Christianity QA

Question:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 01:26:03 GMT, "1womanscyberpersona" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<nowherewo…@nowhereland.com> wrote: >> I think we should declare war and seek retribution against those >responsible. >> Then we should re-assess our foreign policy and  ask ourselves is it >really >> worth it to place the lives of Americans in danger because we support >Israel or >> because we support the government in Colombia. I really doubt little will >> change especially since the first words out of Bush’s mouths were lies >about >> America being chosen because we are a beacon of freedom in the world when >in >> fact we are an instrument of oppression. >I cringed at that same line in Bush’s speech.  Um yea, *sure*, I thought, >they’re bombing the U.S. because we’re just going about our own business and >practicing freedom over here – and they just can’t stand to see it – uh huh. >I have a bridge that I no longer need …..

I’m glad you guys (sonme of you!) have got your heads screwed on and you haven’t all turned into blood-crazed maniacs. Still, to be safe I’m gonna start digging in the backyard. Oh bugger, I don’t have a backyard. Gra-gra "There is no way to happiness,      Happiness is the way."               Thich Nhat Hanh

Response:

>ome say it was an Islamic >fundamentalist group.  This may be true, but it may not be

All evidence is pointing in that direction >And even >if it is, that doesn’t mean it is representative of the entire Islam >religion.  Some people are saying that it is, which is blatantly >ignorant.

of course. I think these people are about as representative of Islam as the church of the creator is of Christianity >Given the strength of U.S. military, they can inflict extraordinary >damage.  Should they attack states, then it’s a pretty good chance >more innocent civilians will be killed in the process.  Fighting >violence with violence.

Steve, you are absolutely wrong. The time for diplomacy has passed. This IS war. It was brought to our country, thousands of innocent Americans have been murdered in cold blood. The Taliban has been told to turn over Osama Bin Laden. Now look what  happened. Its time to start to bombing until they turn him and all terrorists over. I wont be happy that innocent civilians are killed, but I wont apologize for the fact that I feel my life is more important than theirs. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The most disturbing quote I’ve seen from this tragedy came from Sen. >Jon McCain, and he said, in a condemnation to the attackers from the >Senate floor: >– >"God may show you mercy, we will not." >– >Imagine that. >You can read these, and more at:   >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34254,00.html >Also, check out: >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34288,00.html >Rather than just start dropping bombs, I think that a more thought-out >approach would be to find out the group or individuals who are >responsible and negotiate to have them extradited.  Then deal with >them using existing international law mechanisms, or send them to be >tried in the U.S.  

This approach has been tried and has been failed. Now is the time to employ the full might of the military. I am usually pacifist but at the moment that is a luxury I cannot afford.

Response:

Steve Ruelle <strue…@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote: : step…@nomail.msu.edu wrote:

: : http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19991015.sc6739.doc.html : My mistake … I didn’t realize this was already brought up in the : past, before the attacks.  However, at this point it’s unclear if bin : Laden actually was behind the terrorist attacks.  Even if he’s not, : however, I am surprised why the Taliban have not complied with the initial : security resolution and extradited the guy already, given the : sanctions.  Perhaps bin Laden is hiding out in the mountains somewhere, : and the Taliban haven’t got a clue. : Steve They (the Taliban) apparently know where he is.  They have at least claimed that he does not have access to communication devices so that he could not be behind the attacks, which implies to me that they know where he is. A quick web search will find you some articles about why the Taliban refused to extradite the guy.  Here are a couple: http://www.indiainfo.com/news/1999/10/26/taliban.html http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20010721-1159-binladen.html Stephen

Response:

step…@nomail.msu.edu wrote:

: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19991015.sc6739.doc.html My mistake … I didn’t realize this was already brought up in the past, before the attacks.  However, at this point it’s unclear if bin Laden actually was behind the terrorist attacks.  Even if he’s not, however, I am surprised why the Taliban have not complied with the initial security resolution and extradited the guy already, given the sanctions.  Perhaps bin Laden is hiding out in the mountains somewhere, and the Taliban haven’t got a clue. Steve

Response:

