Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Arabs are not the enemy

By ucblockhead in Op-Ed
Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:17:45 PM EST
Tags: News (all tags)
News

We have enemies. Our enemies are not a people. Our enemies are not a religion. Never forget that.


Given events, there is going to be a lot of rhetoric flying, and it is imperative that we in the US keep our heads and avoid making the same mistakes that we made in the past. Remember:

  • In 1898, our enemy was Spain, not the Spanish.
  • In 1917, our enemy was Germany, not the Germans.
  • In 1939, our enemy was Japan, Germany and Italy, not the Japanese, the Germans, and the Italians

This country has done some shameful things, especially to the Japanese, but also to others, because it forgot this in the heat of the moment. My step-father tells stories at the treatment he suffered as a German child in the US during WWII. Let's make sure that whatever happens, we not forget this today. Let's make sure that we have learned from our history. Arabs are not the enemy. Muslims are not the enemy. Let's not forget that in our haste to find our real enemies.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Also by ucblockhead


Display: Sort:
Arabs are not the enemy | 253 comments (248 topical, 5 editorial, 3 hidden)
Damn Skippy (4.14 / 21) (#3)
by Evo on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 02:03:58 PM EST

Too much nationalism and "us against them" mentality seems to be pervasive in the media coverage of this event.

The bottom line is that we don't have any friggin' idea who did this! Oh sure, we each may have our own ideas, but there isn't any conclusive evidence. And I don't care what freako group called into some news service and said they did it. That kind of mis-reporting happens all the time.

But when we do figure out who did this, let's be sure we have an appropriate and focused response. Let's not assume "them bastards are all alike!" 'cuz that's what I've been hearing all day long at work.

Tragic? Without a doubt. Deserved? Nothing resulting in such a slaughter can ever be justified, regardless of your political or religious convictions.

BUT... we as a collective culture might want to re-examine our priorites. Are we sure this whole experiment in globalization is such a good thing? Do we really want a single "one right way" of living that every human on the planet agrees with? I'm thinking that idea might be up for revision...

Namaste,


Evo
"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. - Jonathan Swift"
Are you suggesting this is Anti Globalization? (1.71 / 14) (#6)
by garbanzo on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 03:55:35 PM EST

Like the Movement of the sixties, where civil rights and anti-war and environmental movements got globbed together, AntiGlob seems to be a movement that picks up lots of disparate complaints. I'd hesitate to include radical Islam with AntiGlob, however.

Agreed that we should not go off half-cocked.

But!

If this does indeed turn out to be radical Islam at work (i.e. bin Laden) I am fucking well out of patience with their bullshit. Fuck religious freedom. Fuck them killing people for the sake of their jihads and their myths and ghost stories. Fuck them very hard.

Bad day to be an Arab in the USA. So if you (the reader) are an American and if you are an Arab and if you are a Muslim, which side are you on brother? The lines have been drawn, so clearly that EVEN USians can't miss them.

If that's "us against them" then all I can say is "better them than us."



sure, it's all fun and games--until someone puts an eye out

[ Parent ]
I am on my side asshole (1.85 / 7) (#20)
by alprazolam on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:39:26 PM EST

and apparently regardless of where I pay taxes, go to work, and live, that's not yours.

[ Parent ]
Us and Them (4.57 / 14) (#24)
by netmouse on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:06:14 PM EST

Many arabs, and many Muslims, are "us". Hello. I see you. I know you are American, and that you grieve as I do. How can we look at footage of people jumping from high in the world trade center, so as not to burn, and not weep? How can we watch the day's tragic news, and not wonder what will follow, what will happen in and to our country?

Fuck those who kill innocent people, yes, fuck them very hard.

But I will defend religious freedom as I defend every other freedom the U.S. flag stands for.

To a point.

It is that point where someone says to me or my loved ones, "My religion says you are evil and I must kill you and this is a path to my salvation," that I know in my heart and my soul that they are wrong. For the people I love, the Americans I care for, are good people, and the path to salvation, in any sane world, cannot possibly be through their violent deaths.

Good people died today. Lawyers and traders and police and firemen, fathers and mothers. Let us grieve for them. But remember, everyone, that to most islamics the muslim faith does not advocate violence. Our Muslim neighbors don't have to re-state the side they are on. Through their faith, they seek peace for all people. Arab Americans should not be singled out racially right now, though they should engage as all Americans in the national discussion of this tragedy. Let's not make the scope of the tragedy worse by attacking ourselves.

Go about lives as usual. Give blood. Volunteer to help the Red Cross collect blood. Reach out to your families.

Go in peace, and let our government, flawed as it may be, respond in an appropriate way to today's events.

Regards,

--netmouse

[ Parent ]

Religious Holy Wars (4.50 / 2) (#120)
by dasunt on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:59:25 PM EST

It is that point where someone says to me or my loved ones, "My religion says you are evil and I must kill you and this is a path to my salvation," that I know in my heart and my soul that they are wrong. For the people I love, the Americans I care for, are good people, and the path to salvation, in any sane world, cannot possibly be through their violent deaths.

A lot of the major religious texts can be interpretated to indicate "slaughter the unbelievers" or "turn the other cheek." I'm not familiar with the Koran, not wanting to read the translated version, and too lazy to learn Arabic just for that purpose, but I'm guessing you could find passages in it that support both viewpoints.

Us Americans, with a predominately Christian background, often forget the fact that Christianity has had its own shares of holy wars. Christianity, at one time or another, has fought against other religions (Balkans, the Crusades), and itself (Religious Wars in Germany, Spanish Inquesition, etc).

If you are familiar with the phrase "Kill them all, let God sort them out", its a corruption of "Kill them all! God will know His own," said by Arnaud-Amaury, the abbot of the Cistercian. At the time, the Catholics were fighting a group of heretics known as the Cathars, whose heresy included allowing women in the priesthood and having a clergy which did not strive to collect material wealth, unlike the Catholic church at the time. The Catholics, one group which was lead by Arnaud-Amaury, were engaged in an holy war with the Cathars in the south of France. After the fall of Béziers, the inhabitants were a mixture of Catholics and Cathars, and one of the men under Arnaud-Amaury asked how the to distiguish between them, to which Arnaud-Amaury replied "Kill them all! God will know His own." Almost 20 thousand were killed, including women and children. More info can be found here (Googled to refresh my memory)

So, beware of stereotyping any religion. If you ever researched the Crusades and the history of the Catholic church, you'll find that the Christian religion and those who practiced it encouraged a lot of violence in the past.

[ Parent ]

Not sure what your point is (none / 0) (#199)
by netmouse on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 10:11:34 AM EST

Us Americans, with a predominately Christian background, often forget the fact that Christianity has had its own shares of holy wars. Christianity, at one time or another, has fought against other religions (Balkans, the Crusades), and itself (Religious Wars in Germany, Spanish Inquesition, etc).

I was not forgetting this and my reference to someone considering their religion to be the reasonable cause for the violent death of my loved ones was not actually targetted at one particular religion. I think any time any religion says this about any huge group of people most of whom are probably good decent ordinary people like the people I love, it must be in error. While I suppose my ancestry has a Christian background, my parents are not Christian and I am not Christian. I have a history degree and I am well aware that all kinds of people can be mislead into following such a holy war. In the colonization of our own country we see a situation where disease was killing thousands and the Christians thought that god was clearing the way for them and so some of them did not hesitate to kill more of the natives, for God was on their side.

One ought not to stereotype any religion, but one ought also not stereotype Americans as Christians or even Jews. There are millions of us who are Muslim, Hindu, Bahai, Buddhist, Wiccan, Agnostic, Atheistic or some other variety of pagan. Many who believe in some of the teachings of Christ and the bible also believe that many things done in His name over the years were in fact great wrongs. The sin of Pride, perhaps, leading people to believe they knew and understood the will of god. But greater, the sin of murder.

regards,

-netmouse

[ Parent ]

Some thoughts. (3.44 / 9) (#18)
by Kasreyn on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:32:16 PM EST

I have heard today is the anniversary of the Camp David accords, so it seems more likely to me that the attack has something to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the US has been stupidly embroiled in for so many years. This attack was too well planned for them to be unaware of the significance of the date. This is only on hearsay, though, so I don't really know if it is truly the anniversary.

I find the nationalism and yahooism we're seeing to be distasteful, but expectable. I mean, come ON. This isn't just NYC, this is the WTC. Symbolically, that's like cutting America's dick off, if you ask a psychiatrist. Nationalistic anger will naturally be strong. I'm hoping that people will remain level headed and think things through before taking irrational and drastic actions.

I personally wouldn't mind the people who planned this eating a US cruise missile in the chops. But let's be careful and make sure we've got the right bad guys. And for heaven's sake, let's not sink to their level, and let's keep civilians OUT of this. Surely today's carnage in NY was enough to appease every hatred on Earth for years to come. =(


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
America's wang (1.00 / 1) (#153)
by garlic on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:11:07 PM EST

I thought Florida was America's wang.

HUSI challenge: post 4 troll diaries on husi without being outed as a Kuron, or having the diaries deleted or moved by admins.
[ Parent ]

The enemy... (3.16 / 24) (#8)
by seebs on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 06:08:22 PM EST

The people cheering, dancing, and celebrating the deaths of ten thousand innocent people are the enemy. I don't care what their excuses are; this is not a thing to "celebrate", and I have lost just about all sympathy for them.

Propaganda (4.10 / 10) (#10)
by urgan on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:02:14 PM EST

If you watch with attention there is only a few people celebrating near the cameras, not in the background. This can be anytime, anywhere. What time of the day is it there, and when was it showed first. Can it be true ? Can you be sure ?

[ Parent ]
It's consistent, anyway... (3.50 / 6) (#14)
by seebs on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:27:47 PM EST

There are people who *hate* the US. Not that they've ever been here. They've never met us, they don't know what we're like, and they have only the vaguest notions of what "we" as a country believe or do... these people exist, and have historically been happy when damage was done to the U.S. Do you have any particular evidence that people *aren't* cheering and celebrating this attack? It's pretty widely reported. You think all of the various news services around the world decided to get together and make stuff up? I don't.

[ Parent ]
they've met our weapons (2.25 / 4) (#19)
by alprazolam on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:36:58 PM EST

and are not most Americans happy to see them damaged?

[ Parent ]
What are you talking about? (3.00 / 3) (#35)
by seebs on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:43:53 PM EST

No, most Americans are not "happy" to see civilians hurt. Anywhere. For any reason. We're a peaceable people by nature; we believe war should be carefully isolated from daily life, and that bystanders should be as safe as possible.


[ Parent ]
But then again, (2.33 / 3) (#39)
by Dlugar on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:53:04 PM EST

Do you think that the few Americans who are happy and are out dancing in the streets get put on Pakistani television? Or those in their homes mourning the loss of civilian lives?

Vice-versa?

Dlugar

[ Parent ]
An interesting point... (2.33 / 3) (#45)
by seebs on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:38:31 AM EST

I have yet to see a single example of an American who is happy to see civilians killed, let alone enough Americans out of a smallish group (under a million) to form even a small crowd.

[ Parent ]
really? (4.85 / 7) (#74)
by streetlawyer on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:51:19 AM EST

Where were you during the Gulf War? In a flotation tank?

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
During the Gulf War... (none / 0) (#146)
by seebs on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:18:47 PM EST

I was watching people cheer as an *army* was attacked, and wanting to see Iraqi civilians *defended* from their government. I also saw a fair amount of upset at the possibility that civilians would be hurt in the process.

I don't recall anyone picking civilian targets specifically because they were civilians, just to hurt the bystanders. I certainly don't recall anyone being happy that bystanders would be hurt.


[ Parent ]
No links, but ... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
by Dlugar on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:06:57 PM EST

I have yet to see a single example of an American who is happy to see civilians killed,
I saw some media outlet (Washington Post?) reporting that there was a group of your typical American nutballs who were celebrating this attack. Believe you me, there are people in the US right now who are celebrating this, sick as they may be. How many more would celebrate a mass-bombing of Afghanistan, should that happen?

Dlugar

[ Parent ]
Who knows ? (3.00 / 1) (#139)
by urgan on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:35:24 PM EST

Yes, there are people who hate the US (the country).
They never met you, but then again, you don't know them except what from what your tv feeds you (generalizing here, not everyone of you).
Were some of this people happy because of the death or because they see you vulnerable too in "fortress america" and hurt in your pride ?
Can I prove it's not related ? Of course not, i'm not even sure of it, but I know reporters do make mistakes (like the supposed Kabul bombing hysteria), some unintencional, some not. As far I can tell, I saw no US references in those images, they could be anything else, and are not as expressive as the funerals of the Intifada.

[ Parent ]
Look in CNN 1991 tapes. (none / 0) (#237)
by urgan on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 08:50:17 PM EST

You will find the same images. Someone already has.

[ Parent ]
Yes, but... (4.50 / 10) (#13)
by ucblockhead on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:22:51 PM EST

Those aren't all Arabs. Just a few. Don't blame the race for the actions of a few individuals.
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
Strong agreement. (3.83 / 6) (#15)
by seebs on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:30:08 PM EST

In some ways, the people I feel worst for are the muslims in the U.S., who have to put up with getting blamed for this shit.

I am well aware that most Arabs are, in fact, human beings, capable of compassion, and who are deeply shocked at the idea that anyone could kill more than ten thousand people to no visible end. I am aware that Islam's teachings are totally opposed to terrorism.

I am also aware that at least a few people who call themselves Muslims are currently very happy to know that finally a few thousand innocent U.S. citizens and foreigners visiting the U.S. have been killed for no reason whatsoever.

Those few people, and I hope they are few, are not human. They are the enemy. I hope that the palestinians who *are* decent people are planning to do something about their rabid dog neighbors.


[ Parent ]
I agree on all counts (nt) (1.50 / 2) (#16)
by ucblockhead on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 09:51:14 PM EST


-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]
Human? (4.76 / 17) (#17)
by Lord INSERT NAME HERE on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:09:47 PM EST

Actually, they *are* human. Entirely. Whenever we see behaviour that we find difficult to comprehend, we label it "inhuman". This is a mistake, because it has two effects:

(1) it allows us to forget that it could just as easily be us, or our neighbours, dancing in the streets or whatever.

(2) it makes it easier to kill the humans who we just labeled "inhuman". This degrades us to below the level of those celebrating death, because we find ourselves perpetrating it.

So please, none of this "inhuman" bullshit. Those Palestinians are extremely human, and they have some extremely legitimate grievances against Israel and the United States. That doesn't justify the attack on the WTC, but it does explain why they're so happy.

I'm as horrified as anyone by the attack on a civilian target. That's a breach of rules of warfare stretching back several hundred years. The attack on the Pentagon worries me less, though it's obviously horrible that people died, because the Pentagon is a military target. It's not that different from the West bombing an enemy command and control center.

To return to the point of my post... please don't label humans as inhuman. Please don't succumb to the "them and us" mentality that can only cause more bloodshed.
--
Comics are good. Read mine. That's an order.
[ Parent ]
Thanks... (3.00 / 4) (#21)
by Mad Goose on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:50:27 PM EST

Thank you for saying that...I was getting irritated about people constantly doing this... -mad_goose


-------------------------------------------
How do you know this post isn't the result of a drunken bet?

Discworld "Map":
"There are no maps. You can't map a sense of humor."
-Terry Pratchett
[ Parent ]
Addendum... (3.25 / 4) (#25)
by Lord INSERT NAME HERE on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:06:41 PM EST

It's just occured to me that a civilian airliner, with passengers on board, was used in the attack on the Pentagon, so it *was* in breach of the rules of warfare.
--
Comics are good. Read mine. That's an order.
[ Parent ]
Link or Explanation Request (none / 0) (#135)
by dasunt on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:54:34 PM EST

It's just occured to me that a civilian airliner, with passengers on board, was used in the attack on the Pentagon, so it *was* in breach of the rules of warfare.

Could you please present a link or an explanation of the above? What rules of warfare? Written or unwritten? Who do they apply to? All nations, or just the signers of a particular treaty? Do they apply only to military forces under the control of a government, or to all people?

Thanks in advance.

[ Parent ]

geneva convention (none / 0) (#148)
by beleriand on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:31:32 PM EST

There's the Geneva Convention from 1949, but i guess it doesn't apply to every kind of warfare if someone choses not to abide by it.

I guess many tactics detailed in "Art of War" don't qualify...

[ Parent ]

No, I don't buy it. (2.33 / 3) (#33)
by seebs on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:41:18 PM EST

Labeling sufficiently defective behavior as "inhuman" helps us remember that there are times when some of the bipeds are simply incapable of functioning in the same world as everyone else. We put them down, just as we put down rabid dogs.

It could not "just as easily" be us. Do you find yourself cheering whenever you hear of civilians being hurt? I don't. My neighbors don't. We may decide to continue with a war, because we believe it to be just, even though we know that a few bystanders will die. We do not, however, celebrate the knowledge that bystanders die.

It couldn't be us. Not while we're sane. Not, indeed, while we're human.


[ Parent ]
Actually... (4.75 / 8) (#42)
by Lord INSERT NAME HERE on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:09:45 AM EST

Studies have shown that "normal" people, when placed in extrardinary situations, can act in truly horrific ways.

The famous example was university students (I forget which university) who were arbritrarily divided into "prisoner" and "captor" groups. The "captors" had to keep the "prisoners" locked up in cells.

These were normal, everyday folks. Just students. People, importantly, *just* *like* *you* *and* *me*. But after a couple of days, the captors were committing horrific acts of cruelty against the prisoners. They had to stop the experiment.

This is a very, very famous experiment (hopefully another poster can give the study name and fill in anything I've missed... I'm doing this from memory) which proved pretty effectively that we all have the capacity for cruelty, for what might be termed "evil".

I'll throw you a life-line here, I saw an interview in New Scientist with a researcher on this subject, he said that a small number of people don't seem to behave in this manner. If you like, you can make-believe that you're definitely one of those. Everyone else does.

The sooner we accept that cruelty &c are normal human traits, the sooner we can learn to control that aspect of ourselves, rather than simply attacking whoever the enemy of the week is for displaying traits that we ourselves share.
--
Comics are good. Read mine. That's an order.
[ Parent ]
Normal? (2.00 / 3) (#46)
by seebs on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:39:45 AM EST

The sooner we say it's "normal", the sooner we've eliminated one of the boundaries that *keeps* us from being like that.

[ Parent ]
Point taken (3.75 / 4) (#49)
by Lord INSERT NAME HERE on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:46:36 AM EST

Okay, you're right about that. "Normal" is the wrong word to use. But I still believe that it's important to accept that the potential for extreme acts of cruelty is present in all of us, as humans. If we refuse to acknowledge that it's there then we have no way of controlling it.
--
Comics are good. Read mine. That's an order.
[ Parent ]
Potential, yes. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by seebs on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:45:50 AM EST

Yeah. I have the potential to be a mass murderer. I also have the potential to be a hero. I even have the potential to be some kind of second-guessing smartass on message boards, thousands of miles from danger. :)

I agree that we should recognize this potential in people, but I think we should condemn it, always, as something to be rejected and fought.

I agree that denying that it exists is counterproductive. The path to evil often begins with denying that evil exists.


[ Parent ]
Stamford Prison Experiment (4.66 / 3) (#103)
by spiralx on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:26:24 AM EST

Yeah, that really was a disturbing look at how normal people can behave. The official (I think) site is here, complete with slides from throughout the experiment.

Worth a look, just to show how "inhuman" each one of us can act in the right circumstances.

You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
[ Parent ]

Name of said university (none / 0) (#197)
by andrewhy on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 06:13:44 AM EST

The famous example was university students (I forget which university) who were arbritrarily divided into "prisoner" and "captor" groups. The "captors" had to keep the "prisoners" locked up in cells.

Actually, that was the Stanford Prison Experiment you are referring to.

If "Noise" means uncomfortable sound, then pop music is noise to me -- Masami Akita, aka "Merzbow"
[ Parent ]

We need a footnote here (4.92 / 13) (#23)
by gbd on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:05:55 PM EST

I can guarantee you that for every hateful fool celebrating on television, there are a thousand people of Arab descent and/or Islamic belief who are mortified by the events that have transpired today. These people don't get air time, because they're not newsworthy. As near as I can tell, the governments of all moderate Arab states have severely condemned the attacks. It is just plain irresponsible to take news footage of a street congregation of religious extremists and extrapolate that into claiming that their sentiments reflect that of Arabs or Muslims as a whole (I know that you, personally, did not make this claim in your post, but many others have.)

The media can severely distort things. In the United States, I believe that they have skewed people's perceptions of Christians by focusing on things such as the incident where Fred Phelps and his "flock" picketed the funeral of Matthew Shephard. The same principle applies; for every one of Phelps' thugs, there are (at least) a thousand Christians who consider his behavior reprehensible.

I'm a militant agnostic, but I believe that fundamentally (no pun intended), people are by and large good and decent creatures, regardless of race, creed, or any of the other distinctions that the evolution of human civilization has bestowed us with. There are some foul Muslims, just the same as there are some foul Christians. There are some foul Arabs, just the same as there are some foul Caucasians. Some people are bad. The fact that a large group of them warrants air time on our news networks is not particularly meaningful to me.

--
Gunter glieben glauchen globen.
[ Parent ]

Thanks. (3.00 / 1) (#75)
by seebs on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:56:04 AM EST

You said that better than I did. The enemy is not all arabs, or all Muslims, or all palestinians. I just wish the good guys would give the assholes a bit of a talking to.

And yes, your point about Phelps is particularly good; I would just like to take this opportunity to point out that I am one of those many Christians who finds him reprehensible.

Speaking as one of the religious people on k5: I never really liked the hell concept before, but there's something about this kind of terrorism that makes you realize what it's there for.

[ Parent ]
Who's Hell? (none / 0) (#136)
by Wah on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:13:06 PM EST

I never really liked the hell concept before, but there's something about this kind of terrorism that makes you realize what it's there for.

Except that for the people who did it, they think they are headed to heaven, and did what they did to escape hell. Yes, of course you can say "they are wrong", but they can say the same thing about you.

"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me." - JC, and that includes hate and killing.

[again, I'm not defending these actions, but dammit folks, we're all wrong when stuff like this happens.]
--
Information wants to be free, wouldn't you? | Parent ]

They can think what they want... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
by seebs on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:26:46 PM EST

The Koran does not encourage wanton slaughter of innocents.

[ Parent ]
People are the same everywhere (3.50 / 2) (#84)
by dabadab on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:54:02 AM EST

When Hiroshima was nuked there were similar celebrations on the streets of the USA.
--
Real life is overrated.
[ Parent ]
Because (none / 0) (#172)
by physicsgod on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:59:42 PM EST

The people celebrating thought the US would have to invade Japan to put an end to the war, resulting in millions of casualties. An invasion would also have brought a soviet presence into Japan, probably resulting in another war a la Korea and Vietnam with even more casualties. The american decision makers thought they were saving lives, even if it was all based on an unfortunate translation by the Japanese media outlet.

