Why they hate us??

[Anonymous]

The United States and Middle East: Why Do "They" Hate
Us?
(revised, 22 Sept. 2001)
By Stephen R. Shalom
The list below presents some specific incidents of
U.S. policy in the
Middle East. The list minimizes the grievances against
the United States in the region because it excludes
more generalized long-standing policies, such as U.S.
backing for authoritarian regimes (arming Saudi
Arabia, training the secret police in Iran under the
Shah, providing arms and aid to Turkey as it
ruthlessly attacked Kurdish villages, etc.). The list
also excludes many actions of Israel in which the
United States is indirectly implicated because of its
military, diplomatic, and economic backing for Israel.
Whether any of these grievances actually motivated
those who organized the horrific and utterly
unjustified attacks of September 11 is unknown. But
the grievances surely helped to create the environment
which breeds anti-American terrorism.
1948: Israel established. U.S. declines to press
Israel to allow expelled Palestinians to return.
1949: CIA backs military coup deposing elected
government of Syria.
1953: CIA helps overthrow the democratically-elected
Mossadeq government in Iran (which had nationalized
the British oil company) leading to a quarter-century
of repressive and dictatorial rule by the Shah,
Mohammed Reza Pahlevi.
1956: U.S. cuts off promised funding for Aswan Dam in
Egypt after Egypt receives Eastern bloc arms.
1956: Israel, Britain, and France invade Egypt. U.S.
does not support invasion, but the involvement of its
NATO allies severely diminishes Washington's
reputation in the region.
1958: U.S. troops land in Lebanon to preserve
"stability".
early 1960s: U.S. unsuccessfully attempts
assassination of Iraqi leader, Abdul Karim Qassim.
1963: U.S. reported to gives Iraqi Ba'ath party (soon
to be headed by
Saddam Hussein) names of communists to murder, which
they do with vigor.
1967-: U.S. blocks any effort in the Security Council
to enforce SC Resolution 242, calling for Israeli
withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war.
1970: Civil war between Jordan and PLO. Israel and
U.S. prepare to
intervene on side of Jordan if Syria backs PLO.
1972: U.S. blocks Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat's
efforts to reach a peace agreement with Israel.
1973: Airlifted U.S. military aid enables Israel to
turn the tide in war with Syria and Egypt.
1973-75: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq. When
Iran reaches an agreement with Iraq in 1975 and seals
the border, Iraq slaughters Kurds and U.S. denies them
refuge. Kissinger secretly explains that "covert
action should not be confused with missionary work."
1975: U.S. vetoes Security Council resolution
condemning Israeli attacks on Palestinian refugee
camps in Lebanon.
1978-79: Iranians begin demonstrations against the
Shah. U.S. tells Shah it supports him "without
reservation" and urges him to act forcefully. Until
the last minute, U.S. tries to organize military coup
to save the Shah, but to no avail.
1979-88: U.S. begins covert aid to Mujahideen in
Afghanistan six months before Soviet invasion in Dec.
1979. Over the next decade U.S. provides training and
more than $3 billion in arms and aid.
1980-88: Iran-Iraq war. When Iraq invades Iran, the
U.S. opposes any
Security Council action to condemn the invasion. U.S.
soon removes Iraq from its list of nations supporting
terrorism and allows U.S. arms to be transferred to
Iraq. At the same time, U.S. lets Israel provide arms
to Iran and in 1985 U.S. provides arms directly
(though secretly) to Iran. U.S. provides intelligence
information to Iraq. Iraq uses chemical weapons in
1984; U.S. restores diplomatic relations with Iraq.
1987 U.S. sends its navy into the Persian Gulf, taking
Iraq's side; an overly-aggressive U.S. ship shoots
down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290.
1981, 1986: U.S. holds military maneuvers off the
coast of Libya in waters claimed by Libya with the
clear purpose of provoking Qaddafi. In 1981, a Libyan
plane fires a missile and two Libyan planes shot down.
In 1986, Libya fires missiles that land far from any
target and U.S. attacks Libyan patrol boats, killing
72, and shore installations. When a bomb goes off in a
Berlin nightclub, killing two Americans, the U.S.
charges that Qaddafi was behind it and conducts major
bombing raids in Libya, killing dozens of civilians,
including Qaddafi's adopted daughter.
1982: U.S. gives "green light" to Israeli invasion of
Lebanon, killing
some 17 thousand civilians. U.S. chooses not to invoke
its laws prohibiting Israeli use of U.S. weapons
except in self-defense. U.S. vetoes several Security
Council resolutions condemning the invasion.
1983: U.S. troops sent to Lebanon as part of a
multinational peacekeeping force; intervene on one
side of a civil war, including bombardment by USS New
Jersey. Withdraw after suicide bombing of marine
barracks.
1984: U.S.-backed rebels in Afghanistan fire on
civilian airliner.
1987-92: U.S. arms used by Israel to repress first
Palestinian Intifada. U.S. vetoes five Security
Council resolution condemning Israeli repression.
1988: Saddam Hussein kills many thousands of his own
Kurdish population and uses chemical weapons against
them. The U.S. increases its economic ties to Iraq.
1988: U.S. vetoes 3 Security Council resolutions
condemning continuing Israeli occupation of and
repression in Lebanon.
1990-91: U.S. rejects any diplomatic settlement of the
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait (for example, rebuffing any
attempt to link the two regional occupations, of
Kuwait and of Palestine). U.S. leads international
coalition in war against Iraq. Civilian infrastructure
targeted. To promote "stability" U.S. refuses to aid
post-war uprisings by Shi'ites in the south and Kurds
in the north, denying the rebels access to captured
Iraqi weapons and refusing to prohibit Iraqi
helicopter flights.
1991-: Devastating economic sanctions are imposed on
Iraq. U.S. and
Britain block all attempts to lift them. Hundreds of
thousands die. Though Security Council had stated that
sanctions were to be lifted once Saddam Hussein's
programs to develop weapons of mass destruction were
ended, Washington makes it known that the sanctions
would remain as long as Saddam remains in power.
Sanctions in fact strengthen Saddam's position. Asked
about the horrendous human consequences of the
sanctions, Madeleine Albright (U.S. ambassador to the
UN and later Secretary of State) declares that "the
price is worth it."
1993-: U.S. launches missile attack on Iraq, claiming
self-defense against an alleged assassination attempt
on former president Bush two months earlier.
1998: U.S. and U.K. bomb Iraq over the issue of
weapons inspections, even though Security Council is
just then meeting to discuss the matter.
1998: U.S. destroys factory producing half of Sudan's
pharmaceutical
supply, claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S.
embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and that factory was
involved in chemical warfare. U.S. later acknowledges
lack of evidence for the chemical warfare charge.
2000-: Israel uses U.S. arms in attempt to crush
Palestinian uprising, killing hundreds of civilians.