On 13 Sep 2001 15:17:54 GMT, fullmetalgro…@aol.com (FullMetalGrotus) wrote: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>ome say it was an Islamic >>fundamentalist group.  This may be true, but it may not be >All evidence is pointing in that direction >>And even >>if it is, that doesn’t mean it is representative of the entire Islam >>religion.  Some people are saying that it is, which is blatantly >>ignorant. >of course. I think these people are about as representative of Islam as the >church of the creator is of Christianity >>Given the strength of U.S. military, they can inflict extraordinary >>damage.  Should they attack states, then it’s a pretty good chance >>more innocent civilians will be killed in the process.  Fighting >>violence with violence. >Steve, you are absolutely wrong. The time for diplomacy has passed. This IS >war. It was brought to our country, thousands of innocent Americans have been >murdered in cold blood. The Taliban has been told to turn over Osama Bin Laden. >Now look what  happened. Its time to start to bombing until they turn him and >all terrorists over. I wont be happy that innocent civilians are killed, but I >wont apologize for the fact that I feel my life is more important than theirs. >>The most disturbing quote I’ve seen from this tragedy came from Sen. >>Jon McCain, and he said, in a condemnation to the attackers from the >>Senate floor: >>– >>"God may show you mercy, we will not." >>– >>Imagine that. >>You can read these, and more at:   >>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34254,00.html >>Also, check out: >>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34288,00.html >>Rather than just start dropping bombs, I think that a more thought-out >>approach would be to find out the group or individuals who are >>responsible and negotiate to have them extradited.  Then deal with >>them using existing international law mechanisms, or send them to be >>tried in the U.S.   >This approach has been tried and has been failed. Now is the time to employ the >full might of the military. I am usually pacifist but at the moment that is a >luxury I cannot afford.

Someone somewhere will survive. You only need 3 people to hijack yet another plane and fly it into a building. You would have to kill everybody in the world to ensure that doesn’t happen. No, more killing isn’t the answer. Gra-gra "There is no way to happiness,      Happiness is the way."               Thich Nhat Hanh

Response:

>> America being chosen because we are a beacon of freedom in the world when >in >> fact we are an instrument of oppression. >I agree with that last statement.

I was thinking, after all that bullshit the politicians were spewing about us being the "greatest country in the world"…….are we really the greatest country in the world? How do you measure what that is? Do we do a good job of educating our children? Do we even give a high priority to education? Why is it that our rate of violent crime is so high compared to that of other countries in the Western world? Why have we supported and initiated so much environmental degradation? Whatever the answers to these questions are, I think these questions (among others) suggest that we are really not the "greatest country in the world" ™ We are not the worst country in the world by a long shot, but we are hardly the greatest, IMO.

Response:

1womanscyberpersona <nowherewo…@nowhereland.com> wrote:

: I cringed at that same line in Bush’s speech.  Um yea, *sure*, I thought, : they’re bombing the U.S. because we’re just going about our own business and : practicing freedom over here – and they just can’t stand to see it – uh huh. They’re bombing the U.S. because the U.S. supports Israel.  That seems to be basically it.  Should the U.S. support Israel?  I don’t know. Do you? Stephen

Response:

FullMetalGrotus <fullmetalgro…@aol.com> wrote:

: Steve, you are absolutely wrong. The time for diplomacy has passed. This IS : war. It was brought to our country, thousands of innocent Americans have been : murdered in cold blood. The Taliban has been told to turn over Osama Bin Laden. : Now look what  happened. Please quote the exact sources that say this.  I have been up until the wee hours checking multiple news reports, and there has been no mention of this.  Let’s just go with what the facts are. Steve  

Response:

Steve Ruelle <strue…@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote: : FullMetalGrotus <fullmetalgro…@aol.com> wrote:

: : Steve, you are absolutely wrong. The time for diplomacy has passed. This IS : : war. It was brought to our country, thousands of innocent Americans have been : : murdered in cold blood. The Taliban has been told to turn over Osama Bin Laden. : : Now look what  happened. : Please quote the exact sources that say this.  I have been up until the : wee hours checking multiple news reports, and there has been no mention of : this.  Let’s just go with what the facts are. : Steve   http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19991015.sc6739.doc.html Stephen

Response:

> Who really was >behind this terrorism at the World Trade Centre?  It’s hard to say, >but it was definitely not a state.  In my opinion, the media rushed >judgments to point the finger at Osama bin Laden … there is a >possibility that he was coordinating the attacks

I’m surprised that comparatively few people have pointed the finger at Saddam Hussein, personally, I would consider him a prime suspect and would be surprised if he didn’t have some hand in it.

Response:

>I cringed at that same line in Bush’s speech.  Um yea, *sure*, I thought, >they’re bombing the U.S. because we’re just going about our own business and >practicing freedom over here – and they just can’t stand to see it – uh huh. >I have a bridge that I no longer need …..