I don't see how anyone could think this will put an end to bloodshed. Anyone with half a brain knows the US is going to retaliate, and retaliate severely. No, these people weren't celbrating the end of a war, they were celebrating the death of people.

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]

apologism (none / 0) (#195)
by dabadab on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 03:24:28 AM EST

It's not about decision makers, it's about people celebrating the deaths of innocent civilians.
Yeah, "saving lifes" and stuff is just bullshit, the reality is that that bombing was a huge terrorist action.
You could use the same reasoning to defend bin Laden by saying that his motive was to save lifes of Palestinean people by bringing a change into the foreign policy of the US. And it's still the same bullshit.
--
Real life is overrated.
[ Parent ]
One of the very visible American Atrocities (none / 0) (#226)
by MrYotsuya on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 11:52:33 PM EST

Whatever. The fact is, they bombed a civilian population, a whole damned city with the most awful weapon ever devised. The casualties in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki dwarf the WTC terrorist attacks.

[ Parent ]
The enemy. (none / 0) (#200)
by ODiV on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 10:11:41 AM EST

Freedom of speech goes out the window, does it? I really hope that the American military focuses on the people who were actually involved in this attack, and not those celebrating it.

To many people, these lives are just numbers on their television sets and in their newspapers. I see plenty of numbers like this every day. People are dying everywhere because of warlike actions such as this and for many other reasons. I have had to distance myself from these numbers because it is simply not practical to walk around all the time mourning everyone. I know this is callous, but it's the truth.

It's not much of a stretch to move from apathy to celebration. How many reporters first thoughts when they heard what happened thought, "Here's my big chance!"

Please don't go after the people who are celebrating. Sure they're assholes. But we don't just go around killing assholes.


--
[ odiv.net ]
[ Parent ]
While I agree... (3.17 / 17) (#9)
by suture on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 06:10:00 PM EST

I do agree that the people are not generally the enemy, but currently I am haunted by the news footage of palestines dancing in the street, firing guns into the air in joy, and celebrating the fact that the evil americans were hurt badly today. It's hard to remain impartial against the people of another country when they so obviously delight in our innocents being killed and hurt.


Eagle
A person reveals his character by nothing so clearly as the joke he resents. - G. C. Lichtenberg
Those aren't all Arabs (4.87 / 16) (#12)
by ucblockhead on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:21:12 PM EST

The TV can't show pictures of the Arabs that were sitting in their homes, mortified.


-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

Plus think of this... (3.60 / 10) (#22)
by Phire on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 10:53:00 PM EST

Many of those people are young people, ready and willing to believe in their government, and their government says the US is bad. To them, we are an enemy, simply because tghey have been told to think of us that way and that is all they know, just like we think the Nazi's are bad, but to many German people, they were liberators.

[ Parent ]
The Arabs *I* know are mortified (4.33 / 9) (#40)
by pedro on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:54:10 PM EST

I live in Burbank, Illinois. We have a heavily arabic population here. Not many are big friends of Israel. The dad of one of my good friends was driven from his home at gunpoint in '48, and his property confiscated.
Another operates our local Citgo staion and is one of the most scrupulously honest and fair merchants I've ever met. He's Egyptian, and his uncle helps out with the business.
There are many others, but you get the drift..
Without exception, they are uniformly appalled at the outrageous nature of this act. That's without mentioning the incredible damage it does to some of their heartfelt concerns (IE: justice for Palestinians)
Earlier, I was walking my neighborhood, just sorta checking up on these guys, seeing that they were all cool, and I'm relieved to say that very few idiots have have deigned to harass them.
So far, so good.
You could do far worse than to have faithful Islamic neighbors like mine. I love these people.
They're truly decent wonderful folks, for the most part (the exceptions are so extreme as to be cartoonish, but that's maybe 1%)
I find more caucasians that are jerks percentage wise on an average day than I do Arabic people.
Oh. And I'm English by birth.

[ Parent ]
The Media (4.83 / 6) (#48)
by swr on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:44:54 AM EST

currently I am haunted by the news footage of palestines dancing in the street, firing guns into the air in joy, and celebrating the fact that the evil americans were hurt badly today

File the following under "paranoid conspiracy theory"...

We are being shown images of Arab peoples celebrating American fatalities for propoganda purposes, so that when the time comes to retaliate we will be prepared to accept the killing of Arabs.

Over the next few days we will be be beamed images from New York of bloodied and distraught people. When the retaliation begins, we will only be shown images of explosions and rubble.



[ Parent ]
The truth about the Palestinians (4.50 / 2) (#160)
by theboz on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:35:12 PM EST

There is more information about what is going on in Palestine than what you know of.

It seems that the first thing to keep in mind is that the Palestinians didn't have knowledge of the scope of the attack. I must admit, had a terrorist bombed the pentagon and not harmed any innocent people in the process, I would be happy that they destroyed a part of the evil empire too. The media in Palestine was not specific about what had happened, and people just thought the U.S. was attacked in a war or something and they celebrated because of the evils by proxy the U.S. has committed against them.

However, once they started finding out what really happened, and about the numbers of innocent people killed, almost everyone was ashamed that they had been celebrating and instead held prayer services and such to honor the dead.

Also, it was not a huge group of people partying, while it could have been a couple hundred at the most, what is that number when compared to the millions of other people in the region that were not celebrating?

So please, don't think all "arabs" or all "palestinians" are bad simply because of there being a few assholes that think the U.S. got what it deserved. We have the same sort of people in the U.S. that have gone around today beating up cab drivers of Arabic descent, and saying that we need to get revenge on everyone that lives in that region.

The terrorists wanted revenge on all Americans, whether we were guilty or not. Only a sub-human beast (like the person who submitted the parent thread under yours) would promote such ignorant acts of terrorism against innocent people just because they have a common language or skin color with the terrorists.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Say it loud, Say it humble, Just F_ CK'IN SAY IT!! (2.09 / 11) (#11)
by CoolArrow on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 07:11:14 PM EST

And say it now, while it can be said - because the more we say it now, the better chance there is that more people will at least be exposed to the idea (perhaps an idea they'd never crossed before, or maybe had'nt stopped to consider before).

Whatever the case, say it loud and clear now, to yourself and to everyone who can hear you, because the more there are of us saying it now , and the more that we repeat it now.......the less we'll have to Scream it later as we try to stem the tide of stupidity.

"FUD, is just one more part of the MACHINE to RAGE AGAINST"
---
The Enemy:

`They are Man's,' said the Spirit, looking down upon them. `And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want . Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy , for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it.' cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. `Slander those who tell it ye. Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse. And abide the end.'

`Have they no refuge or resource.' cried Scrooge.

`Are there no prisons.' said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. `Are there no workhouses.' The bell struck twelve.

Jumping to conclusions (4.21 / 19) (#26)
by marx on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:09:13 PM EST

It seems that people are automatically assuming that this was done by some muslim Arabic group (i.e. Bin Laden or whatever). This is natural, since the media and all the western government spokespersons are stating this.

I talked to a (presumably) Arab person on IRC, who was watching Al Jazeera (the Arabic equivalent of CNN or BBC World), and he said they were speculating about whether Israel could be responsible. I think this is pretty interesting, that for the west, everything bad that happens is blamed on the Arabs, and for the Arabs, everything bad that happens is blamed on Israel. Anyway, I think this is a pretty interesting idea.

Just think, what would be the absolutely best way to get rid of all irritating Islamic terrorist groups? To make the US and its allies extremely pissed off at them of course. It is difficult to think of targets which would be more provocative than the ones selected (the white house is the only one missing, but my guess is that the Pennsylvania plane was supposed to go there). From what I've seen on the news, what this attack has produced is an extreme bloodlust both in the Bush administration and in people in general, implied is Arabic blood.

Likewise, since Bin Laden is the automatic suspect in cases like this, it would be extremely stupid of him to do something like this. If he can be linked to this (or maybe that is not even needed), he will be hunted down like never before, and at least be extremely limited in what he can do. His allies will have a hard time helping him, since the US has said they are considering his allies to be as responsible as he himself (even Afghanistan would have problems hosting him). Also, what this would do (and has done) is unite the moderate Islamic countries with the US against terrorists like him. Thus, it would be suicidal (no pun intended) for Bin Laden and his movement to attempt something like this.

Anyway, I guess we will know more about possible suspects in a few days (or we won't), so this might be irrelevant then. But I think at least people here shouldn't swallow what the governments and the mainstream media is feeding you without some critical thinking. Extremism and fundamentalism is not only limited to Islamic groups, there is extremism within Israel and the US as well. The only reason we don't know much about this, or think about it is because these groups do not target the west.

I don't know Arabic, so I can't read the Al Jazeera site. It would be really nice if someone who knows Arabic could read it and tell us if they have other news which differ from the western view. Al Jazeera is one of few (or the only) Arabic TV stations which is reasonably independent, and thus is quite credible (probably as credible as CNN).

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.

Hatching conspiracy theories. (3.57 / 7) (#28)
by Apuleius on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:16:53 PM EST

In the Mideast there's a saying: "if the weather is bad, blame the Jews." This is beyond ridiculous on so many grounds, the main one being that Jews don't do suicide attacks. Besides that, the Arabs keep accusing Bush of being pro-Israel. Why would he need prodding, then?


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Suicide attacks (2.00 / 5) (#32)
by marx on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:37:11 PM EST

This is beyond ridiculous on so many grounds, the main one being that Jews don't do suicide attacks.

But the assumption was that it was not a Jew attack, but an attack made to look Arabic by extremist Jews.

I'm not saying this is the way it happened. But I think it's certainly as plausible as Osama Bin Laden being behind this. For some reason, this Osama Bin Laden character does not seem realistic. He is too capable, too smart, too invisible etc.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Jews don't do suicide attacks? (4.50 / 2) (#107)
by beak on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 08:17:38 AM EST

The assassin of Yitzhak Rabin (Yigal Amir) was (then) a 26-year-old Jewish conservative religious student, pissed at how his country was giving in to its enemy -- the Palistinians...

I am sure he never expected to survive his attack...

You can find extremists anywhere, any culture, and if they feel like they are doing the 'right thing' they will throw their own lives away to do it...




[ Parent ]
Then why did he survive? (4.00 / 1) (#111)
by Apuleius on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:17:25 PM EST

When Hinkeley shot Reagan, he expected to survive, and boast of it to Jodie Foster. You think shooting the Israeli premier is somehow less dangerous? For your information, in Israel even now it remains commonplace for the premier to walk Tel Aviv without bodyguards on occasion. Rabin sometimes even took the damn bus.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
That's just because Barak and Sharon are Murderers (5.00 / 1) (#187)
by PowerPimp on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 01:28:54 AM EST

Unlike Rabin, who took a proactive role in peace. Sharon and Barak both have Lebanese and Palastinian blood on their hands.
You'd better take care of me God; otherwise, you'll have me on your hands...
[ Parent ]
Yaddah yaddah yaddah. (none / 0) (#191)
by Apuleius on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 02:15:39 AM EST

Barak not only walked Tel Aviv without escort, he once walked into a restaurant in New Delhi without escort.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Not plausible (3.00 / 2) (#78)
by greenrd on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:24:19 AM EST

Not plausible at all. Too much risk of being found out. Israel may be a US ally but that doesn't mean it gets a free reign to attack the US without retaliation!


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

You mean... (none / 0) (#239)
by decaf_dude on Sat Sep 15, 2001 at 12:40:12 AM EST

Israel doesn't have the right to bomb US Intelligence Centers, like they did in Cairo in 1953? Or that it doesn't have the right to destroy US warships, like they did USS Liberty in 1967?

Judging by the history, Israel does whatever it pleases, alliances, laws, and customs be damned. Thus no, I wouldn't put this attack past them. Or the Columbians, the Serbs, the Iraqis, the Chinese, McVeigh's buddies...

--
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89158&cid=7713039


[ Parent ]
It doesn't matter. (4.00 / 2) (#143)
by dasunt on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:52:24 PM EST

It doesn't matter if Osama bin Laden is or isn't responsible for this attack, he was behind others (Embassy Bombings in Africa, USS Cole Bombing, and the World Trade Center bombing a few years ago), and he has inspired other groups to violence against the US (Khomer Towers).

I'm predicting that after September 11th, the United States are going to consider all terrorists a greater threat. Most terrorist attacks take place off United States soil, and most don't involve the amount of casulties we are expecting from the WTC. Even our home grown terrorist, Mr. McVeigh, murdered less people then the people on the planes alone.

To continue my predictions, I'll state that we'll see the following. Regimes that harbor terrorists, including the Taliban, will be held accountable for their actions. President Bush said as much, and while I don't like holding others responsible for the actions of a few, some nations have given terrorists a safe harbor to work from. This cannot continue to happen, and the only effective way to prevent that is to hold any government that aids terrorists responsible, even if that includes military action against that government.

Terrorists themselves will be more actively targeted. Its been proven that terrorists have enough organization and enough skill to hijack 3 planes successfully, and to use those planes as weapons against tens of thousands of people. Because of this, the United States will be more aggressive hunting terrorists that have attacked the United States or its citizens. It is also possible that laws will be passed that limit cooperation with any group that commits terrorists acts. Not only would this include the Arabic terrorists groups, but due to the broad wording I expect from such legislation, groups such as the IRA and the Basques seperatists, and Chechnya would be affected. We will also see more security on domestic US flights, more restrictions on carry-ons, and possibly the expansion of the sky-marshal program.

In summary, expect military action against the group found responsible and any government that harbors them (although the US may ask for the suspects to be handed over, and then resort to military action if they aren't). Also expect tighter air security on both domestic and foriegn flights. Expect terrorist attacks in the future, no matter how small or where they happen, to be dealt with more severely. Also, behind the scenes, there will be more planning on how to deal with the aftermath of terrorist attacks.

I personally feel like Bin Laden is the best suspect for the current WTC situation. He has ties behind the first attack on the WTC, which could have been catastrophic if it went off as planned. He has stated, on record, that he believes that the United States has no will to fight, that it will run away as soon as its been hurt. He doesn't fear our retaliation, his words and the first WTC attack shows us as much. He's attacked US government targets on foriegn soil (African Embassies), US non-government targets on American soil (WTC Bombing), and military ships in foriegn ports (USS Cole). He has successful fought a large country and won before (Afghanistan-USSR war), without experiencing major retaliation. But no matter who it is, all terrorist groups will suffer. Since the destruction of the WTC will set the new standards for major terrorist attacks, I don't think I can disagree with force being used against proven terrorist groups. If we can't arrest a group due to its location, and there is enough evidence that the group has commited the murder of US citizens, then I'll have to support the idea of killing those responsible on foreign soil. I don't want to have to support this, but if we cannot bring them to justice through legal means, and we has the evidence, its the only way to prevent the deaths of more innocents.

Thanks for reading this far, I didn't mean for this comment to be as long as it is, and if you read this far, congrats, you have a good attention span. I'm almost done, lets just let me add one off topic comment. Lets rebuild the WTC. Lets make it look simular to before, but we can make it the tallest building in the world once more. Some might say we are building just another target, but I think it would be a fitting memorial for those who died, and a symbol that the power of creation is greater then the power of destruction.

Just my $.02

[ Parent ]

Never. We can't compromise on the constitution! (none / 0) (#188)
by PowerPimp on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 01:35:20 AM EST

I don't want to have to support this, but if we cannot bring them to justice through legal means, and we has the evidence, its the only way to prevent the deaths of more innocents. I'm afraid that as intolerable as it is, I could never support that. The country cannot be allowed to compromise on the constitution. If we are to find a solution, then it can be nothing but totally legal and by the book. By going freelance we are just as bad as any of them
You'd better take care of me God; otherwise, you'll have me on your hands...
[ Parent ]
Quick question (4.00 / 1) (#203)
by dasunt on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 11:56:16 AM EST

I believe my copy of the constitution is different from yours or else you misunderstood me. What I was talking about is a situation where we have a terrorist in country A, which refuses to hand him over to the US/Internation Courts, and we have enough evidence to believe that the terrorist has planned an attack, I believe that he doesn't get the protection of a citizen under the US Constitution (thus no right to a fair trial) because it has turned into a military matter. The terrorist would be threatening the security the of the country.

Even if the legal experts declare me wrong, there is the other possibility of having a trial in absentia, finding him guilty, then taking more drastic measures if a peaceful solution to capture him cannot be found. Also, note that it is accepted for the law enforcement of this country to kill in self-defense, or to protect others, if there was no alternative.

I'm not preaching "kill them all based on the tiniest suspicion." I'm saying, if there is enough evidence to prove their guilt, and we cannot capture or detain them through peaceful means, then a solution that involves force is called for, if the terrorist is still considered a threat. People residing in the US can be detained through legal means, and can be dealt with through the court system. Any suspected terrorists we apprehend in the US or in any country friendly enough to turn them over to us, will recieve a fair trial, and will have an excellent legal defense team.

If you reply to this, I have one question for you. Assume that we arrest several terrorists in the US, and they present testimony and evidence fingering Osama bin Laden. If the Taliban refuses to hand over bin Laden, and if we are assuming that this won't be the last attack he'll attempt (a safe assumption, I believe), what should we do? I'm interested in your reply.

[ Parent ]

Crime against humanity (4.00 / 1) (#196)
by treefrog on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 04:14:29 AM EST

This was not just a crime against the american people, it was a crime against humanity.

Those responsible, when found, should not be placed on trial in the USA. They should go on trial in the UN court at the Hague, and stand indited with crimes against humanity.

Sincerely

Treefrog
Twin fin swallowtail fish. You don't see many of those these days - rare as gold dust Customs officer to Treefrog
[ Parent ]
34 years living the USS Liberty down (5.00 / 3) (#185)
by BobsyourUncle on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 12:42:43 AM EST

In 1967 as the attack that began the 7 day war was about to get underway the Israelies attacked and seriously damaged a US Naval vessel, the USS Liberty. The ship was an Intelligence collection vessel similar to the USS Pueblo. Around 27 US service personnel were killed in the attack. The Israelis claimed that it was an accident. When I was in the Navy in the early 1980's it was still widely - universally - held in the Navy that the ship was attacked deliberately to keep it from doing anything that would tip off the Egyptians. The Incident was still recalled with a great deal of rancor and bitterness, even as it was understood that it was probably a snap tactical decision to protect the element of surprise.

The violence and hatred that Tuesdays attacks speaks of is on another level all-together. It cannot and does not come out of nowhere. There is no element of Israeli society that regards the US such light (that I am aware of). But Mr. Bin Laden's organization and affliates do and constantly state as much. And have been trying to carry out such an attack for years. If you swear you are going to kill a man and he winds up dead, people are going to suspect you right or wrong. Given terrible and devastating scale of this attack; Occam's razor would suggest the suspicion is well placed. The desire of some Arab news organizations and populations to believe otherwise notwithstanding.



[ Parent ]
But it's Egyptians, not Egypt dancing... (2.37 / 8) (#27)
by marlowe on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:13:18 PM EST

in the streets. And it's Palestinians, not Palestine, handing out candy in celebration.

Our enemies are people. People who happen to buy into a particular mindset.

As for nations and governments, these are created and sustained by people. They have no existence apart from human individuals.


-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
So if someone hates you unreasonably... (3.40 / 5) (#38)
by Lunachick on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:49:10 PM EST

it automatically becomes okay to hate 'em back? Let's try to learn, for once and for all, that we deserve only the justice we are willing to give. The actions of these individuals may be repulsive, but it is not justification for violent retaliation.


I push my limits to their sickening heights and I can feel my heart beat's pressure on the back of my eyes -- Machines of Loving Grace, "The Limiter"
[ Parent ]

Knock it off. (3.00 / 5) (#52)
by marlowe on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:00:05 AM EST

I'm pointing out a simple and relevant fact, and you start getting all self-superior and demonizing me. I don't stand still for that kind of crap.

This isn't about hating. It's not about holding hands and singing Kumbaya, either. It's about facing the facts so we can deal with things effectively. Let's try to learn that simplistic knee-jerk preaching such as yours doesn't work.

If I thought for a moment being nice to people like this would work, I'd advocate it too. But I have fewer illusions about human nature than you. And I'm willing to do whatever will actually work. Even if it's not nice.




-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
[ Parent ]
I do not hate. (4.00 / 7) (#54)
by acronos on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:18:51 AM EST

I feel sorry for the people who think they have no choice but to commit such atrocities. That does not change what needs to be done. When I was a child on the school yard, there was a bully in my class. Those who always turned the other cheek were freely picked on. For years I was one of those who were freely picked on. One day I had taken all I could stand and I turned around and punched the guy. We fought and ended up in the principles office. The next day he felt he needed to justify himself and we fought again. If I had to judge, I would say that I lost both fights. Still, after that day the guy left me alone.

I know there are numerous holes in trying to create an analogy between the two. I believe there is still a similarity. Many people say violence solves nothing. They clam guns are good for nothing but killing. I don't believe that. The world is more complicated than that. I want the police to carry guns. The FORCE they exhibit increases my freedom. The world was one hell of a place to live in true anarchy. It would be much worse today. If we are unwilling to use force, then we will suffer greater costs than we would if we had attacked. I am not trying to tear down the Christian value system of turn the other cheek. I am not really a Christian, but even God told the Israelites to defend themselves. God told them to completely annihilate their enemies.

I know of no other place in time or space that I would rather live than in America right now. We are the freeist nation that has ever walked the face of the earth. That freedom WOULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT THE SACRAFICE OF THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIED DEFENDING THAT FREEDOM. I recognize that many people say that our wealth is built on the backs of the rest of the world. That is BS. This is not the place to fight that battle though. America has committed atrocities in the past. We are still one of the most fair and righteous countries that have every existed. Countries that were more fair and righteous are extinct now because they were unwilling to fight for their freedoms. I do not want to join those ranks. I believe in our country and I know we will do the best we can with the circumstances we have been presented.

Although this has been the long way around, my point is that I also hate violence. I just believe that sometimes the path that leads to the least violence is sometimes littered with the bodies of the dead who fought for freedom and ultimately for peace, and God forbid, sometimes the civilians that got in the way however unfairly.

If I could I would snap my fingers and there would be no more death. I do not want death. I do not even feel that strong of a need for justice. My desire is for the American people to make it more costly for a country to harbor and support terrorists than it is worth to them. Just as is it was more trouble to that bully to pick on me than it was worth once I started hitting back.