[Anonymous]

They hate us cause we're "infadels" ei. jews, christian, hindus and even buddhists.

[Andy Ceponis]

Uh, i think this same load was posted like 100 times before. Try doing a search next time genius.

[Anonymous]

I would not contend all these allegations but neither can I deny the fact that when these countries (Islamic countries) had chance and had power they screwed all their neighbors. Right from east (India) to west (whatever was Israel called earlier). In fact even now, in Sudan, Arabs from the north regulary invade the southern part and make slaves from the local people.
In the whole history these countries have never lived peacefully. And they never will.
God has indeed played a joke by putting oil there.

[Andrew Shafer]

Nothing like a little truth to really confuse things.

They hate us cause we're "infadels" ei. jews, christian, hindus and even buddhists.

Nice try, do you consider yourself educated? According to the Quran, Abraham was the first muslim, as was every prophet from the old testament and Jesus.

Uh, i think this same load was posted like 100 times before. Try doing a search next time genius.

Uhh, is that the best you can do? Do you disagree with any of this information? If you dismissed it without consideration the first time you saw it, I guess dismissing the facts another 99 times shouldn't be a big surprise.

I would not contend all these allegations but neither can I deny the fact that when these countries (Islamic countries) had chance and had power they screwed all their neighbors. Right from east (India) to west (whatever was Israel called earlier).

A great assertion, care to back it up with any history? Screwed their neighbor more than who? What was Israel called earlier? Uhhm, Palestine? I'm sure this is posted lots of places on the internet, try doing a search next time genius.

In fact even now, in Sudan, Arabs from the north regulary invade the southern part and make slaves from the local people.

This is a fabrication to gain support for the Southern Sudanese rebels. Where are these slaves? I personally believe the Southern Sudanese should have a seperate sovereign state, since there exists such a wide cultural gap between the Southern and Northern people, but the truth is there is not evidence to support these claims about taking slaves, only the evidence of the political expedience of making such claims. (possibly more than one nation should be formed because of further disparity in the Southern tribes, but that is a different issue.)

In the whole history these countries have never lived peacefully. And they never will.