I agree……..I have heard the same bullshit and propaganda from EVERY politician in the last couple days, no matter what the political affiliation. Their speeches make me so nauseous, I can’t stand to listen to them.

Response:

>I’m glad you guys (sonme of you!) have got your heads screwed on and >you haven’t all turned into blood-crazed maniacs. Still, to be safe >I’m gonna start digging in the backyard.

*some* of us is right. Not all of us, unfortunately. I cannot BELIEVE that I am hearing some people start up with the "Nuke em" attitude. The fact that the idea of nuclear weapons is even crossing the minds of some people is enough to sicken me.

Response:

>They’re bombing the U.S. because the U.S. supports Israel.  That seems >to be basically it.  Should the U.S. support Israel?  I don’t know. >Do you?

Probably a conflict we should have stayed out of many years ago.

Response:

Trance909 <trance…@aol.com> wrote:

:>They’re bombing the U.S. because the U.S. supports Israel.  That seems :>to be basically it.  Should the U.S. support Israel?  I don’t know. :>Do you? : Probably a conflict we should have stayed out of many years ago. Its been 40+ years.  Of course, the actual conflict is far older than that. Stephen

Response:

newmediapr…@yahoo.com (KC Carter) wrote in message <news:463ac52.0109121705.701d37e7@posting.google.com>… > You have seen video by now, right? OK City bombing? Didn’t bother me. > First WTC bombing, Gulf War, Waco? Didn’t bother me. THIS bothered me.

Seen practially all video clips, as well checked out a half-dozen or so major websites, and listened to all news on radio and on TV.  I’ve stayed up till the wee hours just glued to the latest info!  To me, this was also very distrurbing … the radio station played an R.E.M. song, "Everybody Hurts" complete with integrated sound clips of the highlights of the last two days.  Needless to say, I started crying when they played it. > DEFINITELY not? It wasn’t an western nation, that’s for sure, b/c it > risked putting the global economy into ruins.

Well it is a global economy, not solely a western imperialist economy  Although it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out the west has a large market share, so whatever happens in the U.S. has large global economic ramifications.  But I tend to put a lot of stock in SE Asian markets (literally and figuratively), which probably isn’t that much of a surprise … but nonetheless I think these are significant global players as well. > China? N. Korea? Russia? > I doubt it.

Likewise. > Could be a "state," as such, but one where a large number > of it’s people (18-24) were willing to sacrafice their own lives to > further a cause.

Can’t be a state because a state is defined as a political entity that occupies a given territory with clearly defined borders and government administration.  It is also different from a nation and ethnic group. Actually, many of the conflicts in the world today are intra-state in origin that often involve civil wars between clashing ethnic groups. Non-state actors on the other hand, can be institutions, NGOs, multinational corporations, international aid agencies, and for the bad guys, terrorist groups and organized crime units, i.e. drug trade.  The territory of the latter groups is less clearly defined, and in many times operating across state borders. The best speculation at this point is that the terrorist attacks were somehow coordinated by a militant group … some say it was an Islamic fundamentalist group.  This may be true, but it may not be.  And even if it is, that doesn’t mean it is representative of the entire Islam religion.  Some people are saying that it is, which is blatantly ignorant.  At this point, in my opinion, the best plan of attack would be to go after the *terrorist group* and deal with them rather than declare war on any particular state(s), as this was not a state attack, i.e. not a traditional war. But will this happen?  Probably not.  Going by the responses, most political leaders in the U.S. are responding in traditional warfare style, i.e. wanting to go after countries. > Like > Annette Benning’s character in The Seige said of terrorism, "In this > game the most committed wins." How committed is the US?

Going by what I’ve seen in the news, I have almost no doubts they are 100% committed with the backing of public opinion.  However, what I disagree with is that Bush and all his supporters are chomping at the bit so as to quickly rally with NATO forces, declare war, and start attacking *states* as soon as possible, given evidence. Here’s a quote from the Bush man himself: — "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them" — Given the strength of U.S. military, they can inflict extraordinary damage.  Should they attack states, then it’s a pretty good chance more innocent civilians will be killed in the process.  Fighting violence with violence. The most disturbing quote I’ve seen from this tragedy came from Sen. Jon McCain, and he said, in a condemnation to the attackers from the Senate floor: — "God may show you mercy, we will not." — Imagine that. You can read these, and more at:   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34254,00.html Also, check out: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34288,00.html Rather than just start dropping bombs, I think that a more thought-out approach would be to find out the group or individuals who are responsible and negotiate to have them extradited.  Then deal with them using existing international law mechanisms, or send them to be tried in the U.S.  Whatever method used, it should be to target specifically the non-state actors who are responsible and leave innocent people out of it.  We’ve already seen enough sickening civilian tragedies, no more please. Anyhow, the decision is up to the leaders, and I trust that they will make a reasonable decision, whatever course of action they choose. > Interesting, considering that Britain jumps into bed with the US every > chance it gets. I wish they’d stand up for themselves more often.