[ Parent ]
Re: i do not hate (3.50 / 2) (#117)
by Rashomon on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:35:37 PM EST

I agree wholheartedly.

I'd also like to add that international relations are very complicated. For example, if we let Saddam do whatever he wanted, and suppose he didn't stop with just Kuwait. What would be the implications?

Also in this situation, if we act violently against the terrorists, we might just cause martyrdom, but then again, if we turn the other cheek, are they going to stop killing more civilians? What about other countries that they would want to pick on?

No one is going to do anything except the United States. Europe is militarily weak, and they just complain that we aren't PC enough.
Why is common sense so uncommon?
[ Parent ]

it doesnty matter were they are from (3.00 / 7) (#29)
by unstable on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:20:45 PM EST

it doesnt matter what religion they are.
it doesnt matter what they belive.

what matters is that they murdered a lot of people and whomever it was needs to be brought to justice.

people use terrorism to gain attention to themselves.. well they did that.. but not to there cause but to the fact that they are not fit to be called human, and they had better hope that when they are found, it is by law enforcment official that will uphold there duty. because im sure there are a lot of people out there that would love to take matters into there own hands right now.

I would.



Reverend Unstable
all praise the almighty Bob
and be filled with slack

Assuming (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by retinaburn on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:42:30 AM EST

Assuming there is any of the guilty left. Perhaps all those involved were on the planes, perhaps they have since commited suicide. Then where will you get your justice ?

I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho


[ Parent ]
My experience (3.92 / 14) (#30)
by Mad Hughagi on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:20:57 PM EST

Being an American citizen living abroad and in frequent interaction with many Arabic people I must say this is probably the most tense situation I've had to deal with in a long time. One of my roomates is a Muslim from Pakistan. We're best friends. This situation has definately increased the tensions in our house however.

While I cannot say that I have been a strong supporter of American policy in general, I cannot express the rage that I feel for the acts that were committed today. Innocent people were unknowingly murdered, and for what?

Now I have to listen to certain individuals giving their opinions as to how the US is getting their "just desserts". Since when were civilians to pay the price for policy dictated by the government and/or military? Suffice to say the Taliban has already condemned me to death for my nationality, nevermind the fact that I have always tried to promote an anti-nationalistic outlook and I have often tried to justify why they have done the things they have. It just saddens me though when my friends do not see this act as being an act against humanity. We are all going to suffer for what happened today, regardless of what race, religion or nationality we are a part of.

If you are a person who feels oppressed by the United States, please do not take part in celebrating this situation as being the first step in the downfall of the "Evil Empire". If anything, change will not come about by mass-murdering innocent people. There is no winner here. We've all lost.

As for our house, we still have the Pakistani flag hanging in our living room, and I don't intend on losing any of my friends over this situation, but I definately have to struggle to not act out myself when someone has the nerve to suggest that this type of terrorist act is justified.

The Earth is weeping tonight. The only way we're going to get out of this one is by putting aside our differences, not by focusing on them.


HUGHAGI INDUSTRIES

We don't make the products you like, we make you like the products we make.

Thoughts (4.44 / 9) (#34)
by Dlugar on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:43:47 PM EST

Since when were civilians to pay the price for policy dictated by the government and/or military?
I have heard the opinion of many people today that if bin Laden is responsible, we ought to wipe out Afghanistan, because if they're allowing him to stay there then they're "just as guilty". I know that there are many zealots in the Middle East who feel the same way about the US--we're supporting a government who does things that they don't like, hence we're "just as guilty."

I honestly hope that you don't feel that way, because neither do I. I think it's sick and wrong and could cost millions of innocent people, whether American or Afghani, their lives. Just something to think about when you wonder how people could be so insane as to attack civilians in mass-murder.

Dlugar

[ Parent ]
Civilians and war (4.50 / 10) (#64)
by driptray on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:17:17 AM EST

Since when were civilians to pay the price for policy dictated by the government and/or military?

Hiroshima.

Nagasaki.

Vietnam.

Pretty much any war really.

Face it. America is at war. It's just not clear exactly who the enemy is. It's a new kind of war.


--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating
[ Parent ]
Let's not be our own worst enemy right now... (4.18 / 11) (#31)
by Lunachick on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:34:44 PM EST

With regard to retaliation, and after a day's worth of consideration, I am left with only one thought:

How many more deaths will it take to prove what the lives lost were worth?

There is a world of difference between retaliation and justice. I have little doubt that retaliation and additional loss of life will occur; I have reservations as to whether or not justice will truly be served in the process. This saddens me greatly.

With regard to the consequences of these attacks, I offer the following for consideration. Loss of innocence is the most striking casualty, regardless of the actual, final body count. The realization that horrifying events such as those witnessed live on CNN today can happen here, on "mainland" U.S. soil, is now a part of our national consciousness. The technology we rely upon on a daily basis for benign purposes has been successfully reinvented as devastating weaponry. How we deal with this loss of innocence, however, is what I believe to be of the greatest importance in the present moment. The psychological ramifications of today's events will likely be years in the making; our cultural landscape will be undeniably altered.

I am a resident of Seattle. A little less than two years ago, residents of this city were subjected to the declaration of martial law in response to the WTO riots -- the most outrageous of many civil rights violations committed during that incident which remain unrecognized and unaddressed to this day. While I am uncertain as to how we will respond to the hijackings and horrifying, senseless attacks perpetrated today, I have little doubt that the civil rights of our nation's average citizenry will be impacted. A handful of self-proclaimed Gap-wearing "anarchists" and opportunistic looters turned Seattle into a military-occupied war zone in November of 1999; I cannot imagine what will come to pass as a result of today's tragedies. I hope that the decisions that are made for the purpose of ostensibly protecting our country are sensible ones; I fear, however, that instead we will lose something precious in the balance, that the freedoms we have long celebrated will be inexorably altered. In the wake of today's events, this is what I fear the most.

With this in mind, my "patriotic response" to today's tragedy will focus on ensuring that our rights as individual citizens of this country are not sacrificed unreasonably in future efforts to thwart terrorism. There will always be those who are willing to die for their beliefs, whether or not what they believe is actually true or the actions they choose to take in support of those beliefs are laudable; I have little confidence that this can be changed in a manner which serves justice instead of simply adding to the body count. Instead, I choose to work to prevent the "little deaths" in my day-to-day existence that can be avoided with careful and conscious thought, particularly those impacting the civil rights we all share as Americans (regardless of race, creed, color, ethnic origin, religion, gender or sexual preference).

In the meantime, give grace to yourself and those around you. If you must hate, hate gently.

Fox News is a right wing tool (3.72 / 18) (#36)
by 0xdeadbeef on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:47:09 PM EST

And Jerry Falwell is the biggest god damn pussy they've put on the air today.

I'm sorry, I had to vent. If you were watching Fox news just now, you would understand the relevance to this story.

As Pogo says, the real enemy is us. This is a war between our government and the interests that dictate our foriegn policy, and fanatics who'd do anything to embarass or weaken that government and those interests.

We are colateral damage, to both sides. When the bombs fall on whoever they choose to blame, remember that you have more in common with the innocent bystanders than the government that orders that retaliation.

You pompous shits calling for blood, itching for revenge, waiting to put some smack down... get over your fucking little selves. You're nothing compared to these terrorists. You know why? CAUSE THEY'RE FUCKING EVIL! You wanna kill some more? Want to sacrifice more lives to "send a message"? Do you have that kind of resolve?

Go ahead. Maybe you'll be that tough. Maybe you'll be that single minded. Maybe you'll put the fear of Allah in them. Oh wait, no you won't. All you'll do is justify their martyrdom, and in doing so, make yourselves as evil as they think you are. You clueless twits are just like the assholes dancing in Palestine today.

Face it people. We got caught with our pants down. Do you think it matters that we have the most powerful military in the world? We carpet bomb more training camps, and they'll just punch us in the balls again. It's the three hundred bound bully versus a crowd of vicious street kids. It's a god damn pissing contest that cost twenty thousand lives today.

yeah, yeah (none / 0) (#149)
by finkployd on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:38:12 PM EST

And CNN is a left wing tool. Welcome to journalism. There is NO impartiality, everyone has a political slant.

Finkployd
Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)
[ Parent ]
Anyway, attackers were from u.s. (links,specultn) (2.07 / 13) (#37)
by cnicolai on Tue Sep 11, 2001 at 11:48:42 PM EST

Synopsis:

"xinoehpoel", a regular on the nostradamus newsgroup, posted 7 days ago: "Wait 7 days, and then maybe I'll answer this post. You see, I am going away in seven days, and you will not hear from me again". He's been posting a storm today, including this. You might call him an apocalypic christian, believer in nostradamus, and a follower of The Son of Light, Light of God, "the nostradamus of the 90s." SOLLOG apparently died with his family in a car crash, but someone's been updating his web site and speaking for him elsewhere on the net.

My guess is that after SOLLOG's death, some of his followers split off, and are trying to complete his prophesies, along with one from nostradamus. (something about chaos destroying the twins, causing the third great war...i lost the ref) They're provoking the US government into conflicts that will be the seeds of WW3, which xinoehpoel is sure will be in 2006. Oh, and he's mad about Tim McVeigh.

So there's no need to bring Osama bin Ladin into this. As other people have pointed out, he has the most to lose from it.

more 7-day predictions
mcveigh's execution faked
the matrix philosophy
nostradamus and survival
scriptural end of days
sollog links and info
sollog in the skeptic dictionary
"the AGE OF NUCLEAR TERRORISM HAS BEGUN"


"$OLLOG" (4.00 / 3) (#66)
by kjb on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:31:35 AM EST

I'd call $ollog a spammer, a ghoul and an asshole.
If you want to know about that ghoul, read the archives of sci.skeptic or any of the "paranormal" newsgroups. He really is disgusting.

--
Now watch this drive.
[ Parent ]

We need to consider our actions very carefully (4.61 / 21) (#41)
by htb on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:07:04 AM EST

Looking at the Yahoo new pictures, I can't help but remember the knee-jerk reaction that we (as Americans) felt when the Oaklahoma City building was destroyed. In the picture libs, I see a few AP wire photos of Osama bin Ladin (ObL)- and yes, this was well before any press reports of the "90% certainty", which are still unfounded BTW. Sure, he may have done it, since he apparently threatened "something big". But when has he not threatened something? It's been almost a year since ObL had us on our toes with reports of terrorist threat. Certainly, we see Palistinians dancing in the streets. Did they do it as well? Why not blame the PLO?

I'm sure if any news agency decided to go to Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia, or Somalia they might be able to find people celebrating an attack against the US. But CNN chooses to highlight the Palistinians for obvious reasons. I'm not absolving anyone of guilt, but let's not point fingers until we have some evidence, and I mean real evidence.

I've already heard reports that Arab-Americans have been beaten and threatened, and I've read comments under this thread that might suggest that this behavior is "understandable". What a load of crap- it's neither understandable nor tolerable. Arabs don't justify such violence any more than Americans do- to say so is stereotyping. Plenty of Americans have been phoning into talk shows around the nation suggesting that we bomb Afghanistan or Jerusalem- which will it be folks? It's probably not both, and you're just showing your acceptance of random violence by suggesting such an act. Remember the journalist who fed reports from Iraq during the hostage crisis? Many everyday Iraqi citizens were horrified that hostages were taken under those circumstances (although the media would say otherwise).

Lets just keep it in perspective folks. We'll all suffer for today's events, even if we don't quite know it yet. I've heard that most Palistinians, even those "dancing in the streets", didn't realize how many people might have been affected by today's events and were terribly distraught once they understood the full implications.

egyptians are dancing in the streets too (3.40 / 5) (#50)
by htb on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:50:40 AM EST

Egypt, a supposed ally of the US, has reported some celebration among its people after news of the attack. make that of it what you will, but don't tell me that Palestine's "handing out candy" is justification that Arabs are responsible. Check out the following for Egypt

and, for an African perspective:

[ Parent ]
Sorry for the long post (4.81 / 16) (#43)
by norge on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:09:47 AM EST

I think John McCutcheon put it best (I highly recommend getting a recording of this song if you can):

Christmas in the Trenches
by John McCutcheon
My name is Francis Tolliver, I come from Liverpool.
Two years ago the war was waiting for me after school.
To Belgium and to Flanders, to Germany to here
I fought for King and country I love dear.
'Twas Christmas in the trenches, where the frost so bitter hung,
The frozen fields of France were still, no Christmas song was sung
Our families back in England were toasting us that day
Their brave and glorious lads so far away.


I was lying with my messmate on the cold and rocky ground
When across the lines of battle came a most peculiar sound
Says I, "Now listen up, me boys!" each soldier strained to hear
As one young German voice sang out so clear.
"He's singing bloody well, you know!" my partner says to me
Soon, one by one, each German voice joined in harmony
The cannons rested silent, the gas clouds rolled no more
As Christmas brought us respite from the war
As soon as they were finished and a reverent pause was spent
"God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen" struck up some lads from Kent
The next they sang was "Stille Nacht." "Tis 'Silent Night'," says I
And in two tongues one song filled up that sky
"There's someone coming toward us!" the front line sentry cried
All sights were fixed on one long figure trudging from their side
His truce flag, like a Christmas star, shown on that plain so bright
As he, bravely, strode unarmed into the night
Soon one by one on either side walked into No Man's Land
With neither gun nor bayonet we met there hand to hand
We shared some secret brandy and we wished each other well
And in a flare-lit soccer game we gave 'em hell
We traded chocolates, cigarettes, and photographs from home
These sons and fathers far away from families of their own
Young Sanders played his squeezebox and they had a violin
This curious and unlikely band of men


Soon daylight stole upon us and France was France once more
With sad farewells we each prepared to settle back to war
But the question haunted every heart that lived that wonderous night
"Whose family have I fixed within my sights?"
'Twas Christmas in the trenches where the frost, so bitter hung
The frozen fields of France were warmed as songs of peace were sung
For the walls they'd kept between us to exact the work of war
Had been crumbled and were gone forevermore


My name is Francis Tolliver, in Liverpool I dwell
Each Christmas come since World War I, I've learned its lessons well
That the ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and lame
And on each end of the rifle we're the same

moving stuff (none / 0) (#96)
by codemonkey_uk on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:20:46 AM EST

But you could have posted a link rather than a cut-n-paste of the whole text.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
Speculation (3.60 / 15) (#44)
by Sheepdot on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:35:07 AM EST

Just as a side note.

I would *really* appreciate it that those of you who are spouting ideas note that what you are saying is purely speculation.

We may not know with a sufficient degree of certainy who or what group was behind this. There is also, believe it or not, a chance that we may *never* know.

More often than not, terrorists leave a trail as wide as a four-lane highway in their wake. Especially suicidal ones, as in this case.

But just so I make it painstakingly clear: An argument saying these were pilots randomly crashing their jets is just as justifiable at this point as saying OBL, Palestine, Afgan, etc. are the ones behind this.

On more related note, in the same token that Americans should remember it is not a people or a religion that is our enemy, so should those that take great offense at what our retaliation will be, and trust me, America is full of elected neo-utilitarians that *will* retaliate.

So please don't argue that America is attacking Muslims, Palestinians, Afgans, etc. after bombs, missles, and whatever else this country fires takes place tommorrow or later this week.

There are two enemies to be confronted at this point: the actual terrorists, and any countries that harbor them. (I'm guessing harbor means "continue to harbor" in this instance.) If you are currently in a country that graciously harbors such individuals, for the sake of your own life, you may want to leave.

Note: PURE SPECULATION (I base this on *nothing* factual)

Afgan leaders may have actually killed or apprehended the terrorist or terrorists involved in the plane crashes for us tonight. The US denied being involved in an incident in Afganistan early tonight, but it may be that Afgan leaders took the initiative and "solved" the problem for us, not wanting to be in any way associated with the party that did this horrific act.

If that is the case I would applaud their actions, assuming they got the person or people responsible.

Note: The former, once again, is *pure* speculation. Please assist us in putting notifications in your posts.


Really? (3.50 / 4) (#65)
by kjb on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:26:14 AM EST

From the TV reports I have seen, the shellings in Kabul were done by another Afghan faction, and were apparently unrelated to the attacks in the US.
Check out this link

--
Now watch this drive.
[ Parent ]

Like I said (2.33 / 3) (#69)
by Sheepdot on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:06:03 AM EST

Pure speculation on my part.

I'm certain we'll know enough by the end of the week that a large number of people will be pointing fingers

[ Parent ]
fuck that, kill 'em all (1.19 / 31) (#47)
by cory on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:43:57 AM EST

How can you people suggest anything short of all-out war on terrorist nations??? Close to 50,000 people lost their lives today FOR NO REASON, and you want us to be calm? Have you lost your collective minds??? We need to declare war on Afghanistan, Turkistan, Pakistan, the Sudan, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, and all the other pissant little countries that have pushed us around too long. And God help anyone who gets in our way.

If we do anything other than total annhilation of those countries, we'll be inviting more ruin and destruction on our heads. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a pussy and a traitor.

Cory


and you really are a moron (NM) (1.33 / 9) (#51)
by htb on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:53:55 AM EST



[ Parent ]
how's that again? (1.83 / 6) (#53)
by cory on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:05:33 AM EST

The US is attacked in an act of war. I, like millions of my countrymen, want to go to war to avenge the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. And this makes me a moron how?

Cory


[ Parent ]
Yes, but. (4.60 / 5) (#56)
by physicsgod on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:27:37 AM EST

There needs to be a distinction between those responsable and those who happen to share religion/ethnicity with them. Right now we don't even know it was arab terrorists, any retaliation will have to wait until next week at the earliest, first we have to get the survivors out, then we can set it up as a crime scene. Once we know who did this we can use every means at our disposal to eliminate them, and anyone else who stands in our way. But to simply go to war against the entire middle east would just waste lives.

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
hmm.. (3.00 / 2) (#57)
by rebelcool on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:28:35 AM EST

it makes you an irrational sheep no different than the terrorists. Striking at innocent civilians who had nothing to do with your supposed 'cause' for retribution against what you perceive as a wrong committed against your countrymen.

Really, quite the same as the terrorists.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

re: how's that again? (3.50 / 6) (#63)
by kjb on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:16:08 AM EST

Because you you picked a bunch of "middle eastern" countries indiscriminately, advocating bombing the shit out of them when you have absolutely no idea if they had anything to do with it.
That is what makes you a moron.

--
Now watch this drive.
[ Parent ]

yeah you're a FUCKING moron (2.00 / 6) (#82)
by panck on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:40:47 AM EST

Obviously, if those who committed this terrorist act had only sought to kill the people they have grief with (apparently the US government somehow, definitely not the poor people working in the WTC bldgs) then there wouldn't be (possibly, up to) 50000 casualties today....
It's because they THOUGHT and ACTED JUST LIKE YOU DO, that we have innocent people dead right now.
Every innocent person the USA kills in the name of freedom/the american way, means there are more people who THINK JUST LIKE YOU, that "those goddamn americans (iraqis, muslims, afghans) are gonna pay".
THANK THE FUCKING LORD THAT YOU'RE NOT IN CHARGE OF SHIT.

Try a little THOUGHT next time fucktard.

[ Parent ]
Whose side are you on? (3.00 / 4) (#59)
by mmcc on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:36:40 AM EST

    And God help anyone who gets in our way.
i guess you must be on Satan's side then?



[ Parent ]

The world needs more dead people (3.33 / 3) (#70)
by Nickus on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:22:09 AM EST

Yes, you are absolutly right. What the world needs right now is more innocent dead people. That would really solve the terrorist problem.

In the next few days we will see a lot of heated comments because of this great tragedy. But this is when USA has to show they are a great nation by hunting down the real criminals and not just go out bombing places flat.



Due to budget cuts, light at end of tunnel will be out. --Unknown
[ Parent ]
How would that be different from what they did? (4.00 / 4) (#95)
by bero on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:15:10 AM EST

Subject says it all. While at it, why not bomb out the US, Europe and Australia because there ought to be terrorists around there? The population of the countries you mention is not at all responsible for this. Their "total annihilation" would be an even worse crime than the attacks on NY and DC yesterday.

[ Parent ]
Wrong (4.33 / 3) (#106)
by uweber on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 08:13:40 AM EST

If your country did that you would stand alone the next day. The feelings of the world are currently with your country but if you insist that you are entitled to start full fledged war, Europe will at least NOT HELP YOU if not try to stop you.

[ Parent ]
Arabs/Muslims are NOT the enemy (4.53 / 26) (#55)
by dyskordus on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:24:08 AM EST

Islamic fundamentalists are an insult to every other Muslim on the face of the Earth. Each and every time a bomb is set off or a person is shot for Allah, it is a slap to the face of every Muslim who is busy doing something constructive with their lives.

The real enemy is fanaticism. It is a powerful enemy, powerful enough to get people intelligent enough to fly a jet liner to smash one into an office building, and powerful enough to get people talking about killing every Muslim in the world.


"Reality is less than television."-Brian Oblivion.

Thank you. (3.00 / 2) (#124)
by raven13 on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:42:50 PM EST

The real enemy is fanaticism. It is a powerful enemy, powerful enough to get people intelligent enough to fly a jet liner to smash one into an office building, and powerful enough to get people talking about killing every Muslim in the world.

This is by far the most thoughtful, intelligent thing I've read all day.


"...the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys."
[ Parent ]

True, but... (3.66 / 3) (#138)
by Otter on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:28:00 PM EST

Islamic fundamentalists are an insult to every other Muslim on the face of the Earth. Each and every time a bomb is set off or a person is shot for Allah, it is a slap to the face of every Muslim who is busy doing something constructive with their lives.

That's true, but I wish Arab-Americans were more conscious of that fact. (Yes, I know Arab!=Muslim, I'm talking about Arab-Americans.) I feel sorry for them when they complain that they are widely viewed as terrorists but they never, either in person or through their advocates, seem to display the slightest awareness of why that stereotype exists.

When yet another atrocity takes place in Israel, Arab spokespeople here condemn it, and I don't doubt they're opposed to such actions. But they do it in a way that makes it clear that it doesn't really bother them that another restaurant or bus was blown up and it certainly never take the next step and tell Arafat and Hanan Ashrawi and the rest:

"Look, we are trying to make our lives here and you are ruining it for us. Stop the bombings or we will throw our money and political support behind someone who will."

That said, I'm sure Arab-Americans are entirely horrified by what happened yesterday. I'm Jewish and a Zionist (FYI, that does not mean I'm not capable of recognizing when Israel is in the wrong) and I don't doubt that Arafat and even the Hamas leaders are appalled.