What countries have lived peacefully? There have always been wars punctated by peace. These generalizations could be extended to the Chinese, the Japanese, the Germans, the Spanish, the British, etc.

God has indeed played a joke by putting oil there.

God has played a joke by putting humans on this planet.

[Jake the Snake]

Andrew, You have to understand that you are arguing with uneducated bigots. There are quite a few of them out there. They will never understand what are you saying because they don't want to. No matter how many facts you present, they will disregard them because you are attacking their way of life and their own interests.

[auggie rose]

ohhh mister.... why do u wait for US to go and help. Are all your arab folks sleeping or are they not man enough to go and fight
ask them to stand up now for afghanistan and stop US. Can US do anything if they all get together and take a stand against US.
They are all rich countries. Ask them to send their men and money to help the afghans against US.
Well if they can't do this... then "its survival of the fittest"
this is nature's law...
the powerful has to have a say
whether in war or in making peace or giving aids....

[Anonymous]

I thought the offical line was "They hate us cause of our freedoms".

[Andy Ceponis]

Originally posted by Andrew Shafer:
Uhh, is that the best you can do? Do you disagree with any of this information? If you dismissed it without consideration the first time you saw it, I guess dismissing the facts another 99 times shouldn't be a big surprise.

Yes i disagree with some of those points. But the question still is......why are people posting this over and over? Just because you and whoever posted this cant figure out what the search button is for doesnt mean we are all that ignorant. So tell me exactly what posting crap like this 100 times does that just once or twice doesnt? hmm

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Jake the Snake:
Andrew, You have to understand that you are arguing with uneducated bigots. There are quite a few of them out there. They will never understand what are you saying because they don't want to. No matter how many facts you present, they will disregard them because you are attacking their way of life and their own interests.

So let me get this straight... people who disagree with you are uneducated bigots? That's quite a leap.
Except for a few around here, most of us don't tack our educational credentials onto their sigs, so I don't know how you can make that claim. I would like to think that most of the people here have at least half a brain since we are almost all either programmers or people aspiring to be programmers. Or do you equate education to intelligence? Are you saying that somebody who has a master's is inherently smarter than somebody who only has a Bachelor's? Or that somebody who has their BS must be smarter than somebody with only a high-school education?
As for bigots, this is one that the liberals and Clintonites love to throw at people. They believe that the only reason somebody could have for taking a stance opposite them on a policy where people of another race are concerned, is that the reason must be hatred or race-based. How ignorant and narrow-minded is that? There really is no defense against the claim that you are a racist, and this is why the liberals like to use it so often. That and the fact that it makes themselves feel morally superior.
Remember also that to the liberal, everyone is a victim and nobody is responsible for their own actions. This fits in with their claim that it is our fault that we got bombed. The poor Islamic fundamentalists are simply the victims and the only conceivable reason for their hatred of us must be because of something wrong that we did. Issues such as these people growing up under repressive regimes who made it a point to blame the US for everything that was wrong in their country, in order to cover up for their own ineptitudes and tyrannical practices, don't come into play in the liberal mindset.
No matter how many facts you present that there are simply some people in the world who don't think like us, who don't want peace, and who simply won't be satisfied with anything short of our destruction, they will disregard them because you are attacking their way of life and their own interests.
[This message has been edited by Jason Menard (edited October 29, 2001).]

[Andrew Shafer]

Honestly, as message boards go, Java Ranch maintains a respectably high level of discourse, compared to what goes on in other sites.
What I find disturbing is when seemingly intelligent people belie their supposed intelligence with statements like this:

Bombs go BOOM! I like watching the bombing on tv, it gives me a nice warm feeling inside.

GO USA!!! Can any of you truly support this sentiment?

Yes i disagree with some of those points.

Obviously not enough to make an intelligent attempt to discuss or refute any of them.

Just because you and whoever posted this cant figure out what the search button is for doesnt mean we are all that ignorant.

People can post whatever they want. In the days that followed 9/11, I didn't see anyone complaining that people had posted the same thing about WTC '99 times'. Was the search button added after that? Further, I read about as much java ranch as is humanly possible, especially MD. As for ignorant, I'm not the one who has had XP installed for months.

people who disagree with you are uneducated bigots?

Certainly not! The manner and reasoning behind the disagreement not withstanding. I've had involved disagreements with people on Java Ranch before and come away with increased understanding and respect for other people and their perspective. (Thomas Paul comes to mind) From personal experience, there are some really stupid PhDs out there and some of the most intelligent people never graduated from high school.