Well, what about Canada  But seriously, we’ll back the U.S. with whatever choice they decide to make … I just hope and wish they make a wise choice. > I’m think that enforcing policy with lethal force should be the very > last option. I disagreed with Panama in ‘89, the Gulf War, Somalia in > ‘93, and Kosovo in ‘98. This time, however, there is only one option. > The US had better deal with this problem decisively.

I agree 100% of course … terrorism is sick and needs to be fought. I just wish that the decision is focused on targeting the terrorist group with minimal impact on innocent people. > When the US > attacked bin Laden’s training camps in ‘98, it was the laregst > military operation ever taken against a non-state actor (not counting > the capture of Noreiga ). Should he be behind this attack, US > citizens deserve no less than his capture, dead or alive, at all > costs.

Of course.  However, my main concern is that as soon as a tiny shred of evidence points in that direction, then fury will be unleashed on entire nations.  For example, *supposing* it’s true that it is bin Laden (FOX is pretty keen on saying it is, but I think FOX is a little too hasty), then under the talks Bush is forging with NATO (including article V invoking), Afghanistan and other countries are going to get creamed.  Some 80 U.N. workers scrambled the hell out of there just in case.  Some were jumping the gun a little too early saying the fighting in Kabul was an early U.S. relalitation, when it was really part of an ongoing civil war between the ruling Taliban and rebel alliance forces. Going by tone and content of the conversations I saw on CNN, most of the political leaders in the U.S. are pretty adamant about declaring war.  They are angry, and want swift revenge.  They will stop at nothing to hunt down and punish those responsible, even if means killing thousands more innocent people.  Although I’m normally an optimist, and I wish the U.S. would be wise in their plan of attack, the outcome of this situation doesn’t look so good.  We could be in for some major conflict, at least in the short term. Steve

Response:

<<  In life there are no second chances.  This is it.  Make the most of it NOW. I second that. Dont let shyness, etc stop you from doing the things you want to do. Get there and do it..make the best of it !!

Response:

> I think we should declare war and seek retribution against those responsible. > Then we should re-assess our foreign policy and  ask ourselves is it really > worth it to place the lives of Americans in danger because we support Israel or > because we support the government in Colombia. I really doubt little will > change especially since the first words out of Bush’s mouths were lies about > America being chosen because we are a beacon of freedom in the world when in > fact we are an instrument of oppression.

I cringed at that same line in Bush’s speech.  Um yea, *sure*, I thought, they’re bombing the U.S. because we’re just going about our own business and practicing freedom over here – and they just can’t stand to see it – uh huh. I have a bridge that I no longer need …..

Response:

"Steve Ruelle" <strue…@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote in message

news:9novpt$1cf$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca… > : But I’d also be interested in opinions on this event and what it > : means.  Not just politically, but also how this may affect you > : personally, and in terms of shyness, and everyday life as well. > I guess I should share my own personal response.  It’s basically a wake > up call to realize that life is precious … that time is short > … excuses for ‘putting life on hold’ don’t hold up to events like > this.  Now is the time, more than ever, to give it all on the field, serve > God and others, and live each day with passion as if it’s the > last.  This doesn’t mean I avoid planning for the future and setting > goals, but rather in conjunction with that, live each day out totally.  In > life there are no second chances.  This is it.  Make the most of it NOW.

I’ve found that such thinking has long since backfired for me and probably because I’ve OD so much on it in the past.  Yes I have burned such very stuff as my very fuel – powerful hot stuff it was once.  However ……….. the biproducts were *highly* toxic, it’s mostly burned out, and the engine is trashed. I mean now it just gets me into dark broodings about death – and I wonder if I’m doing enough – and then I start thinking how there is not much point to me existing in the first place – since it all comes to nought and nothingness in the long run anyway, and then I get depressed ….. and then I just want it to end now because I"m tired of waiting …. and …. Heh, no good to be found *here*, people!! …. Also I tend to feel even more guilty about stuff – not being good enough and so on. Plus, even so, I’m *STILL* not very inclined to do things that cause me extreme anxiety and I can at most take baby steps or medium steps . Nah really the best *I* can do for myself at present is change my approaches to things (but I don’t approch anything , nah but seriously, but all such things have often been a long time brewing and nothing completely rises out of nothing (though all things return to it).