[ Parent ]

a point (2.00 / 7) (#58)
by luethke on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:29:42 AM EST

Been a long time since I posted but I felt this needed saying. Something I have not seen said yet is that saying "arab" or "muslim" is not very specific. There are several "factions" (or demoninations in christian speak, I don't remember what a muslim would call them, nor the correct spelling) but the muslims that are being blamed are mostly shiite. Those of you who know a muslim are probably suuni. Suuni are very similar to christian beleifs (somewhat pacifist and tolerant, at least they don't beleive they are in a jihad now). People like the taliban are shiite, this group typically belives they are in a jihad and dying in a "suicide bombing" is a great way to go. there are several other factions around but those are the two most prevailant (during the crusades there was a group called the hashishans, one of the european kings visted them to make a treaty, in order to show thier support thier sharif (I think) had several dozen people fling themselfs off a cliff - so the shiites aren't the most fanatical faction of muslims ever. This group is the origin of the word assasin and hashish). anyway, If I were to say "suicide bomber" about the only ones in the world are shiite muslims - typically most people are not willing to sacrifice thereselfs in this way. That is to say it is not possible to say for certain that it was a faction of shiite muslims, but it is possible to say it is very likely.

taliban R sunni (4.00 / 7) (#62)
by gooberchile on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:04:37 AM EST

the taliban are sunni muslims
not shiite. In fact they
persecute the shiite muslims
in afghanistan.

[ Parent ]
absolutely correct (4.00 / 3) (#72)
by streetlawyer on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:45:07 AM EST

The popular view that the Shia are the extremists dates back to the days when the Iranians were the ones we were meant to hate and the Iraqis were on our side.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
so? (1.00 / 2) (#126)
by luethke on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:49:36 PM EST

Where in there did I claim what the taliban are. Sudia Arabia are also suuni but resemble shiite in many many ways. It is a matter of fact that many shiite muslims beleive they are in a jihad (hence a suicide bombimg) and few suuni do. Suuni comprimise most of that muslims in the world and only a small handfull believe as the taliban (suadia arabia does, what I meant above is the are much more of a fundamentalist group). I am cusios as to why that post got a low rating. I have spent several years in religious studies and know many muslims (mostly suuni as the two I knew where shiite refused to have a conversation) and what I said is considered fact. I was not saying to kill all shiite just that blaming muslims or saying muslims are this is not very specific as there can and are radical differences between different factions - several posts further on down seemed to be arguing about what muslims beleive and both were "right" in that one seemed to be describing suuni and the other shiite. Of course there are exceptions in each one - there are in christianity, buddist, hindu, or whatever religion you want to name, but the fact of the matter is that when you say "suuni muslim" there is a core set of beliefs that should be followed - by definition it is a label for a group of people. Of course I can also call my self a hindu when I might actully belive as a buddist, the taliban is only loosely a suuni (the thing that would probably seperate them from the shiite is what branch of muhommad's kids they followed - but they share very little else with any other suuni I know and what I know about thier belifs). My first post still stands - most of the acts people complain about and site for an example are shiite muslims, not suuni.

[ Parent ]
bin Laden is a sunni (4.50 / 2) (#128)
by alprazolam on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:05:13 PM EST

and you are an idiot

[ Parent ]
thank you (none / 0) (#170)
by luethke on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:42:03 PM EST

Thank you, I have now seen the error of my ways. A small group of suuni have completely destroyed what the majority of suuni beleive. This small group of suuni also have invalidated the fact the shiite are still resposnsible for a large portion of what we call terrorism, I am humbled in the face of this impeccable logic - bin laden being suuni means all suuni are evil and shiite do not tend to be violent. Now I agree that all muslim are bad. I suppose that this is like a science theory, that an example of one person or small fringe group totally destroys that fact that most suuni are peacfull and many shiite are not. Now that my humble brain has seen the light (I mean you know the best argument on this thread so far is that bin laden is suuni and I am an idiot - overiding evedence for someone that has way more mental faculties than I).

[ Parent ]
Cut this Nostredamis crap out (3.00 / 10) (#60)
by sneakcjj on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:54:11 AM EST

The Nostradamus quote people are referring to is crap.

"The City of God" is a reference in the Old Testament to the city of JERUSALEM. Not New York. And at least as of 1:54am Wednesday 9/12 Jerusalem is not on fire.

That guys quotes are about as vague as a horoscope in the newspaper. You are bound to get something remotely close when you write a lot of things down.

Standing Strong (2.00 / 3) (#61)
by sneakcjj on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:00:33 AM EST

I came across this picture but I don't remember where I got it from and I didn't create it. No matter who the enemy is...we're still standing strong.

Okay, so who's the enemy now? (2.25 / 8) (#67)
by plutarch on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:33:25 AM EST

Nations are the enemy? Nations are geopolitical abstractions. Arabs are not the enemy? Well, some of them clearly are. Osama bin Laden, for example. Let's not jump to conclusions, but let's not suspend judgement indefinitely either. It's really really really looking like bin Laden did it. I mean really.
Leftism is the ideology of resentment. It is is the ideology of the frustrated will to power. It matters not how much or how little power the Leftist has at the moment. The point is, he wants more, and he can't get it.
Really? (4.33 / 6) (#83)
by ocrow on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:53:36 AM EST

It's really looking that way? That bin Laden did it?

Remember the Oaklahoma city bombing... remember how everyone said it was Arabs? For the longest time everyone believed it was Islamic terrorists? That we all knew those damn Moslems were to blame?

And then it turned out not to be the Arabs at all, but white guys from our own backyard. What a shock! What a surprise! Who'd have thunk it?

So, yes, let's not jump to conclusions. It may well have been bin Laden. But then again it may not. It would be quite irresponsible to point the finger at someone who didn't do it, without any real justification. They might be rather upset to have been falsely accused.

[ Parent ]
The crucial difference in this case is... (1.00 / 2) (#227)
by marlowe on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 12:47:39 AM EST

as time goes by, and more evidence accumulates, it looks more and more like he did it, instead of less and less.

Sometimes things are exactly as as they seem. Life's funny that way.

-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
[ Parent ]
Possibly true (1.88 / 18) (#68)
by rgrow on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:48:36 AM EST

There are two things you could mean by this. The first is that we shouldn't confuse people of the same ethnicity as the enemy with the enemy, which I agree with. The second is that the people of an enemy country are not responsible for the actions of its leaders, which I disagree with.

Just to distance ourselves slightly from the heart-wrenching events of today, let's take Germany during WWII as an example. Who was the enemy? Hitler, the German military, the German people? All of these were necessary components of the attack made on the Allies. Of course, there were Germans opposed to Hitler, but the majority of Germans must have supported him for him to have stayed in power, if not explicitly, then implicitly, by continuing to work. Rulers rule by the consent of the ruled, whether they are democratically elected or not. Because they were part of the war machine, German civilians in Germany were fair game for destruction during the war. So, I would say our enemy was Germany and the Germans. Individual Germans outside of Germany could be judged on their merits, but Germans inside Germany participating in the war effort during those years were our enemies.

OK, now let's be more specific. Let's assume that we were attacked by Osama bin Laden, which is a reasonable bet. He is both an Arab and a Moslem, which describe his ethnicity and his religion. That particular combination seems to subscribe a worldview that breeds a special hatred towards non-Moslems, Westerners in general, and the U.S. and Israel in specific. Arab Moslems are our enemies in that they tend to hate us. We should only act against the specific ones who have acted on that hatred by harboring terrorists and committing acts of terrorism themselves, but that doesn't narrow it down much. Of course, Arab Moslems in the U.S. should not be molested or interned, but I don't think it unreasonable to regard them with suspicion, especially if they are recent arrivals. Perhaps if the authorities wherever these guys were living had done so, we wouldn't be in this mess today.

I think military strikes against Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan are intensely in order, and secondary strikes against the other terrorist-breeding countries like Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Sudan should follow on for good measure. We've let these despotic Moslem Arabs mess with us for decades with impunity. They're apparently not afraid of death, but I think we can put the fear of total destruction into them.

here's a clue (4.27 / 11) (#71)
by streetlawyer on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:43:39 AM EST

(I'm ignoring your monstrously ignorant comments about what "Arab Moslems" might or might not believe; I'm sure that plenty of other people can put you straight)

I think military strikes against Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan are intensely in order, and secondary strikes against the other terrorist-breeding countries like Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Sudan should follow on for good measure.

Do you not think that it's attitudes like this that might explain why people hate the USA? Given a lot of its overseas actions for the last forty years, a lot of people have decent reason to view the USA as a "terrorist state". Quite apart from anything, there is no actual evidence yet that either bin Laden or Afghanistan were responsible, and the Afghans have actually said that they weren't.

We've let these despotic Moslem Arabs mess with us for decades with impunity.

Anyone with even a remote knowledge of US foreign policy since the war might question whether you are using the dictionary definition of "impunity" here. The truth is that you've constantly and repeatedly fucked them over evern since a) they struck oil and b) the state of Israel was founded.



--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

uh-huh (2.00 / 5) (#77)
by rgrow on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:18:28 AM EST

My monstrously ignorant comments on what Arab Moslems might believe? All I said is that they hate us. So put me straight. They don't hate us?

Of course, I only advocate such strikes if Osama bin Laden can be shown to be responsible, but I stand by my advocacy of the punishment of the nation(s) which aided and abetted him by giving him room to work and/or turning a blind eye to his criminal activities. I advocate strikes strong enought to neutralize the threat, including toppling governments by force, if necessary. Not that I know where you'll get a good government to replace them. We have every right to eliminate threats to our security.

They struck oil? If my memory serves, they wouldn't have known what oil was if it has spurted out of the ground and hit them in the face. Western oil companies discovered oil in the Middle East and spent large sums leasing the land and building the oilfields until they were all nationalized (that means stolen) by the various governments.

Israel: Well, you can say what you want about the founding of Israel. You might call it an invasion, you might call it a civil war. Certainly atrocities occurred on both sides. But the fact remains that Israel is Western-style industrialized democracy surrounded by despotic third-world Arab countries. Israel supports our ideals of individual rights and freedom, and it deserves our support. I'm not a multiculturalist. I'm willing to judge regimes and civilizations, and Israel's is superior to the surrounding Arab and should be defended for that reason. If it means war, so be it.

Worrying about what other countries think of us is so much secondhandedness. If we're right (and we are) we should stand up, shout it out, and defend ourselves on the battlefield if it comes to that.

[ Parent ]
Oh that's priceless (5.00 / 5) (#85)
by streetlawyer on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:12:24 AM EST

I stand by my advocacy of the punishment of the nation(s) which aided and abetted him by giving him room to work and/or turning a blind eye to his criminal activities.

You do know which country gave bin Laden his big start in life and financed him for the first ten years, don't you?

All I said is that they hate us. So put me straight. They don't hate us?

The Arab Moslems of Kuwait don't hate you, nor do most of the United Arab Emirates. The Arab Moslems of Qatar were about to host a WTO summit. The Arab Moslems of Egypt are currently on friendly terms with the USA, and so are the Arab Moslems of Jordan. In the main, Arab Moslems don't hate the USA if you haven't bombed them in the last few years.

If my memory serves, they wouldn't have known what oil was if it has spurted out of the ground and hit them in the face

Your memory doesn't serve. The Arabs were distilling petroleum spirit in the thirteenth century AD, while European "culture" generally revolved around the dung fire.

Western oil companies discovered oil in the Middle East and spent large sums leasing the land and building the oilfields until they were all nationalized (that means stolen) by the various governments.

You might as well say that British companies developed North America before they were all stolen by the colonists. The Middle East was under foreign military control when the big strikes were made. They owe you nothing.

the fact remains that Israel is Western-style industrialized democracy

Police states with racial purity laws have not fallen within the definition of "Western-style democracy" for quite some time.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

OK, bring it. (1.44 / 9) (#86)
by rgrow on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:34:06 AM EST

The U.S. started bin Laden out. That was stupid. That doesn't mean we shouldn't kill him and all his kind now that he's turned against us.

And your America-loving Arabs make up what percentage of Arabs? Of course, I realize that generalizations have some exceptions. I assume you're subtle enough to recognize that as well. I doubt the goodwill of the Egypt and Jordan. Egyptians were quoted today as reveling in this news.

Oil: Nice try. Without us, the Arabs would still be riding camels around and living in tents. What they did 700 years ago is irrelevant. Western oil companies did all the mental and physical labor of discovering oil in the Middle East. In my mind, that gives them claim to it. What did the Arabs do? Sit around on top of it? How did that give it value? We should have slapped down the nationalizations with hardcore force in the 1940's.

Whatever you say, I'd rather be an Israeli Arab than a Jew living under a Palestinian-run Palestine. If you can't see that Western capitalism and freedom is a better system to live under than a racist, collectivist theocracy, I'll let you try the two and report back to me.


[ Parent ]
Arabic culture (3.80 / 5) (#87)
by streetlawyer on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:35:28 AM EST

Without us, the Arabs would still be riding camels around and living in tents.

Without them, we'd still be counting in Roman numerals.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

Well-known past glory days of Islamic culture... (1.66 / 6) (#88)
by rgrow on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:40:13 AM EST

are undisputed. They had a brilliant respect for reason and, as I imagine you know, even transmitted many of our own great works of the past down to us after our Dark Ages. But they've fallen into darkness now and stagnated as a culture. I don't have a huge problem with that, as long as they only hurt themselves. But they've been hurting us for 50 years, and now's the time to stop it.

[ Parent ]
back to front (4.00 / 5) (#89)
by streetlawyer on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:52:27 AM EST

But they've been hurting us for 50 years

That's one interpretation ....

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

Complete Utter Crap (4.16 / 6) (#113)
by PhillipW on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:48:57 PM EST

I have read through this whole thread, and watched you spew out your racist rhetoric, and would like to tell you how much of an ass you are. You use logic such as "without us the arabs would be riding camels and sitting in tents blah blah." Are you from the American south? This is the exact same logic you would hear from a Klansmen, "Them damn niggers would be living in huts chuckin spears if we hadn't brought em over here. They got no right to not be slaves. *chug moonshine*"

Of course after you posted that logic, some challenged you by saying that America would be nowhere if the British had not colonized us, and that we stole their land after they had put so much into it. You, of course, ignored it. Most likely because you had no response to it that would support your ass-backward, Archy Bunker way of thinking.

As for them hurting us for the past 50 years, we have been hurting other nations for longer. Since the end of WWII, we have stuck our hands in every cookie jar that they did not belong. We had no right to march into the Middle East and kick the Palestinians out. That is a multimillenium conflict, and you are foolish to think that you know enough about it to say that we are right.

As for Israel being a democratic, religously tolerant nation, I would advise you to open your eyes before you open your mouth. Israel is insanely anti-islamic. Anyone who doesn't see their intolerance for muslims is a damned fool. They have killed pregnant women and children, only because they were Palestinian. The way Israel is handling the Palestinians is like killing a fly with a sledge-hammer.

So, Mr Grow, I would like you to please actually learn what you're talking about before you open your loud redneck mouth.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Look who's talking... (4.00 / 2) (#125)
by farmgeek on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:45:20 PM EST

I was in 100% ageement with you until you started spewing bigoted anti-southern crap.

All I can do is commend you on proving yourself every bit as bigoted as the person you were responding to, thereby lending his argument a semblence of legitimacy.

[ Parent ]
Yeah... (none / 0) (#129)
by PhillipW on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:12:03 PM EST

I played on a stereotype. I did that on purpose... The best way to show people how stupid their stereotypes are is to stereotype them.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
I indict Arab/Islamic *culture*, not genes (1.00 / 4) (#211)
by rgrow on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 09:22:01 PM EST

I am not racist. Racism is the doctrine that a certain genetically related group of people is genetically inferior to other groups. I have said no such thing. In fact, I have praised Arab culture from about 900-1200 A.D. It was a center of science and learning and was far more tolerant of other religions than Christians were in that period. What I am is willing to judge cultures. I do not believe the multiculturalist claptrap that all cultures are equally worthy of admiration. It is obvious that certain cultures hold values that are antithetical to human life. The dominant culture of the Middle East, as influenced by certain interpretations of Islam, is one of them. Fundamentally, they hold religious faith above reason as a means of gaining knowledge. Since religion is not a means of gaining knowledge, this translates to trusting emotion and tradition over reason. This disconnects their morality from the actual needs of human life. If you look at the governments of the region, there is no freedom of speech, no equality before the law, no separation of church and state. If you look at the cultures, there is a virulent hatred of the West and what it stands for, which is reason, science, freedom, individualism, and happiness. They hate us on all of these counts because all of this is in opposition to Islam. They hate us because we are not Muslim. They're religious sectarians with no tolerance for non-believers. That should rank about equally with racism in your book, but I don't hear you indicting them. How about a little parity? As far as camel-driving, you show me an example of an important scientific innovation that came out of the Middle East anytime in the last 800 years. Again, I'm not saying Arabs are genetically inferior. I'm saying their culture has gone wrong in a bad way. I would love to see either a renaissance of reason in the Middle East or immigration of whatever better elements there are among their society to free countries where they can be productive and happy. As for the British thing, I didn't see that post. If I have time (I do have other things to do.), I'll go back and take a look at it. I'll address your other points in other posts. Randy

[ Parent ]
I indict Arab/Islamic *culture*, not genes (1.83 / 6) (#212)
by rgrow on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 09:23:53 PM EST

I am not racist. Racism is the doctrine that a certain genetically related group of people is genetically inferior to other groups. I have said no such thing. In fact, I have praised Arab culture from about 900-1200 A.D. It was a center of science and learning and was far more tolerant of other religions than Christians were in that period.

What I am is willing to judge cultures. I do not believe the multiculturalist claptrap that all cultures are equally worthy of admiration. It is obvious that certain cultures hold values that are antithetical to human life.

The dominant culture of the Middle East, as influenced by certain interpretations of Islam, is one of them. Fundamentally, they hold religious faith above reason as a means of gaining knowledge. Since religion is not a means of gaining knowledge, this translates to trusting emotion and tradition over reason. This disconnects their morality from the actual needs of human life. If you look at the governments of the region, there is no freedom of speech, no equality before the law, no separation of church and state. If you look at the cultures, there is a virulent hatred of the West and what it stands for, which is reason, science, freedom, individualism, and happiness. They hate us on all of these counts because all of this is in opposition to Islam. They hate us because we are not Muslim. They're religious sectarians with no tolerance for non-believers. That should rank about equally with racism in your book, but I don't hear you indicting them. How about a little parity?

As far as camel-driving, you show me an example of an important scientific innovation that came out of the Middle East anytime in the last 800 years. Again, I'm not saying Arabs are genetically inferior. I'm saying their culture has gone wrong in a bad way. I would love to see either a renaissance of reason in the Middle East or immigration of whatever better elements there are among their society to free countries where they can be productive and happy.

As for the British thing, I didn't see that post. If I have time (I do have other things to do.), I'll go back and take a look at it.

I'll address your other points in other posts.

Randy

[ Parent ]

Faith above reason? (none / 0) (#223)
by MrYotsuya on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 11:28:46 PM EST

I like that statement. I guess it's certainly reasonable. The foundation of the state is Israel rests upon "It's ours! It says so in our holy texts!"

[ Parent ]
Who hurts whom in the Middle East? (2.33 / 3) (#213)
by rgrow on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 09:34:32 PM EST

The truth of the matter about our relations with the Middle East in this century is that American (and British) companies went over there with scientific and technical knowledge to extract oil from the ground. They made agreements with the local governments for the privilege to do so. Once they had invested huge sums of money in exploring, developing fields, and building refining facilities, many of the local rulers decided they weren't satisfied with the 50% (or whatever the freely negotiated deal stipulated) that the Western interests were paying them for doing absolutely nothing but watching the Westerners work, so they reneged on their deals and nationalized the oil industries and kicked the Western companies out. Without Western science and technology, the Middle Easterners would not even know there was oil in the ground there to this day. This is one of the great injustices of the twentieth century, and it merited military intervention at that time. Nationalization was motivated by greed (desire for the unearned) and dishonesty.

A combination of factors has motivated attacks on us by the Middle East since then. They always hated us for being the infidel, but after the nationalizations went off without a hitch, they also despised us for not standing up for ourselves, and as any bully would, continued to try to take more and more from us. This included playing us off the Soviets for foreign aid by holding hostage oil that we had rightfully developed. Of course, the Middle East hates us for supporting Israel as well, a cause that I will justify in yet another post.

[ Parent ]

Israel is righteous (1.87 / 8) (#214)
by rgrow on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 10:02:16 PM EST

Israel has a democratic nation in which many of the democratically elected representatives are, in fact, Muslim Arabs. So Arabs are clearly equal before the law and allowed to participate in government. You'd be hard pressed to show that the Arabs would do the same if they ran Palestine. In fact, their stated intention has been to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea. I guess that would preclude letting them participate in government, eh?

The Jews were second-class citizens in Muslim-ruled Palestine for twelve centuries. To hit a Muslim was a capital offense. I don't fault them for realizing they'd never be free in a Palestinian-ruled state and fighting to create their own. They may have dispossessed some Palestinians in so doing, but don't think the Palestinians wouldn't have done the same thing to them and worse if they'd only been militarily competent.

At every step since then, the Israelis have acted in their own defense. They haven't initiated wars (preemptive strikes to neutralize obvious threats are justified). They have just fought back to keep what they have. They are the ones who really want peace.

Is there some racism and religious sectarianism in Israeli society? Yes. Is it worse among the Palestinians? Yes. If you really cared about the deaths of innocent babies and pregnant women, I think the Palestinians who *deliberately* target such victims are much more morally repugnant than the Israelis who only kill them accidentally in the course of trying to defend themselves.

Israel is a beacon of science, reason, and freedom in a sea of backward despotism. For that alone, it deserves our support.

[ Parent ]

You know nothing about history (1.66 / 3) (#94)
by core10k on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:07:28 AM EST

Without us, the Arabs would still be riding camels around and living in tents.

This sort of nonsense, this racist crap makes me sick. Time for some racism of my own. 10 000 Americans dead? Good fucking start, I say.



[ Parent ]
Percentage (3.00 / 1) (#98)
by retinaburn on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:33:25 AM EST

And your America-loving Arabs make up what percentage of Arabs

About the same percentage of arab-loving americans.

Seeing the racist ranting the Proud and True networks were putting on sickened me to know end last night. Heck they figured it must be Osama Bin Laden that was involved in the Oklahoma City Bombing when that happened too...God Love America.


I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho


[ Parent ]
Multiple Perspectives (5.00 / 1) (#121)
by electroniceric on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:39:16 PM EST

Mr. Rgrow,

I believe what people here are arguing against is not so much the substance of any one of your points, all of which touch on pretty complicated historical events, but rather the tone of your arguments. Your comments suggest that you believe that one side really did all the right things, and another side really did all the wrong things. For example:

Oil: Nice try. Without us, the Arabs would still be riding camels around and living in tents. What they did 700 years ago is irrelevant. Western oil companies did all the mental and physical labor of discovering oil in the Middle East. In my mind, that gives them claim to it. What did the Arabs do? Sit around on top of it? How did that give it value?