Remember also that to the liberal, everyone is a victim and nobody is responsible for their own actions. This fits in with their claim that it is our fault that we got bombed.

Liberal is radio-talk-show generated pejorative. They imagine that by placing this label on a posisiton that somehow it magically can be dismissed, regardless of the facts. If the US was really concerned about taking responsibility for its actions then they would understand exactly why we got bombed and take steps to prevent the cause. Instead, by focusing on the symptoms of the problem, instead of recognizing the underlying cause, the US is only insuring the terrorism of the next few decades. Sadly, when anyone tries to point out the possibility that the US has made any mistakes, people dismiss it and berate them for trying to tell them what someone else has already tried to explain.

No matter how many facts you present that there are simply some people in the world who don't think like us, who don't want peace, and who simply won't be satisfied with anything short of our destruction, they will disregard them because you are attacking their way of life and their own interests.

Key Phrases:
Don't Think
Disregard Them
Own Interests
God Bless the USA, Go Diamond Backs!

[Andy Ceponis]

I only posted that bomb thing to get a response(and i did) just like the anti American/anti war people post things to get a reaction. But unlike them i did not mean what i posted. But it sure was funny to get such a harsh reaction from it because when people post even more inflamatory anti american/war threads they are appauled when they get a dissenting opinion. Get it?
And about the whole search thing. After the 9/11 tragedy of course the boards were filled with tons of posts. But as far as i saw they were all a little different(same major theme). But the past few weeks there have been lots of unregistered posters who come on here and post these huge lists exactly like this one. Why? Do they think they are the first to do so? So please tell me again why we need to see this stuff over and over again AND why we shouldnt be allowed to speak up about it.
And that xp shot is not fair. Its for one of my home boxes which has to be winblows because of the games i play and my roomate only knows how to point and click according to how he was taught on the MS homeship.

[Andrew Shafer]

I certainly understand amusing one's self with posting things to get a reaction, but I think there are certain subjects that have bit more gravity and deserve a bit more seriousness, like cluster bombs for example. You are entitled not to share that opinion, but you must understand the type of perceptions and misunderstandings statements about bombings and warm fuzzies might cause. I'm not appauled by dissenting opinion, I'm just still waiting for any intelligent analysis of American foreign policy from the rah-rah-USA bombing-is-cool side of the fence.

But as far as i saw they were all a little different(same major theme).

This is a bit myopic, I could certainly argue that all these lists are a little different with the same major theme. I don't have a problem posting whatever they wanted to about 9/11, I don't have a problem with people posting whatever they want about American foreign policy and I don't have a problem with you having a problem or speaking up about it. I do disagree with the unregistered approach because it tends to discredit your post before anyone reads it, but as I stated above, I've yet to see any substantive discussion about some of the issues that are being brought up. Further, not all of these posts have been unregistered, Shama Khan anyone?
I must admit the XP shot was below the belt. I've been known to play a game or two on a. . cough. . friend's windows box. We'll make sure the judges deduct a point from me for that.

[Jake the Snake]

Jason, I don't expect people to have full picture if they have grown up here and have been nurtured with American propaganda. But I do expect you to at least start thinking about the issues if you are presented exclusively with the facts. However, number of people stubbornly hold on to their opinions.
Don't get me wrong. I live on this continent and in my own interest is to have peace on this earth and especially here.
I, by no means, defend killing of inocent people on either side.
But at the same time you have to be right and honest sometime. Why don't you ask yourselves how come there is so much hatred within those individuals? That hatred didn't show up overnight but it has been building inside those people until they have overflown.
I am not referring to "you" in particular but to a lot of people in here.
By the way, I did have much higher/more respectable opinion of quite a few JavaRanchers until I have seen their posts in MD.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Andrew Shafer:

If the US was really concerned about taking responsibility for its actions
then they would understand exactly why we got bombed and take steps to prevent the cause. Instead, by focusing on the
symptoms of the problem, instead of recognizing the underlying cause, the US is only insuring the terrorism of the next few
decades. Sadly, when anyone tries to point out the possibility that the US has made any mistakes, people dismiss it and
berate them for trying to tell them what someone else has already tried to explain.

This seems to me to be a, in my view, flawed logic shared among many "pacifists" (not saying you are one, just saying the logic is similar).

If the US was really concerned about taking responsibility for its actions then they would understand exactly why we got bombed and take steps to prevent the cause.

This is absolving the terrorists of their responsibility for the bombing and shifting it on to us. It further seems to be saying that the way to prevent further action against us is by modifying our behavior, or since the bombing was a result of our actions, we must simply eliminate those actions in order to purchase our safety.