Response:

: But I’d also be interested in opinions on this event and what it : means.  Not just politically, but also how this may affect you : personally, and in terms of shyness, and everyday life as well. I guess I should share my own personal response.  It’s basically a wake up call to realize that life is precious … that time is short … excuses for ‘putting life on hold’ don’t hold up to events like this.  Now is the time, more than ever, to give it all on the field, serve God and others, and live each day with passion as if it’s the last.  This doesn’t mean I avoid planning for the future and setting goals, but rather in conjunction with that, live each day out totally.  In life there are no second chances.  This is it.  Make the most of it NOW. Steve

Response:

You have seen video by now, right? OK City bombing? Didn’t bother me. First WTC bombing, Gulf War, Waco? Didn’t bother me. THIS bothered me. > However, as I talked more > and more about the event, listened to opinions, and read voraciously > the news on the internet, that eventually became shock.  And I am > still quite shocked to this point. > This just may be the most significant post Cold-War event we’ve seen > yet, although it is certainly tragic, it is changing history and > international relations …

I’ve said to people before that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Gulf War were the single two more important events to take place after WWII, and people usually think I’m crazy. Those two events seem to look a lot more important today… I was also thinking that we don’t hear or read a lot about how the Arab states nationalized oil production. It seems as though Islamic groups began to commit terrorist acts shortly thereafter. Shouldn’t more people jknow more about such a global altering political event? I guess we can say to our kids eventually, > I was doing …. on Sept. 11, 2001 at 8:42 Eastern Time > One of the main differences between this act of terrorism, and those > which occured pre Cold-War is the existence of a *non-state* actor … > whereas a lot of people are comparing Pearl Harbour, I think the > analogy is flawed because there clearly was a *state* involved in the > bombing, i.e. Japan, and it was an interstate war.  Who really was > behind this terrorism at the World Trade Centre?  It’s hard to say, > but it was definitely not a state.  

DEFINITELY not? It wasn’t an western nation, that’s for sure, b/c it risked putting the global economy into ruins. China? N. Korea? Russia? I doubt it. Could be a "state," as such, but one where a large number of it’s people (18-24) were willing to sacrafice their own lives to further a cause. > In my opinion, the media rushed > judgments to point the finger at Osama bin Laden … there is a > possibility that he was coordinating the attacks, given the resources > to pull something like this off, but it’s just speculation at this > point.

Yes… always a scapegoat. It was Quadaffi in the 80s, Saddam in the early 90s, then bin Laden. > The response and likely aftermath of this, I wouldn’t be surprised, is > going to be even more tightening of security and restrictions on air > travel … also the U.S. is making it clear (from what I read on CNN) > that they want to hunt down whoever was responsible for the terrorism > and beat the crap out of the little maggots.  Noble and valiant, of > course, but is this type of approach the best solution to the problem > in the long term?

Bush is calling for a war against terrorism. In recent weeks there’s been criticism of Israel embracing assassination as policy. Is the US willing to do this? Because terrorists don’t play by rules. Like Annette Benning’s character in The Seige said of terrorism, "In this game the most committed wins." How committed is the US? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Global economic impacts of tight domestic security and restrictions on > cross-border travel, if that happens, are not going to be very > positive.  Already it is almost certain that a recession will occur > across the board as markets drop … restriction of flow across > borders will not help matters. > It was encouraging to see heads of state of many other nations echo > sentiments for those suffering and for deceased individuals and for > their families in the U.S. as well the overall tragedy this was. > However, should the U.S. adopt a protectionist reactionary measure in > response, other states perhaps may follow suit.  People look up to the > U.S., I know I do (I’m from Canada, btw) and nations do as well.  So > if increased state protectionism happens, then what? > One issue that came up in conversation with family was, that should a > protectionist approach come up, tightening of national and airport > security would mean serious compromises in civil liberties.  But the > question is what kind of compromises?  At this point, it’s uncertain, > and I suggested that perhaps there be debate about this issue.  My > father said, "At some point you have to compromise debate, and realize > that this issue is so serious that the government has to step in and > do whatever is necessary to tighten national security, and if that > means personal freedom is compromised then too bad."  My reply was, > "Then, wouldn’t this be against democracy?" > So if protectionist approaches and tightening security may not be the > most effective ways to deal with international terrorist attacks, then > what are some foreign policies that would be more constructive and > less ‘us-them’?  International law sounds promising, and building up > on that, to try convicted terrorists in tribunals, in a similar > process to how Milosovic is being tried.  That way nations can decide > together and offer a joint response.  Perhaps increase efforts of NGOs > to do research into terrorism and find out the dynamics behind groups, > in order to locate groups in formation before they get out of hand. > Another approach may be for the Bush Administration to back down a > couple of notches on its already arrogant ‘America first’ foreign > policies.  Although terrorism is absolutely no excuse, there do exist > nations and groups in the international mainstream who are teed off at > the right-wing administration and the resultant changes in U.S. > foreign policy.  And Bush’s response is clear, that he intends to step > up his already offensive-defensive policies immensely.  On the other > hand, a terrorist attack like this had likely been planned for a long > time, before Bush ever came to power … so it’s not like W. can be > singled out.  However, from my experiences overseas, newspaper sources > show the increased tension in international relations with the U.S. > did increase after the election.