I agree with you, Western oil companies did have a great influence on the development of the oil industry in the middle east. I also think it would sound simple-minded to argue that had the US not been there that the country would have stayed as it was. We all live inside our history. People there did what they did in the historical circumstances that surrounded them. They made choices (and for the record I think that many of the choices made by both sides in that region are reprehensible in Israel and Palestine alike) based on what they saw. Things moved forward.

What your tone suggests that you think you're objective. An excellent site I read recently put it this way:

Real objectivity does NOT mean the reporter has no opinion. Anyone with a pulse has an opinion.

Let's be adults here - we all have opinions, and none of us know the whole story. Maybe we can learn something from each other.

[ Parent ]

CIA (4.00 / 3) (#145)
by anonymous cowerd on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:17:22 PM EST

You do know which country gave bin Laden his big start in life and financed him for the first ten years, don't you?

I've been glued redeyed to various news media practically nonstop since 9:00 AM EST yesterday, and amidst all that veritable ocean of blather you are the first person to make this pedestrian observation. The first. And even you fail to s-p-e-l-l it out for the teevee audience. Of course it was so far back - ancient history, really, 1982, who besides specialists in Etruscan, types like that, could possibly keep such far-past events in memory? I mean, Ronald Reagan was a saint, and it's just not done to penetrate that luminous nimbus of sanctity and too closely examine the actual lives and activities of saints.

It was the CIA that armed the mujhedeen. The CIA, the CIA, the CIA. Thrust Stinger missiles by the hundred right into the hands of God-loving future WTC bomber Abdel Rahman. Yet more of that loose-cannon non-accountable back-channel "diplomacy" that makes U.S. foreign policy so frequently resemble a roller-coaster ride under the influence of strychnine-laced LSD. My tax dollars were handed over to the Taleban, in order that we might pursue, through them as our wild-eyed fanatical intermediaries, the third decade of the Cold War against those devilish Red socialists. By the very same agency - the CIA - which also found it useful to subsidize Saddam Hussein and the post-1978 Khmer Rouge.

So I turn on the damned TV and what do I see? One Congressman after another, former cabinet members, even that wanker and fictioneer Tom Clancy, claiming one after another that the big problem here is unsatisfactory foreign intelligence, and the solution is to hand over more tax money to, you guessed it, the CIA!

Yeah, these bastards at Langley really need a budget increase, all right. As though they haven't done enough already. Evidently they have scraped clean the bottom of the barrel, the worst scum of all humankind - egomaniacal sadists, paramilitary thugs, ton-load coke wholesalers and heroin wholesalers, Allah-besotted psychos, each more willing than the previous to take our money and guns and then stab us in the back - but the CIA's ambition is not yet sated. If they can only afford it, if only we taxpayers will give 'til it hurts, their follow-up plan is to fly off to fucking Mars and bring back hordes and hordes of man-eating space aliens. The CIA will supply the aliens with maps of the globe, off-the-shelf manuals on proven torture techniques, and charts of human physiology (the better to design death-rays with).

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

The one thing that really disturbs me about America is that people don't like to read. - Keith Richards
[ Parent ]

I have a question (5.00 / 3) (#97)
by retinaburn on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:28:30 AM EST

I only advocate such strikes if Osama bin Laden can be shown to be responsible, but I stand by my advocacy of the punishment of the nation(s) which aided and abetted him by giving him room to work and/or turning a blind eye to his criminal activities. I advocate strikes strong enought to neutralize the threat, including toppling governments by force, if necessary. Not that I know where you'll get a good government to replace them. We have every right to eliminate threats to our security.

Judging by this comment you would have no problem with the following. A Country proves that an American Black Ops group infiltrated their country and did some horrific action against their country (murder/explosion/etc). Said country now has the right to erradicate those involved, such as the Government officials responsible. And heck they might as well hit some secondary targets to punish the US for harbouring criminals ...say blowing up a chunk of the Pentagon.

Before you make just plain silly comments look at it from the other side of the fence ..the one looking back at the Big Bully Uncle Sam.

I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho


[ Parent ]
fallacy (4.20 / 5) (#101)
by bgarcia on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:10:25 AM EST

My monstrously ignorant comments on what Arab Moslems might believe? All I said is that they hate us. So put me straight. They don't hate us?
That's right, they don't.

That's like saying that all White Christians hate blacks, because KKK members are white christians, and they hate blacks.

These terrorists do NOT represent all Muslims!

[ Parent ]

Yeah, yeah (4.00 / 1) (#220)
by rgrow on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 10:55:54 PM EST

I'm not stupid. I know not all Muslims hate us.

But the Taliban has popular support in Afghanistan and the Iranian theocracy has popular support there. Both of these countries have threatened and made good on threats against the U.S. and other Western powers, if only through their proxies, terrorists. It seems clear that significant numbers of people in these countries hate us.

OK, so neither of these is an Arab country, but hey Osama is an Arab, and half the guys on these planes were carrying Saudi Arabian passports. And we all saw Palestinians dancing in the streets. They're Arabs.

So some Arabs hate us, and some Islamic-ruled countries with popular support are responsible for terrorism against us. Many of the Arabs who hate us go to these other countries to plan and train for attacks on us. There, have I appreciated the subtleties enough for you?

The fact remains that extreme sects of Islam have taught enough people to hate us that there are at least two entire countries that can be said to hate us.

[ Parent ]

Know thy enemy (4.00 / 1) (#245)
by bgarcia on Mon Sep 17, 2001 at 11:56:55 AM EST

I'm not stupid. I know not all Muslims hate us.
Sorry if my reply implied that you were stupid. I did not mean to say that. I just get the feeling that you think these terrorists have more support within the general population of these countries than they actually do.
But the Taliban has popular support in Afghanistan...
Not true. Afghanistan has been involved in one hell of a civil war. The Taliban have come close to winning, but the war still rages.

The Taliban rule by oppressing the people - very few actually support their rule.

Here's a good article to read to give you a better idea of the turmoil in that country:

http://www.efn.org/~dredmond/afghani.html

The fact remains that extreme sects of Islam have taught enough people to hate us that there are at least two entire countries that can be said to hate us.
I just hope to instill in you that these "extreme sects of Islam" do not represent the mainstream Muslim opinion. Calling them "sects of Islam" is equivalent to organizations such as the KKK and the Nazi party being described as "extreme sects of Christianity". The VAST MAJORITY of Muslims do NOT follow those assholes.

Personally, I view the upcoming war as a chance to free the Afghans from the rule of the Taliban. I don't know if that would even be an objective of the campaign, but I think the majority of people of that nation would welcome such intervention.

Here's another good article just posted to K5. It's a good read for learning a little more about Islam.

[ Parent ]

Thanks (none / 0) (#246)
by rgrow on Tue Sep 18, 2001 at 03:30:23 AM EST

Thanks for the interesting reply. I checked out your links. Thanks for the calming tone as well.

Some question remains as to the amount of popular support Islamic terrorists have in the Middle East. I don't have definitive answers, and I would love to be pointed to such sources.

With regard to Afghanistan, I have heard that the Taliban fears giving up bin Laden because they would lose internal support. So they must have it. In a bitter civil war that has lasted decades, the winners must have had some popular support, and probably even a majority or close to it, or they wouldn't have (almost) won. I also read last night that many Afghans living in Pakistan have sworn to defend the Taliban if the U.S. attacks it. So there's popular support in Afghanistan.

In other countries, I have little idea what the level of support is.

I do know that these terrorists are steeped in and inspired by interpretations of the Koran. They believe they are participating in a Holy War, which affords them instant admittance to heaven upon their deaths. They believe, whether it is in the Koran or not, that non-believers must be destroyed. I have heard contradicting things on this- some say Christians and Jews are considered believers for these purposes. I think there is a much larger religious component here than the KKK or White Supremacists have.

I hope you're right about freeing Afghanistan from the Taliban. I hope they want to be freed. I hope we can find a government to install there that won't revert to similar activities within a few years. A secular govt. would be ideal.

[ Parent ]

You're welcome (none / 0) (#247)
by bgarcia on Tue Sep 18, 2001 at 07:51:19 AM EST

Some question remains as to the amount of popular support Islamic terrorists have in the Middle East. I don't have definitive answers, and I would love to be pointed to such sources.
Yeah, it's not like CNN runs a poll for Afghan popular opinions. So unless you go to the country itself and talk to the people, you just have to read about or listen to other people's experiences.
I have heard that the Taliban fears giving up bin Laden because they would lose internal support.
I think the main thing they fear is losing bin Laden's financial support. Remember, he is an extremely rich Saudi in a poor, war-torn country.
the winners must have had some popular support, and probably even a majority or close to it, or they wouldn't have (almost) won.
Or, they could just afford to buy more and better artillary and ammunition. One man with a machine gun can easily defeat 100 men with rocks and sticks.
I think there is a much larger religious component here than the KKK or White Supremacists have.
Maybe, but the bible was often used throughout history to excuse slavery. A quick google search on "bible slavery" reveals some interesting links:

Landover Baptist Church (who think that all other Christians will burn in hell, BTW).

An individual's page which repeats some passages in the bible condoning slavery.

[ Parent ]

You did know (none / 0) (#249)
by AndrewH on Tue Sep 18, 2001 at 09:38:36 AM EST

that the Landover Baptist Church is a satire site?
John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr — where are you now that we need you?
[ Parent ]
Nope, thanks for the info. (none / 0) (#250)
by bgarcia on Tue Sep 18, 2001 at 02:12:04 PM EST

I just browsed the site quickly after finding the link to their "slavery questionaire".

Skimming the questions, they seemed relevant to passages in the bible condoning slavery, so I just assumed it was legit.

[ Parent ]

A good overview link (none / 0) (#248)
by bgarcia on Tue Sep 18, 2001 at 08:23:33 AM EST

Some question remains as to the amount of popular support Islamic terrorists have in the Middle East. I don't have definitive answers, and I would love to be pointed to such sources.
Here's a story I found in the Washington Post this morning. It's a good summary of the current status of the different countries in that area.

[ Parent ]
Ignorance (3.66 / 3) (#116)
by SIGFPE on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:27:03 PM EST

If my memory serves, they wouldn't have known what oil was if it has spurted out of the ground and hit them in the face

From here:

They then went towards the southwest and entered Zorzania (today's Georgia). Marko saw there a geyser which jetted out a big quantity of oil, which he said was used for firing candles and for curing rash. Marko, as a typical European of his age, did not know that the Egyptians, Romans and Persians had used oil for lighting, heating and even for impermeables.

Ignorance about the rest of the world is what we have come to expect of Americans and the continued policy of isolationism means that many of us are not going to be surprised when more attacks happen.
SIGFPE
[ Parent ]

Modern Oil Industry (4.00 / 1) (#218)
by rgrow on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 10:42:29 PM EST

OK, so you have provided evidence that Middle Easterners had used some easy-to-get oil for a long time. That doesn't surprise me. You're missing my point.

My point is that the modern tools for petroleum exploration and extraction are the products of Western science. Without Western science, Middle Easterners would not have discovered and utilized the sources of oil that give them world importance today.

[ Parent ]

Shot yourself in the foot (3.50 / 2) (#79)
by azaidi on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:32:02 AM EST

<QUOTE>
There are two things you could mean by this. The first is that we shouldn't confuse people of the same ethnicity as the enemy with the enemy, which I agree with. The second is that the people of an enemy country are not responsible for the actions of its leaders, which I disagree with.

Just to distance ourselves slightly from the heart-wrenching events of today, let's take Germany during WWII as an example. Who was the enemy? Hitler, the German military, the German people? All of these were necessary components of the attack made on the Allies. Of course, there were Germans opposed to Hitler, but the majority of Germans must have supported him for him to have stayed in power, if not explicitly, then implicitly, by continuing to work. Rulers rule by the consent of the ruled, whether they are democratically elected or not. Because they were part of the war machine, German civilians in Germany were fair game for destruction during the war. So, I would say our enemy was Germany and the Germans. Individual Germans outside of Germany could be judged on their merits, but Germans inside Germany participating in the war effort during those years were our enemies
</QUOTE>

Although I'm sure you didn't mean to, you've perfectly justified the attitudes of the Palestinians dancing on the streets.

The US supports Israel both financially and by supplying it with arms. It is Israels ally and supporter in the international arena. For a Palestinian who's lost freinds to the Israelis, I'm sure it's a joyous day.



[ Parent ]
So? (4.00 / 2) (#91)
by rgrow on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:53:35 AM EST

Of course, America "harbors" Israel. That is surely part of the reason this has happened. That explains it but doesn't justify it. The situation is not symmetric. America has the moral high ground. It supports democracy, freedom, capitalism, and religious tolerance. The Arabs hate us for this.

[ Parent ]
High ground? (4.00 / 3) (#104)
by compsci guy 2000 on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:28:32 AM EST

That's a laugh...

Democracy, as we have seen with the last presidential election. Well below 50% of the public shows up to vote, and when they do, the man with fewer votes wins. Hurray for democracy...
Freedom? Tell that to Mumia Abu Jamal and Leonard Peltier. Or for that matter, the millions of americans living in abject poverty. Where is their freedom? They have no money for health care, education or the basic necessities of life. Those americans tragically suffer each day. But if it's not on CNN, then who gives a damn, right?
Capitalism is nothing to be envious of. Just ask the millions of people enslaved by the IMF. People struck with poverty because of the world bank and WTO.
And you really can really see your tolerance now. Especially with Muslims and arabs...
It's empty headed thinking like yours that allows murderers to justify their actions. Murderers like those that committed these horrible acts.

[ Parent ]
Yes, you are completely right (3.00 / 2) (#110)
by PhillipW on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:16:33 PM EST

America certainly has moral high ground. We are the only nation intelligent enough to hit the enemy where it counts, such as a medicine factory. And on top of that, noone else is morally righteous enough to shoot down a plane carrying nuns and other religious people on humanitarian missions! God bless us.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Yes, you are completely right (3.66 / 3) (#112)
by PhillipW on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 12:19:59 PM EST

America certainly has moral high ground. We are the only nation intelligent enough to hit the enemy where it counts, such as a medicine factory. And on top of that, noone else is morally righteous enough to shoot down a plane carrying nuns and other religious people on humanitarian missions! God bless us.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
No, not entirely justifies. (1.50 / 2) (#225)
by marlowe on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 11:47:36 PM EST

I don't think the Allies ever cheered the slaughter of noncombatant German citizens, nor targetted them specifically (no, not even at Dresden. We gave them a share of the blame, and rightly) so. But after the war, we helped them out with the Marshall Plan.

You seem to missing an awful lot of important distinctions. But then you'd have to, in order to put the US down on the same moral plane as the Muslim fanatics.

To be blunt, you are grossly unfair, and you owe the free world a big apology. Shame on you.




-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
[ Parent ]
the attack and worst case scenario (2.30 / 10) (#76)
by boxed on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:01:22 AM EST

If Israel were to start a genocide against the palestinians today, the US wouldn't stop them. The palestinians have the most to loose and Israel has the most to gain by this attack!

Start a genocide today? (3.00 / 2) (#81)
by decaf_dude on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:38:51 AM EST

You've obviously missed out on the events of the past 53 years. I do agree, though, that to Israel yesterday's horrific series of events is an ace on 10. They'll likely use it as an opportunity to villify everything that carries Arab or Muslim as an attribute.

Not that I can see how could they possibly make the lives of the Palestinians any more difficult than they already have. What are they gonna do? Murder them? Take their land? Restrict their movement? Withold their payments? Stop them from working and/or travelling in Israel? Been there, done that...

--
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89158&cid=7713039


[ Parent ]
persecution != genocide (none / 0) (#108)
by boxed on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 08:37:30 AM EST

It's a close call in the case of Israel, but as there are a lot of palestinians alive, I wouldn't call it a genocide. What happened in Nazi Germany was a genocide, extremely few jews came out of it alive. There have been no organized mass-extermination of palestinians in Israel, yet anyway.

[ Parent ]
May have already started (none / 0) (#109)
by jayhawk88 on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 08:47:00 AM EST

I heard a report on the radio coming into work today that Isreali tanks took out a Palestein town or encampment of some sort, suspected of being a terrorist hideout. Details were sketchy, but I do think Isreal's actions deserve scrutiny at this time.

Why, then, should we grant government the Orwellian capability to listen at will and in real time to our communications across the Web? -- John Ashcroft
[ Parent ]
Do you hate that you might be right? (none / 0) (#167)
by theboz on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:13:32 PM EST

It looks like a huge battle is starting as Israel starts unprovoked attacks against Palestinians.


Stuff.
[ Parent ]

As I was saying... (none / 0) (#168)
by PhillipW on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:37:24 PM EST

Israel doesn't deserve any sort of US backing.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Dancing in the Streets (4.73 / 75) (#80)
by bobsquatch on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:37:28 AM EST

No, not that song, the Palestinians.

Or, for that matter, my idiot classmates in 12th grade, Rochester NY,
January 17 1991, the morning after the US started raining bombs and
cruise missiles on Baghdad. Skipping up and down the halls of my school,
singing in their worst John Lennon voices:

"All we are saaayyyyyyinngggg....
Is kick Saddam's ass!"

And later that week, the rallies, the flag-waving, the smug pride you
could suddenly see in the eyes of random store clerks, bar patrons saying
"Go get 'em, boys... not one casualty yet! Oh, wait, there was one. Oh,
well, only one casualty! Wasn't he British?" When of course there
were innocent Iraqi citizens dead from our plane attacks. But in our
oh-so-humanitarian American eyes, innocent lives didn't count unless they
were OUR innocent lives (or members of the attacking army). I saw lots
of reports on CNN about Israelis carrying gas masks; nothing much at all
about Iraqi civilians. We were finally kicking some righteous Arab ass.

The US-flag-on-T-shirt count that year was friggin' huge. We were,
as a country, damn proud of what we did to that country. We were proud
that we steamrolled over Iraqi troops and buried them alive, even as
they retreated from overwhelming force, or tried to surrender. We claimed
that we just "didn't have time" to accept surrending troops, we had to
move fast and just kill them. And still, people would tell me with
a straight face that "hardly anybody died in the ground war." Not
"anybody but for the Iraqis," since it was just understood that they
didn't count. They would look blankly at me for a few seconds, confused,
when I pointed out that there were hundreds of casualties in that
assault. "Huh? Oh, you mean THEM."

Palestine has been at {cold,hot} war with Israel for some time.
Israel annexed Palestine, after all. A very well funded army is busy
doing just enough damage to a pitiful band of rock throwers to keep them
poor and desperate, but still mad as hell at the military occupation of
their homeland. And then they hear that the principal supporter of their
nigh-invincible enemy has been struck a devastating blow. "Yay! We're
finally bombing the living shit out of Baghdad! Er, I mean New York!"

So now, idiot Palestinian 18-year olds are skipping up and down the
streets of their slums, singing the rough Arabic translation of:

"All we are saayyyaayyyyying...
Is kick Dubya's ass!"

...and we look on in shock and horror and pretend that Americans would
never be that cruel. Have y'all forgotten, in just the span of one decade?
Or was it only in Rochester that all right-thinking Americans drunkenly
cheered the bombing of a foreign city and the deaths of all those damn
Iraqi swine?



wow (3.16 / 6) (#90)
by core10k on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:53:10 AM EST

I wish you had submitted an article, instead of ucblockhead. That's really good, technically, emotionally, informative (speaking as a Canadian who had No Idea [tm]), on whatever level.

[ Parent ]
Damn straight (2.40 / 5) (#123)
by DarkZero on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:42:03 PM EST

I agree. You should submit this as an article instead of just a reply to be buried within the huge list of replies. That was really good, and it expressed my feelings toward this situation perfectly.

Good job, man.



[ Parent ]
Apples and Oranges... (3.46 / 15) (#132)
by SeaCrazy on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:25:04 PM EST

Given the "celebration" by certain people of the attack on Iraq was very misguided; war is nothing to celebrate (unless it is the end of a war you celebrate). However, the comparison you make makes me very angry. The allied attack on Iraq was a response to an act of war by Iraq, it was directed agains the Iraqi military and it's military installations. Of course there were civilian casualties, which was very unfortunate and sad, but the goal was not to kill as many people as possible civilian or military.

If your comparision is valid, then why did Saddam use civilians as human shields around his military installations? The allied would not have cared if civilians were hurt but rather just bomb away rejoice in the killing of them, right? Is this how it was?

The attack on Iraq was designed to cripple the Iraqi military machine with as little human casualties as possible. Again there were casualtis, which is tragic, but unavoidable. The attack yesterday was designed to kill as many people (Americans) as possible, not even as many American SOLIDERS as possible, but civilians.

My belief is that the people that "celebrated" the attack on Iraq was celebrating that we were standing up to a tyrant that was trying to put yet more people under his domain. Not the killing of people

The people celebrating yesterday was celebrating the death of Americans, plain and simple.

[ Parent ]
Conversely (4.00 / 9) (#134)
by Dlugar on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:46:33 PM EST

My belief is that the people that "celebrated" the attack on Iraq was celebrating that we were standing up to a tyrant that was trying to put yet more people under his domain. Not the killing of people.
My belief is that the people that "celebrated" the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were celebrating that they were standing up to a tyrant guilty of many atrocities. Not the killing of people.

Dlugar

[ Parent ]
I wish it was so... (2.37 / 8) (#142)
by SeaCrazy on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:47:37 PM EST

My belief is that the people that "celebrated" the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were celebrating that they were standing up to a tyrant guilty of many atrocities. Not the killing of people.

I do wish that that was the case, but I don't believe that it is so. These people have been indotrinated to hate all americans, to qoute Bin Laden for example it is all muslims duty to kill americans. It's not their duty to weaken the US militarys strenght or reach or it's influence, but to KILL AMERICANS.

Yesterdays attack was pretty much a failure if the goal was to decrease the United States involvment in foreign affairs or decrease the strenght and reach of it's military. I expect the effect to be quite the contrary.
Make no misstake, yesterdays attack was an attack on the Amrican people, designed to kill as many as possible. These people were rejoicing the carnage of dead americans.

[ Parent ]
I heard (4.00 / 4) (#144)
by PhillipW on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:54:26 PM EST

That one of the Palestinians in question said that they were partying because someone was finally standing up to US oppression. I have no way of knowing if that's true.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
these people (3.00 / 3) (#152)
by alprazolam on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:01:07 PM EST

you sure know a lot about them. i'm glad you're sharing your research with the ignorant masses.

