenging America on a military level at least. Deep down, Americans know that this is the case but can't quite bring themselves round to admitting it. They know that innocent people are being killed but that's justified because their misplaced wrath is more important. But no-one else will accept for one moment that this is any kind of a 'just war' so Americans should stop pretending that it is.
This is really a wake-up call for Americans and their supporters. They're going to have to climb out of the delusion that they're invincible and unaccountable. Terrorism exists. There are no guarantees about getting rid of terror altogether, but actions can be taken to ensure that Americans don't provoke this upon themselves. Hence changes in foreign policy.
Irrespective of the fact that there are alternatives available, America's actions are ignorant and malicious, as you yourself admitted above. It will, in my view, be counterproductive for America.
You're just coming from the angle: 'Something happened. X will pay for it.'
The rest of us say: 'Something happened. Let's find out who did it first.'
[ 23 October 2001: Message edited by: PatelsCornerShop ]
J
Johnny Canuck
Guest
Alright, we do it your way. Something happened. Find out who did it. Then what? Appeasement?
I think I do get it, but others may not, so here it is again. If it is wrong for America to 'point the finger', then bomb Afghanistan, it was equally wrong for the terrorists to 'point the finger' for past wrongs, then bomb the WTC.
I'm not talking about criticism, I'm talking about blame, followed by killing. If it is wrong for one side to do this, it is wrong for the other.
I remember Bhopal. There is a difference. Bhopal happened as a result of negligence. Union Carbide was careless, and people died.
That is terrible. But it is not the same as planning to blow people up to prove a point.
That is why, if you murder someone, you can be imprisoned. If you get in a car accident and kill someone, you will not be criminally charged, unless there are extenuating circumstances. But you can be sued civilly.
It's the difference between a 'guilty mind' and a 'careless mind'.
It is a tragedy when large corporations harm people in other countries, but it isn't a concerted program. They do it at home as well. Remember Three Mile Island, the Love Canal etc.
Industrial accidents shouldn't happen, and can be devastating. However, I don't think that they fit the definition of a defining moment, in the same way that a planned attack upon the significant institutions of a country which kills thousands of people, fits the definition.
I think that the Sept. 11 attack would have been a defining moment in whichever country it happened.
Think about it: India; planes hit towers in Bombay, the Parliament building in Delhi. France: the Montparnasse tower and the Elysee Palace. You get the picture.
p.s. I don't think I called the US actions ignorant and malicious. I believe I said that igorance and hatred have been prime motivators in human action. Also, I am not as convinced as you, that a connection to OBL has not been established.
I think I do get it, but others may not, so here it is again. If it is wrong for America to 'point the finger', then bomb Afghanistan, it was equally wrong for the terrorists to 'point the finger' for past wrongs, then bomb the WTC.
I'm not talking about criticism, I'm talking about blame, followed by killing. If it is wrong for one side to do this, it is wrong for the other.
I remember Bhopal. There is a difference. Bhopal happened as a result of negligence. Union Carbide was careless, and people died.
That is terrible. But it is not the same as planning to blow people up to prove a point.
That is why, if you murder someone, you can be imprisoned. If you get in a car accident and kill someone, you will not be criminally charged, unless there are extenuating circumstances. But you can be sued civilly.
It's the difference between a 'guilty mind' and a 'careless mind'.
It is a tragedy when large corporations harm people in other countries, but it isn't a concerted program. They do it at home as well. Remember Three Mile Island, the Love Canal etc.
Industrial accidents shouldn't happen, and can be devastating. However, I don't think that they fit the definition of a defining moment, in the same way that a planned attack upon the significant institutions of a country which kills thousands of people, fits the definition.
I think that the Sept. 11 attack would have been a defining moment in whichever country it happened.
Think about it: India; planes hit towers in Bombay, the Parliament building in Delhi. France: the Montparnasse tower and the Elysee Palace. You get the picture.
p.s. I don't think I called the US actions ignorant and malicious. I believe I said that igorance and hatred have been prime motivators in human action. Also, I am not as convinced as you, that a connection to OBL has not been established.
Similar threads