Or, as I put it, "He set this nation back 50 years." > But to put it in simpler terms, if the U.S. started to humble down and > acted as a more friendly and humane global citizen and pursued peace > and diplomacy ahead of acting like a bully, then perhaps others in the > world wouldn’t be so tempted to act hostile in return, and more > constructive and diplomatic relationships could be built.  A little > joke – Iran nicknames the U.S. the "Great Satan" and the Brits "Little > Satan".  

Interesting, considering that Britain jumps into bed with the US every chance it gets. I wish they’d stand up for themselves more often. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Let’s face it, the West is still the most powerful nation in > the world, in terms of economics and resources, and with that power > comes responsibility and stewardship.  It shouldn’t be a surprise that > many nations look up to the U.S. in the world (I know I do, and my > country does) and that the U.S. is still a huge global player … why > else would this event have such an impact internationally. > I think an event like this marks a pivotal point in foreign policy. > It is a great opportunity to hold the phones, and gain first-hand > experience of what it means to be a global citizen.  Gone are the days > of hiding behind borders and Cold Wars.  This event can spark a > committment to understanding problems on a *global* level and thinking > about fresh, creative, solutions.  However, it can also spark a > decision to clamp down and do what’s always been done, and get what’s > always been gotten, maybe worse.  I think the first choice is better. > But I’d also be interested in opinions on this event and what it > means.  Not just politically, but also how this may affect you > personally, and in terms of shyness, and everyday life as well. > Steve

I’m think that enforcing policy with lethal force should be the very last option. I disagreed with Panama in ‘89, the Gulf War, Somalia in ‘93, and Kosovo in ‘98. This time, however, there is only one option. The US had better deal with this problem decisively. When the US attacked bin Laden’s training camps in ‘98, it was the laregst military operation ever taken against a non-state actor (not counting the capture of Noreiga ). Should he be behind this attack, US citizens deserve no less than his capture, dead or alive, at all costs. From a more personal perspective, I didn’t feel paranoid at all yesterday, just "on edge." I’m glad I’m on Paxil, b/c if I wasn’t, I’d be freaking out. I was trying to cut back, but I upped it today, just to be safe. I find it weird, too, that a guy I work with is spending some of his "free" time with the Natl Guard standing in front of a VA hospital with a rifle in his hand. In the US? I hoped that that day wouldn’t arrive so soon… KC KC

Response:

strue…@hotmail.com (Steve Ruelle) wrote in message <news:735ec89b.0109112122.1054ddd@posting.google.com>… >  In my opinion, the media rushed > judgments to point the finger at Osama bin Laden … there is a > possibility that he was coordinating the attacks, given the resources > to pull something like this off, but it’s just speculation at this > point.

You’re right.  We don’t know who did it.  We do know that whoever did it was extremely intelligent, and certainly a) Way more intelligent than bin Laden has been in the past, b) far too intelligent not to know that fingers would be pointed at bin Laden, and c) far to intelligent to have picked the WTC for any of the (naive) reasons people are claiming. > But I’d also be interested in opinions on this event and what it > means.  Not just politically, but also how this may affect you > personally, and in terms of shyness, and everyday life as well.

This is going to change everything, for everyone on the planet.