[ Parent ]
You're welcome (3.00 / 3) (#166)
by SeaCrazy on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:06:06 PM EST

By the way, you can start your own personal forum where you can only allow posts that supports your opinion, then you would not have to go through the agony of reading posts from all these morons who don't know anything and waste your precious intellect on insulting them.

[ Parent ]
You are excellent fundamentalist material (4.00 / 6) (#155)
by marx on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:15:26 PM EST

I do wish that that was the case, but I don't believe that it is so.

Why are you sticking to your belief, and not checking out the facts instead? The reason why things like this are carried out is because people believe in things that are not true, that the US is the "Great Satan" for example. If you were muslim, and had the attitude you're displaying, you would probably be a fundamentalist terrorist.

Your support for your argument is that in general, muslims are similar to Osama bin Laden. bin Laden is an extremist, such as Hitler, or Timothy McVeigh. Both you and I know that Germans cannot be characterized to have the beliefs of Hitler, neither can people from the US be characterized to have the beliefs of McVeigh.

These people were rejoicing the carnage of dead Americans.

All you are doing is spreading lies to make people hate. If the US kills any innocent people as retaliation, you and people like you will be responsible for that.

What you are doing is called "dehumanization". It was this phenomenon which enabled relatively normal Germans to commit atrocities against Jewish people. Do you want this to be repeated?

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Don't put words in my mouth (3.00 / 3) (#165)
by SeaCrazy on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:01:39 PM EST

Look,
My point was that there is a difference in an attack on a military target and on a terrorist attack aimed to kill as many civilian people as possible.

Yes I know that a lot of civilians died in Iraq as well, but that wasn't the intention and care was taken to avoid it as much as possible (atleast by most people).

I am not trying to pin this off on all muslims or anyone else either for that sake, I know theese cheering people were but a few bad apples, but that wasn't even my point. My point was that you cannot compare what happened yesterday with the gulf war. A lot of people are comparing it to Pearl Harbor too, I don't think that is right either. Again, Pearl Harbor was a military installation and allthough the attack came like 'a complete suprise' it was a military installation during a time of war in many parts of the world and an attack could be expected. And as a military installation it had a chanse of defending itself.

And stop putting words in my mouth, I simply said that he said that it is all muslims duty to kill americans. How is that saying that all muslims are like Bin Laden? Bin Laden is using people the same way that Hitler, and Milosovic did, as well as the christians during the crusades.

Funny how I am telling lies, you must obviously know the whole truth.

What you are doing is called "dehumanization", by saying oh well, America is evil so they deserve it. It was this phenomenon which enabled relatively normal Germans to commit atrocities against Jewish people. Do you want this to be repeated?

[ Parent ]
Your words have consequences (1.00 / 1) (#171)
by marx on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:53:13 PM EST

Here is what you said:

These people have been indotrinated to hate all americans, to qoute Bin Laden for example it is all muslims duty to kill americans.

It is obvious from the context that by "they", you meant the people who were dancing in the street. By saying "to quote Bin Laden for example", you are grouping Bin Laden with "they", and implying that his statements characterize the whole group.

If you can't write what you mean, then don't write anything at all. All you are doing is spreading misinformation, and if people believe you, they start hating.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

OR (none / 0) (#174)
by SeaCrazy on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 08:14:59 PM EST

It is obvious from the context that by "they", you meant the people who were dancing in the street. By saying "to quote Bin Laden for example", you are grouping Bin Laden with "they", and implying that his statements characterize the whole group.

OR by grouping "they" and "Bin Laden" together in that context you could itake it as meaning that leaders like Bin Laden has been trying to indoctrine they (the people) by speaking like that.

If you can't write what you mean, then don't write anything at all. All you are doing is spreading misinformation, and if people believe you, they start hating.

Don't assume that everybody interprets words the same way as you do, and don't assume that your interpretations and conclusions are the right ones.

I thought that this was a forum where everybody could voice their opinions, if you don't like it, then you can create your own personal forum which you can censor opinions or wordings that does not suit you as much as you like.

[ Parent ]
quitcher... er, whining. (none / 0) (#179)
by Dlugar on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 09:07:04 PM EST

Don't assume that everybody interprets words the same way as you do, and don't assume that your interpretations and conclusions are the right ones.
I interpreted your words the exact same way as he did. I don't think your "interpretation" is nearly as apparent. Perhaps you ought to attempt to write a bit more clearly next time?

I thought that this was a forum where everybody could voice their opinions, if you don't like it, then you can create your own personal forum which you can censor opinions or wordings that does not suit you as much as you like.
You've said this several times. This is a forum where everybody can voice his or her opinion. It is also a forum where people can disagree with your opinions, and also disagree with your disagreements. Feel free to write all you want. Just don't be surprised when people take offense and ask you to stop spreading lies and hatred. Perhaps if you actually researched a little into these things, you'd find out that they're right.

Dlugar

[ Parent ]
Who's whining? (none / 0) (#184)
by SeaCrazy on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 12:40:56 AM EST

There, there. I'm not the one whining "Stop writing, we don't like what you're saying" am I?

I interpreted your words the exact same way as he did. I don't think your "interpretation" is nearly as apparent. Perhaps you ought to attempt to write a bit more clearly next time?

Well there you have it ladies and gentlemen, two people agree so it must be true.

This is a forum where everybody can voice his or her opinion. It is also a forum where people can disagree with your opinions, and also disagree with your disagreements. Feel free to write all you want. Just don't be surprised when people take offense and ask you to stop spreading lies and hatred.

And who exactly decides what is lies and hatred?
I guess if I am not in the right club, which for the moment seems to be US bashing, all my statements must then be lies.
Personally I think the ones that is spreading hatred are the ones saying "Whatever, those damn Americans just got what was coming to them".

Perhaps if you actually researched a little into these things, you'd find out that they're right.

Little more research into these things??
What I am most suprised at is that I am being called a liar here, what did I lie about, do you even know what the argument was about?
Let's see, what is the FACT here?.. Yes, the fact was that I don't think it is right to compare what happened yesterday with the gulf war..
Now lets do some research into that shall we?! Let's see... hmmm.... hmm.... Yep I still believe that.
How can expressing one's opinion be lying? Must be my research methods are all wrong I guess...

Next time I am unsure about what is wrong and right here in the world I'll make sure to do my reasearch better; I'll just ask you since you seem to know all about these things

[ Parent ]
Not I, said the (none / 0) (#192)
by Dlugar on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 02:21:03 AM EST

There, there. I'm not the one whining "Stop writing, we don't like what you're saying" am I?
I think the actual quote you're looking for is: "you sure know a lot about them" or perhaps "All you are doing is spreading lies to make people hate." Do you know that these people were "rejoicing the carnage of dead Americans"? If not, those are lies to make people hate. How do you even know that they saw the same carnage we saw? It's possible that they only heard that the US was attacked--perhaps, even, after they saw the extent of the carnage and that it was mostly civilians, they too wept.

Little more research into these things?
I was referring to this tidbit: "These people have been indotrinated to hate all americans," which is simply untrue. They have some grievances against the United States, but they do not all hate Americans, and very few of them have been "indoctrinated". And certainly their opinion does not represent the majority opinion in the Middle East.

How can expressing one's opinion be lying?
It is not my intention, however, to call you a liar. Others have done that and I'm not sure that I agree with their assessment. However, I suggest that you preface such hatred-inspiring statements with clear reminders that these are only your opinions and beliefs, and you have no proof at all for them.

Dlugar

[ Parent ]
Again, taken entirely out of context. (4.00 / 1) (#202)
by SeaCrazy on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 11:30:27 AM EST

Dude, Did I ever say that the people we saw pictures of cheering the terrorist attacks were representative of all muslims or all arabs?? Or did I say that all of them ar bad because of what a few did?!
NO, you just assumed that that is what I meant, maybe because you were biased against my opinion or because I was unclear.
Beg your pardon but I did not submit my post thrugh my editior and my lawyer (ok so I don't even have any, but still) to make sure there could be no confusion.

I was talking about the few people I saw pictures of celebrating in the streets, handing out candy, etc., etc. Maybe I should have stated the fact that this did not include all muslims or arabs or whoever, but I did not think that was neccessary, we can't all start speaking in legalese now can we? My reference to "these people" were to the ones celebrating and not to some generic racial or cultural or religious group.

Although this whole discussion is totally aside from the point that I was originally trying to make, this is how I saw things:
When I saw and heard of people celebrating it had already been made abundantly clear exactly what had happened, that these were comercial airliners used and that lots and lots of innocent people had been murdered. Arafat and the Taliban had already released their statement of regret which made me believe that also over there in the middle east people knew very well what had already happened.
Come to think of it, the video clips of people celebrating could have been old by the time I saw them. But to answer your question, yes I can say for certain that there were people "rejoicing in the carnage of dead Americans", or do you believe that all those responsible for the attack were on the planes and died?

Bottom line, the people that celebrated this terrorist attack, fully aware of what had happened, did not celebrate anything but the death of many innocent people. I hope that is clear enough now.

If something similar had happened instead in say for example Iraq, yes I believe that there would have been some bad apples celebrating that, in the US as well as in Europe. But I believe (and hope) that most people would be equally horrified and saddened over an attack on innocent civilians wherever it may happen.

[ Parent ]
jumping to conclusions (none / 0) (#208)
by mac on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 06:21:50 PM EST

Bottom line, the people that celebrated this terrorist attack, fully aware of what had happened, did not celebrate anything but the death of many innocent people. I hope that is clear enough now.

Clear as mud. You arrive at this conclusion through heavy extrapolation from next to no data. Given a discarded Oh Henry wrapper you could probably with equal easy derive next year's gross domestic product. It's amazing you didn't finish your post with "Q.E.D." The wisdom of "innocent until proven guilty" has been totally lost on you.

I would suggest a few likely things which would put your, oh so hastily arrived at conclusion in doubt: these appeared to be poor people, whose one and only accessible media is the radio, and probably a local station; the reports that they were getting were quite likely incomplete, somewhat distorted, and very likely quite a few hours behind what we (or Arafat, for that matter) were getting. Second, when an attack occurs on one's enemy, the first thought is often that of jubilation at having asserted one's freedom from the oppressor, not the innocent casualties on the opposing side; in fact, most people intentionally suppress the latter.

Please, for the love of god, do not pursue any ambitions you might have of becoming a judge, and heaven help us if you ever get called in for jury duty.

Hanlon's Razor:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance.

"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
-- Nietzsche

[ Parent ]

Check the facts yourself, buddy. (2.00 / 3) (#224)
by marlowe on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 11:35:32 PM EST

http://memri.org/news/worldnetdaily1.html

SeaCrazy is correct, and you are beyond merely incorrect. You are absolutely full of shit.


-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
[ Parent ]
Exactly. (4.25 / 4) (#176)
by Kasreyn on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 08:30:48 PM EST

If this were war, they'd have crashed those 767's into US Naval Carriers and killed hundreds of sailors and done basically an equal amount of monetary damage. This is what the definition of a soldier is, after all. He is someone designated by society to be the fighter-of-wars and the taker-of-casualties. The reason we have soldiers is so the soldiers kill each other and NOT the civilians when a war is needed. Terrorism is dishonorable in the extreme, and though a war might be prosecuted against those who sponsored it, terrorism itself is not war, merely murder. I remain firm in my belief that were it war, they would have been killing soldiers instead.


-Kasreyn


"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."

R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.
[ Parent ]
How stupid is this? (2.92 / 13) (#133)
by weirdling on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:29:02 PM EST

Wait, let me see, the Palestinians were dancing in the streets because their brave soldiers had met the soldiers of the power that had invaded a sovereign nation and were repulsing them...er, wait, because their fanatics had killed as many as 20 000 civillians? Yeah, that's comparable.

Or, the US was dancing in the streets because it had just blown up a significant international center placed in the only country that defends its interests on a regular basis?

God, you guys are plastic with the truth when you set out to villify the US. However, I agree. The more I hear, the more I'm convinced that the US has no business messing with anyone else unless there is direct US interest involved. So, Palestine can go fuck themselves. So can the rest of the middle east. EU can bloody well *pay* for their own defense, as can Japan and Korea. The great evil of the US will pick up its toys and go home.

I don't know from which country you hail, but there is not a country in the world that hasn't comitted atrocities. The US has committed surprisingly few for having been the superpower so long, yet you insist on crowing over this disaster as if it is comparable to other parts of the world where the disasters are largely of their own making. We were *defending* the idiotic Palestinians when this happened, or did you not know that? The invisible hand of diplomacy kept Israel from killing them wholesale, and for that, they kill 20 000 of our civillians and dance in the streets. Really fscking stupid.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
the comparisons (4.50 / 10) (#140)
by bobsquatch on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:39:28 PM EST

Wait, let me see, the Palestinians were dancing in the streets because their brave soldiers had met the soldiers of the power that had invaded a sovereign nation and were repulsing them...er, wait, because their fanatics had killed as many as 20 000 civillians? Yeah, that's comparable.
We specifically targeted civilian infrastructure during the Iraq air war.
  • Our government claimed that water pumps (manned by civilian engineers) were "military targets."
  • Our government claimed that TV stations (manned by civilian journalists) were "military targets."
  • Our government claimed that electrical plants (manned by civilian engineers) were "military targets."
  • Our government claimed that our "smart" bombs that misfired and hit civilian-filled apartment buildings were "unfortunate mistakes," but that shit happens.
More to the point, our fellow citizens claimed in '91 that the civilian population of a foreign country were valid targets for death from above, because they were supportive citizens of a bad country. (Kinda like the Americans now suggesting that carpet bombing Afghanastan is acceptable, because all Afghani civilians support terrorism by being productive Afghanis, eh?)

The office workers in the WTC were supportive citizens of a "bad" country in the eyes of many Palestinians. They were busy elevating and supporting the infrastructure of an economic superpower, a superpower that is busy supplying arms and money to the military occupation of their homeland.

I don't know from which country you hail...
Born and raised in Rochester, New York. Welsh/Scottish descent, white skin, agnostic, male. Nice insinuation that I'm a foreigner just because I criticize the behavior of other Americans, btw. Very classy.
The US has committed surprisingly few for having been the superpower so long, yet you insist on crowing over this disaster as if it is comparable to other parts of the world where the disasters are largely of their own making. We were *defending* the idiotic Palestinians when this happened, or did you not know that?
"Defending?" I do not think that word means what you think it means. We're funding the occupation of their homeland, and you call it "defending." And then accuse me of twisting the truth.
The invisible hand of diplomacy kept Israel from killing them wholesale, and for that, they kill 20 000 of our civillians and dance in the streets. Really fscking stupid.
The invisible hand of diplomacy was keeping Israel killing just enough Palestinians to keep them mad as hell. See also: Treaty of Versailles.

We bombed the shit out of Iraq because it invaded and annexed a neighboring country. We fund and train the Israelis even though they are busy annexing and settling occupied land. We bombed the shit out of civilians in a "bad" country, and celebrated, in 1991; we're now shocked that THEIR civilians are celebrating the deaths of OUR civilians.

(And now the radio is reporting that two Muslim high schools in Chicago have had bomb threats today, and that there have been several incidents of random anti-Muslim assaults. Boy howdy, we hate them, but they have no right to hate us.)

[ Parent ]

just a bit sensitive are are? (2.00 / 1) (#150)
by finkployd on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:41:10 PM EST

I don't see how the line "I don't know from what country you hail" insinuates you are a forigner (meaning in this context I assume, non American). He is just saying he isn't making an assumtion.

Finkployd
Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)
[ Parent ]
insinuation (2.50 / 2) (#154)
by bobsquatch on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:15:00 PM EST

Connotation != denotation. The beauty of insinuation is that you can always fall back on the strict, benign interpretation, if you're called on the malignant interpretation.

But we're getting far off topic, so enough said.

[ Parent ]

Of insinuations and such (5.00 / 1) (#163)
by weirdling on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:57:29 PM EST

The Israelis have most definately *not* been annexing at will. While the Israelis took over a territory years ago as a war of conquest, please realise that the Palestinians living now are not the ones displaced then; the population was much smaller and much more nomadic. Thier claim is not as strong as they believe. Anyway, since then, organised Arab states have continued to attack Israel and continued to have their asses handed them, which is how Israel came to control the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Since the Carter Administration, the US government has been working to get Israel to give it back.

Insinuation is one thing, spin another, and disinformation a third, completely unrelated thing.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
Not annexing? hah! (1.00 / 2) (#221)
by MrYotsuya on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 11:00:58 PM EST

Sure they annexed at will. As soon as the British Mandate expired, they claimed nationhood, then got the US to fund growing their infrastructure and military. They probably got the money from the US out of guilt of not letting them into the country after they fled Germany. The reason why Israelis can militarily overpower the Arabs is becuase all their weaponry is supplied by the good 'ol US of A.

[ Parent ]
Stop and think (3.60 / 5) (#169)
by Best Ace on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:37:35 PM EST

you guys are plastic with the truth when you set out to villify the US

Really? Perhaps if you found out about the systematic and prolonged sponsoring of terrorism by the US government outside of its borders, then you'd think twice about saying that. Your claim that 'The US has committed surprisingly few [atrocities] for having been the superpower so long' would be laughable if it were not so depressingly tragic.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Serbia, and vast parts of Asia, South America, Central America and other areas. These are all places where vast resentment has built up over America's arrogant policies. Have you not wondered what exactly it is that would push people to crashing planes into crowded cities? Try and understand that, and we go a long way to working out how to tackle the causes and not the symptoms.

[ Parent ]

Oh... you forgot a few. (none / 0) (#193)
by gromm on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 02:38:09 AM EST

The Indians, (ie, native americans) the Hawaiians, Texas, California, Puerto Rico, the Phillipines, Midway, and probably a dozen other Pacific Islands I can't remember. These were all places that America captured in a bid to say to the world "Hey, we're strong. We have an empire too!" The subsequent subjugation and slaughter that ensued certainly makes up for the "justified" wars you've fought in this century.
Deus ex frigerifero
[ Parent ]
a good reference (none / 0) (#180)
by norge on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 09:25:31 PM EST

> The US has committed surprisingly few [atrocities] for having been the superpower so long

I highly recommend reading Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" before repeating the above statement. You may judge the less than wonderful things that Zinn describes throughout America's past to not be atrocities. However, I think that many decisions our leaders have made over the years to be completely reprehensible, especially when you consider that since about 1940 we have been one of the most powerful nations on the planet. I should point out that Zinn does not attempt to create a balanced comprehensive history in his book, but rather an antidote to the flag-waving crap most of us are given in high school. "A People's History" is a cronicle of most of the major events and periods in America's history from the loser's perspective. It's quite a long book, but if you can get through it I think you will have a much more realistic and fair picture of what your (and my) country is and stands for.

Cheers,
Benjamin


[ Parent ]
Don't forget the Kurds (4.40 / 5) (#151)
by dennis on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:46:30 PM EST

Because we chose not to complete our attack and completely wipe out their troops, their remaining troops slaughtered the Kurds. If you're going to remember everyone who was killed, remember them. Not to mention the Kuwaitis.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (3.80 / 5) (#157)
by bobsquatch on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:26:22 PM EST

Yes, remember the Kurds. Remember the Israeli civilians bombed by suicidal Palestinians. Remember them all.

Don't fall for the trap of only considering the dead on "our" side.

And if you don't have anything better to do, read Mark Twain's The War Prayer.



[ Parent ]

I doubt your knowledge (1.00 / 3) (#198)
by freeol on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 08:07:22 AM EST

I doubt your knowledge and understanding of history when you san "don't forget the kurds". I bet you don't a word about kurds and their history.

[ Parent ]
your an idiot (3.09 / 11) (#162)
by A5triX on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:49:46 PM EST

War has no soul. War does not differentiate between the innocent and the guilty. It's even written the Bible, the innocent will always suffer for the deeds of wicked men. We declared war on Iraq. The innocent civilians who died, died because Saddam was foolish enough to take on the United States army. Consequently, those innocent people where slaughtered. So if you want my sympathy, you'll find very little of it here.

If I was a young Palestinean, I'd be cheering my head off! Finally someone struck a blow against a nation that bought those Israeli's the gun they used to kill my family.

Brendon M. Maragia
[ Parent ]

Who's the idiot? (5.00 / 1) (#183)
by danazar on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 11:47:38 PM EST

War has no soul. War does not differentiate between the innocent and the guilty. It's even written the Bible, the innocent will always suffer for the deeds of wicked men. We declared war on Iraq. The innocent civilians who died, died because Saddam was foolish enough to take on the United States army. Consequently, those innocent people where slaughtered. So if you want my sympathy, you'll find very little of it here.

So what you're saying is that it's okay to kill innocent civilians when you're fighting your enemy.

This is the exact same mentality that the terrorists who commit yesterday's attacks had. I'm guessing you have little sympathy for the victims in that attack, as well? Don't forget, the United States is not some clean, holy nation--it has commit acts against nations, Middle Eastern and other, that are at the least questionable, especially through the eyes of those living there.

The question is whether or not it's okay to knowingly slaughter civilians in the name of war. There are rules to war that are obeyed by most nations and forces, that include that you do not strike civilian targets, and most nations/forces endorse this because it provides a moral structure. "Do unto others." Mutual respect, even between enemies in war, is important.

So it's important to think about what you're saying. If you think that yesterday's attacks against the World Trade Center were unacceptable, if you do have sympathy for the victims in NYC, then you should also have sympathy for any innocent victims of our "police action" against Iraq (which, by the way, was not a war; there was no formal declaration of war).

Or are you saying that the innocent civilians who died in the WTC, died because the United States was foolish enough to take on an opponent as strongly willed as bin Laden? Many innocent civilians were slaughtered as a consequence--are you saying you lack sympathy for them?

--Daniel Nazar

[ Parent ]

Protect our Citizens (2.00 / 1) (#210)
by killalldash9 on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 08:45:18 PM EST

Whether in the right or in the wrong from the 30,000 foot world-view, our government has a responsibility to protect the lives of United States citizens. They have no such obligation to protect the lives of the persons of any other country.


Only stupid people read this signature.
[ Parent ]
EXTREMELY bad foreign policy (none / 0) (#216)
by danazar on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 10:23:41 PM EST

This is an extremely horrible statement to make. It is the obligation of the US government to protect, or at least not actively harm, innocent civilians in any country. If you argue that the US has the right to attack civilians in other countries, then the same logic says that Afghanistan or Iraq is allowed to attack civilians in the US. Your argument justifies the terrorists' attacks.

[ Parent ]
Ugh. Hell of an excuse. (1.50 / 2) (#222)
by marlowe on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 11:28:30 PM EST

If it's true that our bombing if Baghdad targetted civilians, then we have a problem. But only if it's true.