Instead, by focusing on the symptoms of the problem, instead of recognizing the underlying cause, the US is only insuring the terrorism of the next few decades.

As a great nation, our general responsibility is to look out for our interests. It is only natural that what is in our interests sometimes runs counter to sombody else. So the fact that we may support a regime in the Middle East without a positive human rights record, will certainly offend some. On the other hand not supporting that country may have other consequences that will offend others.
Take for example Israel... Israel is a democratic society who we have long ago decided is a friend to whom we will actively lend support to its continued existence. This is counter to the interests of the rest of the Arab states in the Middle East who simply want Israel to vanish off the face of the Earth. So the only way to really appease the Arab states, maybe buying some safety for ourselves, is by revoking support for Israel. I don't find this an acceptable solution. We are trying very hard to negotiate a peaceful coexistance, but this is not what the Arab states want so we are fighting an uphill battle. On a side note, why do you not have the Palestineans and the rest of the Arab world up in arms against Jordan to return Palestine to the Palestineans? Jordan used to be called Trans-Jordan, but before that was part of Palestine. The Palestineans in Jordan live in conditions similar to the Palestineans in Israel. But there is no uproar probably because the real goal is to drive the Jews from what is seen as Muslim holy land.
The other problem that has drawn the terrorist ire is our continued presence in Saudi Arabia, and some other countries in the region. Like it or not, oil is of the very utmost importance to our country. The takeover of Kuwait by Iraq and the very real chance of a further invasion into Saudi Arabia, was more than enough to cause us to take military action in our own interests, but more importantly at the behest of the Saudi government. The Iraqi's were an unstable government who threatened our interests, the western world's interests, and the interests of the friendly nations on the region. We did what we had to do, and to try to keep some semblance of peace in the region, again at the behest of local governments, we continue to remain there and do what needs to be done, along with our allies. This upsets the radical fundamentalists who see our presence on their holy land as blasphemous. They demand we leave there. So in order to appease them and buy ourself some temporary safety, we could withdraw our forces, and let Iraq again threaten the region and the world's oil.
So have we always done everything perfectly? Of course not, but I believe for the most part we take what seems to be the best course of action given the situation and information available at the time. Hindsight is 20/20 of course so it is easy to look back and see how we may have done things differently.
Now we are left with how some would have us deal with the terrorists. I have briefly illustrated that the two largest causes for their hatred of us are our support of Israel and our actions with regards to Iraq, including the basing of US troops in the region at the invitation of the local governments. The solution then, according to some, would be to withdraw support for Israel, withdraw support for Kuwait, withdraw support for Saudi Arabia, and let Iraq again threaten the region (not to mention destabilize the world oil supply). But it goes further than that. Some say we should be building schools, and providing food, and showing that the nice people of the US only want to be their friends.
The only problem is that those people don't want to be our friends, they don't want our food, and they most definitely don't want our education. They happen to have a view of their religion that calls for our destruction. Not much we can do to change that. I really truly believe that some of these pacifists absolutely cannot comprehend that these people do not share the same basic values as us (life and liberty for all, etc...), that they cannot be negotiated with (other than through a position of superior strength), that they really do want to see our civilization wiped from the Earth. In fact their version of their religion demands it.
So what choice do we really have then? The only choice we have is to fight. We don't launch unprovoked surprise attacks on their civilians, they do so on ours. We do not wish the total destruction of their civilization, they seek the total destruction of our civilization. I really think these anti-war folks really need to come to grips with the reality of the situation, and stop living in some pipe dream of world peace where everyone is holding hands and singing Kumbaya. That's a nice ideal, but the real world doesn't happen to work that way. It is a fact that "freedom isn't free". If you want to continue your way of life and enjoy the personal freedoms you now hold, realize that somebody in the past fought for this, and that now it is time for people to do so again.
[This message has been edited by Jason Menard (edited October 29, 2001).]

[Shama Khan]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
[B] As a great nation, our general responsibility is to look out for our interests. It is only natural that what is in our interests sometimes runs counter to sombody else. So the fact that we may support a regime in the Middle East without a positive human rights record, will certainly offend some. On the other hand not supporting that country may have other consequences that will offend others.