Response:

As far as how it affected my shyness, I don’t know I had a date yesterday that we agreed to cancel. As far as civil liberties, I am an almost total civil libertarian but there is no absolute right to board an airplane. I am more worried about another wave of wiretapping laws like those that followed the OKC bombing. Its nice that Steve is glad to be a world citizen. I am not. I only want to be an American, I couldn’t really care less about the rest of the world and that includes Israel. If it weren’t for the 5 billion dollars a year they recieve in foreign aid we wouldnt have these kinds of problems. How many people here would willingly exchange their lives or their cities for Tel Aviv, or Taipei for that matter? I think we should declare war and seek retribution against those responsible. Then we should re-assess our foreign policy and  ask ourselves is it really worth it to place the lives of Americans in danger because we support Israel or because we support the government in Colombia. I really doubt little will change especially since the first words out of Bush’s mouths were lies about America being chosen because we are a beacon of freedom in the world when in fact we are an instrument of oppression.

Response:

In alt.support.shyness headbeat <j…@psnw.com.nospam> wrote: > How would it feel to burn alive… would it be quick, and over with soon?   > What would it feel like to call your loved ones on a cell phone, when you > are minutes away from death and you know it?  When you release your grip > from the window sill and fall, what goes through your mind in the last > remaining moments?  

I’ve been imagining that all day and trying to stop, it’s too horrific. The rescue efforts seem so terribly slow and frustrating too – there are people in there alive but there’s so much rubble to get through. I hope everyone from this group and your friends and families are okay, hugs, thoughts and prayers for you all Beckie

Response:

On 11 Sep 2001 22:22:25 -0700, Steve Ruelle wrote: > I think an event like this marks a pivotal point in foreign policy. > It is a great opportunity to hold the phones, and gain first-hand > experience of what it means to be a global citizen.  Gone are the days > of hiding behind borders and Cold Wars.  This event can spark a > committment to understanding problems on a *global* level and thinking > about fresh, creative, solutions.  However, it can also spark a > decision to clamp down and do what’s always been done, and get what’s > always been gotten, maybe worse.  I think the first choice is better. > But I’d also be interested in opinions on this event and what it > means.  Not just politically, but also how this may affect you > personally, and in terms of shyness, and everyday life as well.

After the initial shock played itself out and I learned all the basic details, I sat for a few minutes more with my eyes glued to the TV set at work, just like everybody else was doing.  I don’t know why practically every workplace in the country didn’t just shut down — this was the most completely unproductive day at work I could imagine possible.  The freaky thing was, my place of work is surrounded by various government buildings, most of which were evacuated by mid-morning and police officers were out in front standing guard.  My building was not.  Now the odds of something happening in a not-very-important city on the opposite side of the continent from where the action was, are/were pretty remote, but the scene was still the same.  Everywhere I looked outside it seemed freaky.  I started to wonder what it might be like at certain places in the middle east, where similar states of emergency are a pretty frequent occurrence.   When the workday was through, I obsessed more with the details by listening to the radio on the drive home.  It’s like you hear the same details over and over again 1,000 times, the exact wording even, because the announcer is reading from a script, but you get hooked because periodically they throw in something new.  Your appetite for the details, no matter how inconsequential, starts to feel insatiable.  I had to force myself away from that earlier tonight.  But then, the emotions kicked in. How would it feel to burn alive… would it be quick, and over with soon?   What would it feel like to call your loved ones on a cell phone, when you are minutes away from death and you know it?  When you release your grip from the window sill and fall, what goes through your mind in the last remaining moments?   It was mixed emotions too.  When Bush said, "Make no mistake, the U.S. will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts," I felt confused.  A part of me was thinking, "Yes, let’s go kick Afghanistan’s ass for harboring bin Laden.  We might even kill the fucker."  Another part of me was thinking that I’m already sickened by the cliched rhetoric spewing forth from the guy’s mouth, written by his professional PR team of course.  Tell the people what they want to hear, and play a bit with their emotions, and your popularity ratings will rise.  Heh, not with me.  And yet another part of me was envisioning the second wave of human carnage and suffering if indeed it turns out to be an eye for an eye.  I would be equally disturbed. What does this mean for shyness?  Nothing, other than personal stuff gets put on hold and you get to have dreams of armageddon for a while. — headbeat

Response:

I just heard about the news today, regarding the World Trade Centre destruction and plane hijackings, about mid-morning.  I didn’t have a clock radio, and I heard nothing on the commute in to my job, so it wasn’t until talking with co-workers that the news came out. The initial reaction I had was excitement … that this was a change from ‘business as usual’, and added some interest to the day, especially due to the almost instant response to ground airplanes and shut down border crossings into the U.S.  However, as I talked more and more about the event, listened to opinions, and read voraciously the news on the internet, that eventually became shock.  And I am still quite shocked to this point. This just may be the most significant post Cold-War event we’ve seen yet, although it is certainly tragic, it is changing history and international relations … I guess we can say to our kids eventually, I was doing …. on Sept. 11, 2001 at 8:42 Eastern Time One of the main differences between this act of terrorism, and those which occured pre Cold-War is the existence of a *non-state* actor … whereas a lot of people are comparing Pearl Harbour, I think the analogy is flawed because there clearly was a *state* involved in the bombing, i.e. Japan, and it was an interstate war.  Who really was behind this terrorism at the World Trade Centre?  It’s hard to say, but it was definitely not a state.  In my opinion, the media rushed judgments to point the finger at Osama bin Laden … there is a possibility that he was coordinating the attacks, given the resources to pull something like this off, but it’s just speculation at this point. The response and likely aftermath of this, I wouldn’t be surprised, is going to be even more tightening of security and restrictions on air travel … also the U.S. is making it clear (from what I read on CNN) that they want to hunt down whoever was responsible for the terrorism and beat the crap out of the little maggots.  Noble and valiant, of course, but is this type of approach the best solution to the problem in the long term? Global economic impacts of tight domestic security and restrictions on cross-border travel, if that happens, are not going to be very positive.  Already it is almost certain that a recession will occur across the board as markets drop … restriction of flow across borders will not help matters. It was encouraging to see heads of state of many other nations echo sentiments for those suffering and for deceased individuals and for their families in the U.S. as well the overall tragedy this was. However, should the U.S. adopt a protectionist reactionary measure in response, other states perhaps may follow suit.  People look up to the U.S., I know I do (I’m from Canada, btw) and nations do as well.  So if increased state protectionism happens, then what? One issue that came up in conversation with family was, that should a protectionist approach come up, tightening of national and airport security would mean serious compromises in civil liberties.  But the question is what kind of compromises?  At this point, it’s uncertain, and I suggested that perhaps there be debate about this issue.  My father said, "At some point you have to compromise debate, and realize that this issue is so serious that the government has to step in and do whatever is necessary to tighten national security, and if that means personal freedom is compromised then too bad."  My reply was, "Then, wouldn’t this be against democracy?" So if protectionist approaches and tightening security may not be the most effective ways to deal with international terrorist attacks, then what are some foreign policies that would be more constructive and less ‘us-them’?  International law sounds promising, and building up on that, to try convicted terrorists in tribunals, in a similar process to how Milosovic is being tried.  That way nations can decide together and offer a joint response.  Perhaps increase efforts of NGOs to do research into terrorism and find out the dynamics behind groups, in order to locate groups in formation before they get out of hand. Another approach may be for the Bush Administration to back down a couple of notches on its already arrogant ‘America first’ foreign policies.  Although terrorism is absolutely no excuse, there do exist nations and groups in the international mainstream who are teed off at the right-wing administration and the resultant changes in U.S. foreign policy.  And Bush’s response is clear, that he intends to step up his already offensive-defensive policies immensely.  On the other hand, a terrorist attack like this had likely been planned for a long time, before Bush ever came to power … so it’s not like W. can be singled out.  However, from my experiences overseas, newspaper sources show the increased tension in international relations with the U.S. did increase after the election. But to put it in simpler terms, if the U.S. started to humble down and acted as a more friendly and humane global citizen and pursued peace and diplomacy ahead of acting like a bully, then perhaps others in the world wouldn’t be so tempted to act hostile in return, and more constructive and diplomatic relationships could be built.  A little joke – Iran nicknames the U.S. the "Great Satan" and the Brits "Little Satan".  Let’s face it, the West is still the most powerful nation in the world, in terms of economics and resources, and with that power comes responsibility and stewardship.  It shouldn’t be a surprise that many nations look up to the U.S. in the world (I know I do, and my country does) and that the U.S. is still a huge global player … why else would this event have such an impact internationally. I think an event like this marks a pivotal point in foreign policy. It is a great opportunity to hold the phones, and gain first-hand experience of what it means to be a global citizen.  Gone are the days of hiding behind borders and Cold Wars.  This event can spark a committment to understanding problems on a *global* level and thinking about fresh, creative, solutions.  However, it can also spark a decision to clamp down and do what’s always been done, and get what’s always been gotten, maybe worse.  I think the first choice is better. But I’d also be interested in opinions on this event and what it means.  Not just politically, but also how this may affect you personally, and in terms of shyness, and everyday life as well. Steve

Response:

Related Posts