And about another rumor: do human shields count as combatants?

-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
[ Parent ]
Here's what should have been done. (2.50 / 8) (#229)
by jeremiah2 on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 01:48:35 AM EST

The Iraqi "noncombatants" should have simply not served as human shields. Then there wouldn't have been a problem. Civilian is as civilian does.
Change isn't necessarily progress - Wesley J. Smith, Forced Exit
[ Parent ]
Arabs aren't a religion (4.64 / 17) (#92)
by Nomad on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:57:00 AM EST

Islam is a religion. Many Arabs are Christian, 25% in some countries. Many of the problems in Lebanon are between Chrsitian and Islamic Arabs.

Incidentally, Arabs are also Semites, like Jews and Arabic, like Hebrew, is a Semitic language.

Iranians aren't Arabs.

As you can seen the ethnic mix in the Middle East is quite complex.

American Servicemembers Protection Act (4.16 / 6) (#93)
by AndrewH on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 05:57:44 AM EST

I sincerely hope that the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act dies the quick death that it deserves.

If not, how on earth can a country that wishes to put itself above the law expect the international community to pursue war crimes vigorously when its people are the victims?


John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr — where are you now that we need you?
No trial (none / 0) (#131)
by weirdling on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:19:57 PM EST

The US has no interest in war crimes tribunal proceedings. We'll go it alone if we have to; doesn't sound like we have to.

Anyway, sorry to tell you, but the problem with the US surrendering sovereignty is much older than the servicemember's protection act. The US cannot, by law, surrender sovereignty of the governmental powers nor sovereignty of courts nor sovereignty of any citizen *within* the borders of the US. It's a good law, by and large, and I support it, if for no other reason than that Europeans and Americans are so often at odds as to what constitutes 'crime'.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
But... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
by PhillipW on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:43:38 PM EST

You have a good point about not wanting to sacrifice sovereignty. I would say that obeying international law and letting someone be tried by an international court is not giving up any sovereignty at all. Anyhow, the argument does not explain why the US insists that other nations give up their citizens to the international court. It seems pretty useless to demand war criminals be handed over when you refuse to do the same.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
Agreed (none / 0) (#161)
by weirdling on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:38:02 PM EST

This is one of the hypocritical points of international policy that most libertarians oppose. I categorically oppose an international war-crimes tribunal, as those normally tried are those who lost, plain and simple. It just lends credence to what is a simple case of revenge, which has only recently gone out of vogue.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
A difficult thing to say (3.76 / 21) (#100)
by JohnHopfrog on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:59:27 AM EST

<senseless rant>
Americans are shocked right now at these deaths. But you have to know that people die everywhere in the world. People are dying right now, and it is EXACTLY the same as the americans who have died.
People in palestine died this week. People in Liberia died. People in Nigeria died. People in S. Leon died this week; people died of aids, people died of hunger.
Put together, they are more than the americans who died.
Familys are crying right now all over the world, but the media is only weeping over american families.
The world needs peace, and not revenge. Policies have got to be changed, attitudes have got to change, though some people lose some money.
Europe has reacted shocked. But I don't think they are shocked at the deaths. They are shocked, that the west is suddenly very vulnerable. One of the largest forces; the force that powers revolution is public opinion. The people who bombed, and will bomb other places are so desperate that their own lives do not matter. They can fight a guerilla war in the us/europe, and drive the public to desperation. They can break down order, and they know it.
The west calls itself free. They need to allow other people their freedom. They needs to be religuos tolerance, also for religons that do not fit the narrow defination of christianity.
One thing we should remember is that these men are not serial killers/psychopaths. These are not people who just want to kill. These are not people who like to kill. These are people who want to be free to practice their religon without threat of cruise missiles. There are countries which do not want western forms of government fostered on them - which do not want to have to trade to the profit of the us.
<senseless rant/>

Just let the world live.

-Johnny for world peace.



Nope, nope, nope and...nope (3.85 / 7) (#115)
by caine on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:23:36 PM EST

Americans are shocked right now at these deaths. But you have to know that people die everywhere in the world. People are dying right now, and it is EXACTLY the same as the americans who have died. [...] People in Liberia died. People in Nigeria died. People in S. Leon died this week; people died of aids, people died of hunger

Exactly the same except for the fact that they were being brutally slaughtered in a situation they had absolutely no control over whatsoever, and it was with intent to kill. Yes that's exactly the same...really.

The world needs peace, and not revenge. Policies have got to be changed, attitudes have got to change, though some people lose some money.

Agreed.

Europe has reacted shocked. But I don't think they are shocked at the deaths. They are shocked, that the west is suddenly very vulnerable.

Yeah, because who really cares about those US. citizens really, all we care about is that we're vunerable. Riiiight. Fellow-humans...pfft! Stuff that.

They can fight a guerilla war in the us/europe, and drive the public to desperation. They can break down order, and they know it.

They can only break down order if we allow them to. Those planes were taken with small knifes. It would have been enough if one person would have stood up and fought, and the rest would (or at least should!) have followed. Together we are strong.

The west calls itself free. They need to allow other people their freedom. They needs to be religuos tolerance, also for religons that do not fit the narrow defination of christianity.

I consider my country quite free. I'm not christian, yet I have no problems. In fact, it's the christians whom are looked upon as odd here if anyone (sadly). People even build state-funded "Moskéer" (islamic churches, that's the swedish spelling, so don't sue me).

One thing we should remember is that these men are not serial killers/psychopaths. These are not people who just want to kill. These are not people who like to kill.

Yes, because taking three planes, killing all aboard, and crashing into a building to kill even more isn't psycopathic or killing. No siree. They didn't want to kill. Honestly. They just wanted to scratch the paint of the building a bit. They ARE and WERE killers, mad, sick, killers.

These are people who want to be free to practice their religon without threat of cruise missiles. There are countries which do not want western forms of government fostered on them - which do not want to have to trade to the profit of the us.

Noone is threatning anyone with missiles because of their religion. They are however threatened because they kill, maim, loot and torture (see the Talibans as example). I have no problems invading states if it is to protect people from gross mistreatment.

I might note, that I'm Swedish, not a US. Citizen, and normally (and still) quite aggresive towards the US's foreign politics, but nothing warrants that kind of behaviour.

--

[ Parent ]

Context (5.00 / 1) (#122)
by DarkZero on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:40:04 PM EST

Caine, I'm not sure if you're IN Sweden or a Swedish immigrant to the US, but either way, you have to take that post in context. This, like other replies to this article, are reactions to the incredible lack of introspect that the American media and almost every American citizen we've found have, including our president. Every time we bomb somebody else, Americans are cheering, wearing pro-America T-Shirts, and putting bumper stickers with racial slurs or pro-American slogans on their SUVs. I've found that the people here are a bit more intelligent than the average person I've talked to. They've at least ATTEMPTED to see this from both sides of the conflict, and it isn't pretty.

When enemy soldiers or civilians are mass-murdered by either our ground forces or our bombs, we cheer our "righteous soldiers" on without thinking at all about who, how, or why they're murdering them. When our civilians are killed, the enemies are "evil psychopaths with no regard for human life" that are just attacking America because we're the "brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world" and because they're envious of the fact that our country is better than theirs. I've yet to see anyone I know even consider the fact that this might be because of our support of Israel, or any reason OTHER than the "absolute evil" of the enemy.

When we see small children cheering with their parents in the Middle East at the attacks on the practically invincible US, we refer to it as "sick". When our children and parents cheer on our wars or bombing campaigns in other country, people smile and join in, even though just as many civilians are being killed.

We insult "dictators" like Hitler and Milosevi for the genocide that they commit and the propaganda they spew, but what do we see around us on the day of the bombings? People attacking Muslim temples without even knowing who truly commited the terrorist acts, and in my case, their own families seriously proposing that we round up all the Muslims we can find and deport them, with a quick addition a few seconds later that it isn't because they're racist, but because it's "for their own good, to protect them from... well, us". And whenever we see propaganda spewed from a leader of another country, we call them an "evil dictator". When we see Bush talking about God, how the terrorists are "evil", and that they're only attacking us because "we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world"... people describe it as comforting, and defend it as "what he's supposed to do".

No one's trying to downplay the horrible deaths of the people that were killed in the attacks... but we ARE trying to point out and insult the horrible lack of introspect among the American people and the American media. That was the context of that article. That's the world we're dealing with since early yesterday morning.



[ Parent ]
Not really (none / 0) (#137)
by mold on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 04:18:36 PM EST

We, although some people don't seem to believe it, are against killing innocent civilians whereas they obviously aren't. We cheer on our soldiers for upholding our beliefs as a nation (I know, even against others beliefs; although when these are usually for pro-human rights in those countries, I'm not against forcing our beliefs onto them), and they cheer on terrorists attacking us for no real apparent reason, other than hate for our nation.

As a side note, you might want to check out these links. One is on the My Lai war crime, and the other is on the gulf war. Gah, 31% of our casualties were from friendly fire. Never good.

My Lai
Gulf War

Last thing. In one video that I saw, someone said they were cheering because, "Finally, someone is taking a stand against U.S. oppression." Would anyone care to explain precisely what this means? What U.S. oppression?



---
Beware of peanuts! There's a 0.00001% peanut fatality rate in the USA alone! You could be next!
[ Parent ]
What U.S. oppression? (none / 0) (#158)
by A5triX on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:27:28 PM EST

Someone would tell you, but no one really knows. Sure i'd like to think US foreign policy was complete shit. This would give me a reason not to like my government which taxes me blind. But I can't seem to find any solid evidence. As far as I know, the U.N. gave the Jews Israel after the end of WWII. The Palestineans hated Jews and attacked. So America funded Israel's army, to help them retaliate. The rest is history I've heard. Hmm..does somebody have a better answer? What U.S. opression? I'd really like to know. Are we really that bad?
Brendon M. Maragia
[ Parent ]
Swedish to the bone (none / 0) (#244)
by caine on Mon Sep 17, 2001 at 11:18:33 AM EST

I'm Swedish. Born in Sweden, raised in Sweden. I vote for the socialist party, I've found I like Sweden above virtually all other countries, and I seriously dislike the US foreign policy. Answer your question? :) I do however have most of the family on my mothers side in the US, so I guess it was a valid question.

--

[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0) (#127)
by PhillipW on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 02:54:05 PM EST

People get murdered in those nations as well. There is a genocide going on in the congo right now.

-Phil
[ Parent ]
It is exactly the same (none / 0) (#242)
by gerv on Sun Sep 16, 2001 at 08:22:47 PM EST

People are dying right now, and it is EXACTLY the same as the americans who have died. [...] People in Liberia died. People in Nigeria died. People in S. Leon died this week; people died of aids, people died of hunger
Exactly the same except for the fact that they were being brutally slaughtered in a situation they had absolutely no control over whatsoever, and it was with intent to kill. Yes that's exactly the same...really.

So people dying in wars not of their making count in the US, when it's a war with terrorism, but not in Africa, when it's a war with the neighbouring country.

A death from hunger is more easily prevented than one caused by a determined terrorist. So why is a thousand times more done to prevent the latter? Is an American life worth more than a Nigerian one?

Gerv



[ Parent ]
Control (none / 0) (#243)
by caine on Mon Sep 17, 2001 at 11:12:50 AM EST

An american life isn't worth more, but I can't help but have more sympathy for someone who's been killed in a situation they could do nothing about. They had no control of their fate, no influence at all. People dying of aids and hunger are in very difficult situations, but they nontheless are masters of their fate and soul. They can change their situation no matter how hard it may be. The people killed in terrorist attacks can not.

--

[ Parent ]

This is going to sound really bad. (3.20 / 5) (#102)
by CrazyJub on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:25:23 AM EST

But if you are arab, or are sometimes confused with people of arab desent, I would dig a hole and stay there for a few weeks until this all blows over.

Who is going to stand up to the US and prevent them from unleashing the hounds of hell on whoever they "suspect" did this? Not anyone I can think of...even Russia will back the US up. I'll wait behind them with everyone else and hope they don't get drunk and take me out too.

Last time I checked, USofA was still (3.66 / 3) (#105)
by i on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 07:49:01 AM EST

a fairly civilized country. U.S. sitizens and residents of Arab descent are having a justified fear for their lives, so the US government must take action to protect them. Apparently this is already happening in some places (I have a third-hand report from Boston).

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]
Twiterpated comes to mind... (3.25 / 4) (#118)
by Ressev on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:50:55 PM EST

...then again, that is a different subject. Of course, on an individual basis Arabs are not the enemy. The question gets into this: how do you identify your enemy. Uniforms are great, if there are uniforms, and national lines and ethnic disticntions work nicely; if the lines are not blurred. In the US we have a wonderful and variable mix of nationalities and religions. There have been grevious mistakes in the past with regards to "ethnic profiling" (the Japanese in WWII, the Native American Indians and Blacks). Hopefully we will be above it this time and from now on. Sufice it to say, looking at some of the posts to this thread it is rather clear there is knee jerking going on as to what Bush and Israel are to do. Israel is no less impacted from these events (some of their citizens are missing and others presumed dead) than the US or Germany, or Brittan, or any other citizen from any other country. To post here and rail about 'Israel having free reign to squish the Palestinians' or that Arabs and other Middle Eastern people will be segregated is inapropriate and insensitive to what has actually transpired. It is also careless as to thinking about the "what-ifs". Be thoughtful as well as careful in your words here. Blanket statements based off of innacurate historical information and fear-of-the-past-revisited will not be productive. Israel annexed the West Bank and Gaza after they were abandoned by Jordan and Egypt after the Six Day War. Jordan never asked for the West Bank back and Egypt settled for the Sinai after the war. The West Bank and Gaza are rightfully "occupied" since no one bothered to claim them after losing their attack against Israel. Plus the buffer they provided was beneficial. Those who like to follow the language of the original Durban draft are sorely mistaken as to what "ethnic cleansing", "Apartheid", "Genocide", and other such words used in the original draft entail; let alone mean. None of that occurs between the Israelis and the PA. The trite statement: "IDF military against a few stone throwers" is either or both misinformed or an attempt to misinform. It is easy to sit back and be a judge in your comfortable seat of actions you feel no pain over. What would you do if a group of people started throwing stones at you? (let alone fire guns at you) Back to America: They will find out who commited this and who did this. There will be little mistaking the true culprits from the usual suspects (or even unusual suspects). If it is or is not Bin Laden then it will be known. Bush will not settle for blind fits random strikes against people who may or may not have been the perpetrators. For those who smile at the thought of what happened in NY and D.C. on the 11th: "go blow yourselves up"
"Even a wise man can learn from a fool."
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." - Mark Twain
Yes, We Have Enemies....But (1.60 / 5) (#119)
by thanos on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 01:54:11 PM EST

These enemies hide behind their people and hide behind their religion. And if their own people are not smart enough to tell them to knock it off, then so be it.
Savinelli testified that Pickard said on two occasions that he had accidentally spilled LSD on himself, dosing himself with the drug. Pickard acted "giddy" and was less focused and organized for about a month after the second dosing.
these people (5.00 / 1) (#130)
by professor bikey bike on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 03:18:01 PM EST

just remember that 'these people' refers to the very much white timothy mcveigh, and that 'their people' includes all the people of the united states, and 'their religion' can include the almighty and pristine christianity.

[ Parent ]
I'm choking on the stupidity... (3.50 / 2) (#156)
by ltrain8 on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:18:38 PM EST

That's the exact same logic that the terrorists used to justify the attack on the US: Every US citizen is responsible for everything government policy, either explicitly or implicitly.

Do you honestly think that some third generation American of Lebanese descent deserves to get the brunt of predjudice and violence of people angry over the terrorist attack, because he somehow hasn't done enough to stop religous fanatics in Afganistan (or wherever, we still don't know)?



[ Parent ]

Stupidity, and fear. (5.00 / 3) (#181)
by danazar on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 11:27:49 PM EST

I am a Lebanese-American, three generations removed from Lebanon. I have a Lebanese last name and I look Lebanese.

And today, I feared for my life for the first time.

Threats have been pouring into the local Arab community. People want to hold every Arab in the area personally responsible for what happened, from what I can tell. It's frightening.

I wasn't even raised as a Lebanese person. I was just raised as an American. But I worry about some drunk Texans driving by in their pickup and deciding to just vent on me with some baseball bats or something.

I went and shaved my face. This is a shameful thing for me to have done, really; I was proud of my appearance, until today, when I realized I looked enough like an Arab that it might get me into trouble. I didn't know what to do. I'm still worried.

Two days ago, I was planning out my campaign for mayor of Austin as an independent. Now I'm considering dropping that, for fear that the term "Lebanese-American" mentioned in the media next to my picture might cause me more problems than I can handle.

I probably sound like I'm overreacting, but there are some pretty stupid people around here, and times are tense, and the last thing I want is to be harassed, beaten, or lynched for looking or sounding remotely like yesterday's terrorists, who I support action against as much as any American.

Is this the country I'm supposed to love for being free?

[ Parent ]

Fear (4.00 / 1) (#186)
by lovelace on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 01:23:15 AM EST

Two days ago, I was planning out my campaign for mayor of Austin as an independent. Now I'm considering dropping that, for fear that the term "Lebanese-American" mentioned in the media next to my picture might cause me more problems than I can handle.
I realize that you have to decide for yourself what your comfort level is, but I think it would be a shame if the acts of a few cowardly people stopped you in your endeavors.

Unfortunately, I've alread started to hear stories about bad things happening to people of Arab descent in the US. I won't repeat them here, because I don't want to give the press to such despicable acts, but I will say that those who are doing these things are no better than the terrorists. I realize this sounds harsh, but I believe it to be true. These people are our friends and neighbors and they are just as horrified about this as everyone else. We should be telling them how sorry we are that a few misguided people are making things so bad for them.

As far as your run for mayor goes, I wish you luck in your decision. Please let us here at k5 know whatever you decide. Our prayers (for those of us that believe in a higher power) go with you.

[ Parent ]
*Not* every US citizen is responsible. (none / 0) (#217)
by MrYotsuya on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 10:31:57 PM EST

The point of the attack was not that every US citizen was responsible, but to attack the vulnerable to call attention to the invulnerable (namely the US Govt).

[ Parent ]
Bomb the US. (none / 0) (#194)
by crealf on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 03:12:43 AM EST

These enemies hide behind their people and hide behind their religion. And if their own people are not smart enough to tell them to knock it off, then so be it.

Oh great. If some ETA terrorists made up to some obscure farm in the middle US, Spain would rightfully bomb the whole US, which were not even smart enough to arrest the terrorists before this week's dramatic criminal attack.

[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#206)
by Ressev on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 03:50:35 PM EST

It is easy to make no distinction between the ethnic group/culture/religion of a person who commits such crimes and the person who is peaceful. Stereotyping is just no good despite the tempatation to do so.

Bush said he would make no distinction between the terrorists and the country helping/harboring them. But I think it would be amiss to translate what he said into: No distinction between the terrorist and the citizens of the country helping them rather than what I believe he means: o distinction between the terrorist and the political/economic/military entity supporting them.

It is a delicate time and I think this President will do a far better job of handling this situation than his rival would have or the President before him who brought us further into this situation.
"Even a wise man can learn from a fool."
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." - Mark Twain
[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#207)
by Ressev on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 03:51:40 PM EST

It is easy to make no distinction between the ethnic group/culture/religion of a person who commits such crimes and the person who is peaceful. Stereotyping is just no good despite the tempatation to do so.

Bush said he would make no distinction between the terrorists and the country helping/harboring them. But I think it would be amiss to translate what he said into: No distinction between the terrorist and the citizens of the country helping them rather than what I believe he means: No distinction between the terrorist and the political/economic/military entity supporting them.

It is a delicate time and I think this President will do a far better job of handling this situation than his rival would have or the President before him who brought us further into this situation.
"Even a wise man can learn from a fool."
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." - Mark Twain
[ Parent ]

Stereotyping is not productive. (3.50 / 4) (#159)
by flex_fc on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:35:05 PM EST

The people who condemn the extremist Islamic/Arab groups as much as anyone is probably the ordinary Islamic or Arabian person who feels these people are an affront to their religion and countries. I know this has been said before but I just wanted to add my voice to those calling for a calm and rational response. I am not reducing the magnitude of what happened just that extreme remarks and actions do not help in the long run.
-- You are not the contents of your wallet - Tyler Durden
Arabs are NOT evil - except those that are (1.40 / 5) (#164)
by tiredofidiots on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 06:57:59 PM EST

It appears to me that there are quite a number of people who are willing to forgive, for various reasons, the acts of the killers that stuck in New York and Washington. Most of these people are well-intentioned but apparently ignorant of a basic truth - If one is attacked, a defense must be mounted unless your attacker is removed by someone else. This applies to petty law breakers, for example, a person robs you of money, you have a social obligation to hunt down and punish the offender, unless you live in a place that will do it for you, using courts, jails, etc. It does not matter why the robbery occured, it is not good policy to permit these things. Now extend this policy to crimes against larger groups of people. It does not matter why the crime was committed, those that did so must be punished. Finally, we have the case where a nation or nations support and defend those commiting crimes against us. It is our nation's responsibility to put an end to those acts. In this case, the U.S. should declare war on those nations and force their governments out of power in a way that makes it clear to any other nations that we expect and demnad they be responsible for their citizens. Now, my suggestion would be that, just like Japan in WW2, these nations have a fanatical bent and they may not bow to their inevitable defeat, so extreme measures are warrented. To that end, the US should target the nation's two or three largest cities and/or military installations and use strategic nuclear weapons of at least 20 Megaton yield to firmly press home our resolve. Since this is likely, in and of itself to cause them to surrender, we could then move on to installing a responsible government and beginning relief efforts to combat the effects of our attack. I'm sure that many of the 'they are the innocents' crowd will jump on this and others will say that nuclear weapons are too big a stick, but the alternatives are even more expensive in terms of lives lost and the time it would take to win a conventional war. Remember that the attacks on Japan in WW2 cost abput 200K lives, but millions would have died on both sides if we were required to take the islands by invasion. Also remember that the most important asset we have in war is the lives of our men and women in arms. Their lives should be worth more to us as a nation than the lives of our opponents.

Nuke the world (5.00 / 1) (#173)
by gambuzino on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 08:00:34 PM EST

Hooray! Finally someone who is willing to cut through the neurotic whining of "turn-the-other-cheek" assholes. But why stop at that? I mean, it's obvious by now that it's not just "rogue nations" that oppose USanians. In fact, many of our closest allies seem to disagree with us from time to time. You know those europeans, how they like to look down on us... I bet many of them are secretly happy...

I say nuke them all - Africa, Europe, Asia, maybe spare South America and Australia. We would be doing humanity a favor. The world population is expected to level out somewhere around the 6 billion mark somewhere in the 21st century. With this globalization thing going on, and them getting richer and more educated as time passes, all of them will want to enjoy the same quality of life we have here. Obviously that's not possible, unless they settle for rice and soybeans. The resulting fight for resources might mean the end of civilization as we know it, or perhaps of humanity itself.

So nuke them all. Who knows what might happen otherwise? It would be a sad but noble sacrifice on their part. After all, who would be better equipped to carry the light of civilization to a new, unburdened world than we USanians?

God bless America

*************

Now, before the flames start coming in, this was an attempt at the use of irony to make a point. Got it?

[ Parent ]
You missed a few... (none / 0) (#190)
by odaiwai on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 02:12:26 AM EST

Why leave out South America? It's chock full of Commies and Drug Barons. Not to mention that they play that wussy Soccer game down there.
And hey! Canada! They invaded the USA before and Burned Down The White House! Nuke 'em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

dave "Sound and Sensible Policies, etc, etc"
-- "They're chefs! Chefs with chainsaws!"
[ Parent ]
Idiot (2.00 / 1) (#215)
by MrYotsuya on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 10:10:07 PM EST

Canada never invaded the US, you invaded us, and lost. (War of 1812 I believe).

[ Parent ]
What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#209)
by Kaki Nix Sain on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 08:21:09 PM EST

Level off at Six billion? There are 6.18 billion right now, and we aren't "leveling off" in any sense of the term. Here and here are my references, you got any behind your words?



[ Parent ]

I stand corrected (4.00 / 1) (#235)
by gambuzino on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 03:45:37 PM EST

Thanks for the correction. I was quoting from memory from a book I read recently, Edward O. Wilson's "Consilience: the Unity of Knowledge".

The book refers to 1997 population as 5.8 billion, the number that stuck in my mind and which I incorrectly used. On page 314, it says:

By 1997 the global population had reached 5.8 billion, growing at the rate of 90 million per year. In 1600 there were only about half a billion people on Earth, and in 1940, 2 billion. The amount of increase during the 1990s alone is expected to exceed the entire population alive in 1600. The global growth rate, after reaching a peak during the 1960s, has bee dropping ever sind. in 1963, for example, each woman bora an average of 4.1 children. In 1996 the number had declined to 2.6. In order to stabilize the world population, the number must be 2.1 children per woman (the extra 0.1 allowing for child mortality). Long-term population size is extremely sensitive to this replacement number, as show by the following projections. If the number were 2.1, there would be 7.7 billion people on Earth in 2050, leveling off at 8.5 billion in 2150. If 2.0, the population would peak at 7.8 billion, then drop by 2150 to 5.6 billion, the total in the mid-1990's. If 2.2, it would reach 12.5 billion in 2050, 20.8 billion in 2150; and if 2.2 could miraculously be maintained thereafter, the human biomass would eventually equal the weight of the world and then, after a few millenia, expanding outward at the speed of light, it would exceed the mass of the visible universe. Even if the global birth rate were reduced drastically and immediately, say to the Chinese goal of one child per woman, the population would not peak for one or two generations. The overshoot is ensured by the disproportionate number of young people already in existence, who loo to long live ahead.
How many people can the world support for an indefinite period? Experts do not agree, but a majority put the number variously between 4 and 16 billion. The true number will depend on the quality of life that future generations are willing to accept. If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectare of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would supply about 10 billion people. If humans utilized as food all the energy captured by plant photosynthesis, some 40 trillion watts, Earth could support about 16 billion people. From such a fragile world, almost all life forms would have to be excluded.
Even if, by force majeure, the population levels off at well under 10 billion by mid-century, the relatively extravagant lifestyle now enjoyed by the middle classes of North America, Western Europe, and Japan cannot be attained by most of the rest of world.


[ Parent ]
Cool... (none / 0) (#238)
by Kaki Nix Sain on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 11:10:08 PM EST

... Sorry I started to get a bit argumentative. Good day.



[ Parent ]

1898 We chose Spain w/out any evidence against it. (2.40 / 5) (#175)
by cardamom on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 08:18:40 PM EST

the sinking of the USS Maine in the late 1800s was never solved. google for it. Americans just went nuts, blamed spain, and started a war.

Since it was short decisive and got the US alot
of territory (gee, i thought the US was all about
freedom and didnt want an empire?) nobody seems
to give a rats ass that we were killing people
without actually knowing who was to blame for the sinking of the Maine.

im sure something similar will happen, considering
the savage vengeful violent nature of the average american. its bad enough all those civilians in nyc and dc died, now a bunch of civilians in some other city are going to die.... maybe kobul, maybe somewhere else. then they are going to hit back, then we hit back, then they hit back. Then we get tired of it, and nuke and/or firebomb some city full of babies and women and men and old people out of existence. Our air force people will say, as do those who bombed dresden "i see the fires in my nightmares still" as they regret the fury
of revenge and hatred that invaded their hearts.


That is the nature of violence and warfare, to
change civil normal human beings into savage hateful vengeful beasts, forever.


Yes (none / 0) (#182)
by ucblockhead on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 11:41:17 PM EST

I originally put a line or two about that in the article, but pulled it out because I thought it would distract from the main theme, for which the "rightness" of the war wasn't really an issue. That war is incredibly instructive because it is very likely that hysteria caused us to unfairly attack another nation.


-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

Better job (none / 0) (#205)
by Ressev on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 03:16:05 PM EST

I believe we will do a better job of finding the perpetrators who did this. I would not be surprised if it was not Bin Ladin but a network of various terrorist organizations. Either way, I at least will wait to see what information they find from the very good leads the have.
Communication is a lot better today than it was then in 1898 and our ability to discern the who-dun-it better as well. Hopefully we will not repeat past mistakes but proceed in a clear and level headed manner.
"Even a wise man can learn from a fool."
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." - Mark Twain
[ Parent ]
the wrong reason to identify an enemy (2.00 / 1) (#177)
by Shampoo369 on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 08:35:59 PM EST

I think at the moment every American will have a different idea as to whom the punishable enemy is for this heinous atrocity. With or without evidence, people are infuriated enough to readily accept any reasonable identification of an enemy. And you can be sure the reason why it's so important right now to find the responsible party is not to sit these people down and question what deep rooted psychotic problem they've had that drove them to commit such a despicably inhuman act. So explain to me what use it is to analyze and delve into the profound causes (i.e fanatism) of the loss of all these tragic lives?! How is this intellectual contemplation going to repair the many broken and torn lives of the victims or their loved ones??? As a member of the same society, is our responsibilty, at a demoralizing time as this, simply to condemn those enraged(rightful as they are) for not being so philanthropically sound in their wants for reparation? That's right, it might be fanatism concealed in the mask of bin laden, you've just won a GOD DAMN million dollars!! BUT CARE TO SUGGEST A SATISFACTORY SOLUTION that a nation of mourning people can find reasonable enough to accept??????????????? I would really like to hear one out on this...

"If you really want something in this life, you have to work for it -- Now quiet, they're about to announce the lottery numbers!"
  --Homer


Not A does not imply B (none / 0) (#219)
by norge on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 10:52:20 PM EST

> How is this intellectual contemplation going to
> repair the many broken and torn lives of the
> victims or their loved ones???

I put myself roughly in the camp of people who think we as a nation should do something like "intellectual contemplation", so I'll try to answer your question as I understand it.

Nothing, I repeat, nothing is going to bring people back from the dead. Anyone who does not believe this is clearly delusional. No amount of thinking or bombing or punching or crying or any other humanly activity can undo what happened on Tuesday. There are a lot of Americans who are reacting to the attack with calls for war right now. Do they think that war will bring their countrymen back? I don't know. I imagine not. So why are they calling for war? Because they are really mad and want to express their anger in some way. I do not suggest that anger is unjustified. I only suggest that often when people are angry they make very poor decisions.

I think we need some "contemplation", because I would like to not see a tragedy like this one happen again in my lifetime. I don't believe that bombing the hell out of anyone is the best way to ensure that. More indiscriminate killing can only beget more bitterness.

Benjamin


[ Parent ]
you are really missing the point (none / 0) (#228)
by Spiral Man on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 01:08:26 AM EST

the point here is that, whatever punishment we decide upon (be it violent or otherwise), it should only be carried out against the attackers, and **maybe** those harboring them. the attack should not be carried out against innocent civilians who either live in the same country, or are of the same faith. doing so would simply be repeating what happened on tuesday...

certainly, whether we react violently or not, we should try to nuetralize the threat of any future terroist attacks (ie, breaking up the terroist groups and cells). however, we must be aware that what prompted these attacks where what the attackers believed to be acts of war by us, against them.

[ Parent ]

Of Course (4.00 / 2) (#178)
by Neuromancer on Wed Sep 12, 2001 at 09:01:51 PM EST

Of course the Arabs are not our enemy.

The key now is to determine WHO our enemy is (though Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts are a good bet, and are AN enemy no matter what their involvement is, as they have taken credit for OTHER terrorist acts against the US before).

Additionally, those who would harbor the enemy are, if to a lesser degree, our enemy.

Who is not? Well, not an entire race, possibly an entire country (a country could have levied this attack).

What is key here? While we certainly should not attack our own countrymen, as shameful news reports have shown today, we SHOULD attack whoever has taken part in this. This attack MUST be retaliated against, but it must be retaliated to the enemy, not against a race.

Hack of Taliban Website - a hoax (3.00 / 1) (#189)
by Komodo321 on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 01:38:52 AM EST

If you go to www.taleban.com, it seems that the official website of the Afghani group has been hacked. But it appears the hack is a fake that was created by Hindu Nationalists in India.

Here's one write-up on the hoax

While I feel outrage over the mass murders, I am also shocked to hear so many young people saying that the whole Middle East should be made into a parking lot. These people don't really understand the Middle East or South Asia, but they do know they want blood. Yes, America and NATO should go after the people behind this, but without killing everyone who happens to live between Europe and China. And the India-Pakistan and Israel-Arab conflicts are very real powderkegs that might be ignited if people act unwisely. K.

Excuses for racism (4.00 / 1) (#201)
by apocryphile on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 10:11:44 AM EST

This depresses and disgusts me. Anti-Muslim attacks reported across US

Australia too (5.00 / 2) (#204)
by Anonymous 242 on Thu Sep 13, 2001 at 01:08:11 PM EST

How misguided:
News has come through today that an Antiochian Orthodox church in suburban Sydney was fire bombed overnight and anti Lebanese slogans and swatzstika's daubed on the walls. Message-ID: <3ba01a41.443844@news.eck.net.au>

Not all Arabs are Islamic. Not all Muslims are Arabic. Not all Arabic Muslims are terrorists. It's a wide and diverse world. Unfortunately, one of the greatest strengths of the human mind -making connections between disparate pieces of data- is sometimes a weakness.

Regards,

Lee Irenæus Malatesta

[ Parent ]

TO THOSE WHO WISH NOT TO BE DEMONIZED (2.15 / 13) (#230)
by jeremiah2 on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 02:27:37 AM EST

If you are Muslim, some things you need to do: 1. Make it very very clear that you abhor the attack on the WTC. Say it loud, say it often. You need to distance yourself from this as much as you posssibly can. See #6 below for why this is so important. Giving blood is a great idea. It's not enough by itself, but it's a big help. 2. Do NOT dance in the streets. Especially not in Brooklyn. I mean, really now. Do you realize how that looks? 3. DO NOT blame the US. There is nothing the US could have done that would justify this outrage, and to suggest otherwise makes you look morally imbalanced. 4. Do not distort the war record of the US. It makes you look biased, and you can't afford that right now. No, we're not sinless. Nobody is. Hiroshima happened. My Lai happened. Bill Clinton and the aspirin factory happened, and by the way, I never voted for him. But we didn't go after women and children with rapacious glee in Iraq, nor did we rejoice in the slaughter of Saddam's human shields, and anyone who says so is a liar. 5. Do not not minimize the (other) atrocities of the Muslim nations. Same reason as for #5. The rape of Kuwait. The Lockerbie bombing. All those embassy bombings. The repeated attempts at slaughtering the Israelis. The genocide against the Kurds. Acknowledge these things, and for God's sake, make it explicitly clear that you disapprove. 6. Do not expect to be given the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof lies with you now. We are mostly reasonable people, and will judge everyone as an individual inasmuch as it is practical to do so. But it's not always practical to do so. Due to circumstances, you have to make an extra effort on your side. It's not fair, I know. But it can't be helped. 7. Do not hijack a plane and ram it into a skyscraper. I don't think this is asking too much. Of course this shouldn't need to be said, but judging by what happened last Tuesday, I think the point hasn't been stressed enough in the past. 8. Don't try to blame the WTC and Pentagon attacks on Militiamen or Columbian drug lords, or suggest that we're jumping to conclusions. Suicide attacks are not their modus operandi. The only other ethnicity that has such a track record is the Japanese, and they've been a civilized democracy for better than half a century now. As long as you are diligent in all of these things, I will not judge you by your religion or ethnicity. In time, you will be accepted, and when the war is over, perhaps even citizenship will be an option.
Change isn't necessarily progress - Wesley J. Smith, Forced Exit
YOU are the demon here. (2.91 / 12) (#231)
by theboz on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 10:06:07 AM EST

1) Of course they abhor it just like everyone else, but that doesn't mean they have to go around talking about it all the time. I'd rather people feel free to discuss the situation when they want, not when you think they should in order to not sound suspicious.

2) Very few people are dancing in the streets. This is something the media has jumped on and used to demonize muslims and arabs. I'd be willing to bet that more white, Christians were dancing in the streets than arab muslims. Timothy McVeigh was considered a hero by some groups.

3) The U.S. government indirectly shares some of the responsibility, whether it's due to the worst airport security of any industrialized nation, or due to the provocation of people in other countries. I would say that the citizens did not deserve this, but if someone had crashed a plane that only they were in, into the white house, I would probably laugh about it and nominate them for a darwin award. The fact that innocent people were involved is what bothers me.

4) Nobody distorts the U.S. war record like the U.S., so I'd guess that you are just talking out of your own ignorance here.

5) There is no organized "muslim nations" that you talk about. There are individual countries, where certain groups commit crimes. What you are doing, would be the same as if Israel blamed England for Timothy McVeigh. Middle Eastern nations are seperate entities (like the U.S. and the U.K.) and within these countries there are individuals (like you, and Charles Manson.) To blame the entire country for the act of a criminal is wrong, if the country had no knowledge that they were capable of doing something like that, and not punishing them afterwards. To blame a whole region or religion that some nations share, is completely idiotic.

6) Everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt. The U.S. is the land of the free and where you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. What you are saying proves that you are a very evil minded racist.

7) Nice one, asshole. See the previous sentence about how you are a racist. Go fuck yourself.

8) Oh, nice to know that you have more information than the U.S. government. Perhaps that means you were involved with the terrorist attacks? I would say that unless you know what you are talking about, shut the fuck up. While the government does have proof of it being terrorist groups that try to pervert Islam to suit their cause, I get the indication that they are suggesting more than one group is involved. And how do you know what these terrorist groups within the U.S. or Columbia do for their standard processes, unless you are a part of these groups yourself?

And as far as your bullshit about "In time, you will be accepted, and when the war is over, perhaps even citizenship will be an option." proves just how much of a cocksucking rat bastard you are. Have you ever considered that there have been generations upon generations of arab muslims living in the U.S.? That's right jackoff, you are wanting to steal citizenship from people simply because of their skin color and religion.

There is a word for ignorant trash like you. BIGOT.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

This really doesn't help matters. (2.33 / 6) (#232)
by jeremiah2 on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 10:50:37 AM EST

I offer a rational response to the real issue, and you respond with knee-jerk self superior venom.
Change isn't necessarily progress - Wesley J. Smith, Forced Exit
[ Parent ]
You make matters worse (4.00 / 4) (#236)
by theboz on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 04:03:14 PM EST

You offer uninformed racist drivel, and I flame you for it. You should expect people to not be happy when you post garbage claiming what other people should do to solve YOUR mental problems, whether it's racism, xenophobia, etc.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

*rational* response? (3.00 / 2) (#241)
by ChannelX on Sun Sep 16, 2001 at 01:57:44 AM EST

What fucking hole did you crawl out of? Do you have *any* social outlets to know how absolutely fucking racist your posting sounds? Of course the racists always think they're being rational. Heres a clue: there is nothing rational about your posting. Heres one clue for you: not all Muslims are Arab. Heres clue number two: not all Arabs are Muslim. Here is clue number three: We are *all* Americans. Why not provide us with your heritage so we can disect what you should and should not do in this time of crisis for our country? I'm sure it would be a most interesting exercise for you.

[ Parent ]
Once more, with paragraph breaks. (2.50 / 12) (#233)
by jeremiah2 on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 10:54:05 AM EST

If you are Muslim, some things you need to do:

1. Make it very very clear that you abhor the attack on the WTC. Say it loud, say it often. You need to distance yourself from this as much as you posssibly can. See #6 below for why this is so important. Giving blood is a great idea. It's not enough by itself, but it's a big help.

2. Do NOT dance in the streets. Especially not in Brooklyn. I mean, really now. Do you realize how that looks?

3. DO NOT blame the US. There is nothing the US could have done that would justify this outrage, and to suggest otherwise makes you look morally imbalanced.

4. Do not distort the war record of the US. It makes you look biased, and you can't afford that right now. No, we're not sinless. Nobody is. Hiroshima happened. My Lai happened. Bill Clinton and the aspirin factory happened, and by the way, I never voted for him. But we didn't go after women and children with rapacious glee in Iraq, nor did we rejoice in the slaughter of Saddam's human shields, and anyone who says so is a liar.

5. Do not not minimize the (other) atrocities of the Muslim nations. Same reason as for #5. The rape of Kuwait. The Lockerbie bombing. All those embassy bombings. The repeated attempts at slaughtering the Israelis. The genocide against the Kurds. Acknowledge these things, and for God's sake, make it explicitly clear that you disapprove.

6. Do not expect to be given the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof lies with you now. We are mostly reasonable people, and will judge everyone as an individual inasmuch as it is practical to do so. But it's not always practical to do so. Due to circumstances, you have to make an extra effort on your side. It's not fair, I know. But it can't be helped.

7. Do not hijack a plane and ram it into a skyscraper. I don't think this is asking too much. Of course this shouldn't need to be said, but judging by what happened last Tuesday, I think the point hasn't been stressed enough in the past.

8. Don't try to blame the WTC and Pentagon attacks on Militiamen or Columbian drug lords, or suggest that we're jumping to conclusions. Suicide attacks are not their modus operandi. The only other ethnicity that has such a track record is the Japanese, and they've been a civilized democracy for better than half a century now.

9. Never, EVER, tell a people whose civilians are being targetted for slaughter that THEY are the demons. Not ever, boz. You are way out of line. In fact, you're downright sick.

As long as you are diligent in all of these things, I will not judge you by your religion or ethnicity. In time, you will be accepted, and when the war is over, perhaps even citizenship will be an option.
Change isn't necessarily progress - Wesley J. Smith, Forced Exit
[ Parent ]

With all due respect... (4.20 / 10) (#234)
by Narcischizm on Fri Sep 14, 2001 at 02:01:05 PM EST

Fuck you.

I am an American citizen. My family has lived here for almost 200 years, many are and have been Muslims. But the jerks who think like you are still shooting out the windows of the local Mosque, children are being beat up because of their religion. Is that how you mean we should speak up? You want us to pay with even more innocent blood? I am still waiting for word of friends who may be dead in the Pentagon, one is even a Muslim. Are you going to tell me that we are Unamerican now? Or are you going to make a joke and suggest he was probably flying the plane? The alleged celebrations in the streets here in the US has already been debunked, it was all started by ignorant calls to talk radio shows. In my area Muslims are in hiding and crying like every other American. Most of the orthodox have been hiding since Tuesday at 9am. Men are taking off their turbans and women are afraid of wearing their veils. It doesn't matter of they were born in Palestine or Detroit, we are all afraid. Of course, you are ready to believe the worst. You are ready to assume that all American Muslims are towel-headed Pakistanis right? You probably also think that all black people think alike right?

Where were all the white people after Oklahoma City apologizing loudly for the actions of a few extremists? Where were you all when a few "American" militant groups supported the action? No one was running down innocent white women doing their weekly grocery shopping. No one was shooting out the windows of churches. How many hate calls have you answered at your local church or charity organization of people shouting "Go Home". Where am I supposed to go? Los Angeles? Chicago? Dallas?

Somehow you can keep a level head and focus on the guilty when it suits you. As an American, Black, Muslim, I am disgusted. You ignorant people never learn, you never change. But you always expect the worse out of us. I work everyday, I pay my mortgage, and I am waiting for my firstborn in about a month. How do I teach her that ignorant people like you assume she is guilty until proven innocent? Got any textbooks on the subject?

Since you mention Desert Storm and how Americans didn't cheer at the death of innocents, you are wrong, and I am not a liar. I was in a sports bar, and cheered along with others in support of American might at the initial bombing of Bagdhad. Plenty of innocent people died. But we initially thought it was necessary might, and was justified because it was war. I waved an American flag off my my house and my car, I still do. Afterall I am first and foremost and American.

But you would still like to assume that we are all the same. How about you? Are you in the KKK? After all, they claim to speak for White Americans. Should I make such vast assumptions about you?

When are you going to learn that the guilty should pay? There are over 15 Million Muslims in the United States. Most of us are citizens already, what does that mean for the war? Are you planning to let the ignorant kill us all, while you sit by and watch, or are you going to take the honorable path and speak against ignorant racist assholes?

You are as cowardly and ignorant as Osama bin Laden, who believes that the innocent are the same as his misguided notion of the guilty. You are willing to let innocent people live in fear or die instead of speaking for reason. Didn't you learn anything from this Hell we've all been going through this week?

And for you, Don't burn a cross on my lawn.

[ Parent ]
Oh, Great (3.00 / 4) (#240)
by itsbruce on Sat Sep 15, 2001 at 12:42:05 PM EST

Do not expect to be given the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof lies with you now. We are mostly reasonable people, and will judge everyone as an individual inasmuch as it is practical to do so. But it's not always practical to do so. Due to circumstances, you have to make an extra effort on your side. It's not fair, I know. But it can't be helped.

Translation: I've decided it's expedient to blame you for many things possibly done by people with whom you have nothing in common but the fact that they are Muslims (and not even your countrymen). You, however, must not blame me for any of the things my country ever did even if I did support them.

Thankfully there are plenty of rational Americans here to show that you are an unfortunate exception.


--I unfortunately do not know how to turn cheese into gold.
[ Parent ]
Arabs are not the enemy | 253 comments (248 topical, 5 editorial, 3 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!