But I thought we were supposed to be a moral nation too. What happened to morality. If Egypt goes out, searches and hangs muslim bearded men on a weekly basis without any proof of their guilt of anything then it's alright as long as Egypt is taking the U.S. dollars to support the policies of U.S. and Israel.
But in the great nation of U.S., we have freedom so we won't take all bearded muslim men and execute them.
I can't imagine what kind of morals would a person/government has when it allows its (so-called friends) to kill but says it will never do such thing on its land.
By the way in relation to being American or Anti American, I strongly reject the suggestion that opposing a certain policy of our government is tantamount to disloyalty.

[This message has been edited by Shama Khan (edited October 29, 2001).]

[Andy Ceponis]

Originally posted by Andrew Shafer:

I certainly understand amusing one's self with posting things to get a reaction, but I think there are certain subjects that have bit more gravity and deserve a bit more seriousness, like cluster bombs for example. You are entitled not to share that opinion, but you must understand the type of perceptions and misunderstandings statements about bombings and warm fuzzies might cause. I'm not appauled by dissenting opinion, I'm just still waiting for any intelligent analysis of American foreign policy from the rah-rah-USA bombing-is-cool side of the fence.

Exactly my point. Thanks for stating it for me. This is a serious situation and when people come on here and post these huge articles from this source or that source and are inflamatory that isnt any better than me saying "Yeah lets go bomb that whole country and turn it into a glass parking lot". Neither of those help ANY of the discussions. They only serve to make people react. Just because theirs might be some long article doesnt mean a thing, its all the same. But at least i dont mean what i post(at least when i post stuff like that). But these people do. They only want to spread their distorted views and sometimes lies.

This is a bit myopic, I could certainly argue that all these lists are a little different with the same major theme. I don't have a problem posting whatever they wanted to about 9/11, I don't have a problem with people posting whatever they want about American foreign policy and I don't have a problem with you having a problem or speaking up about it. I do disagree with the unregistered approach because it tends to discredit your post before anyone reads it, but as I stated above, I've yet to see any substantive discussion about some of the issues that are being brought up. Further, not all of these posts have been unregistered, Shama Khan anyone?

I think unregistered people are just embarassed to post as themselves. Sure you can make up a fake real name, but thats not the point. The majority of Very one sided posts condemming arerica or its policies come from these unregistered people. And Shama isnt any better than them, as she just tried to pass off a lie to make her point in another thread.

I must admit the XP shot was below the belt. I've been known to play a game or two on a. . cough. . friend's windows box. We'll make sure the judges deduct a point from me for that.

So we are even for that one then.

[Andrew Shafer]

This seems to me to be a, in my view, flawed logic shared among many "pacifists"(not saying you are one, just saying the logic is similar).

I'm quite far from being a pacificist and I concur with some of your later statements about negotiation from a position of strength, so let me clarify a bit of my logic.
You make the mistake of assuming that I place no blame on the 'terrorists' and all the blame on the US. This is not the case.
If a man of some means, wearing his fine clothing, happens down the wrong street in the wrong town, would you not consider him at the very least unwise, if not partly at fault, when thugs happen to take his nice stuff?
Does this in any way make the thugs right for mugging this man?
Wasn't the guy warned not to walk down that street? Couldn't he see the men following for half a block? Was there anything he could have done differently? You might argue that he has the right to walk down that street, that somehow it is in his best interest, but the fact remains, 9 out of 10 times, he gets mugged.
Now let's say we have another fellow, he is a tough guy. He can beat up 10 guys at a time, and he knows it. So he keeps his neighbors in line and he has the few 'friends' that tough guys always seem to have. So he beats a few here and a few there, but these guys he beats have brothers and sons, and they don't forget the beatings. Eventually, things catch up to our tough guy, and he gets jumped from behind and takes a few licks.
Do you 100% blame those who attacked him, even if they may be cowards? If the guy recovers from his beating and lashes out in the general direction of those he feels probably attacked him, is he really going to make things safer for himself? What does your personal experience and logic say?
Things are not always either/or propositions, i.e. either the US is at fault or the Taliban. Both can be wrong.

we don't launch unprovoked surprise attacks on their civilians,

This is certainly debateable.
I don't really buy into this whole they-want-to-destroy-our-civilization BS either. Didn't you guys get enough of that propaganda during the cold war? What happened? All the Russians that were bent on our destruction just snapped out of it? People are people, they all share similar desires and motivations. They want to live without fear and they want good things for their children.

By the way in relation to being American or Anti American, I strongly reject the suggestion that opposing a certain policy of our government is tantamount to disloyalty.

Amen

[This message has been edited by Andrew Shafer (edited October 29, 2001).]

[Andrew Shafer]

Shama a lie? Come on now.
Tony Blair admitted that the evidence against Bin Laden and al-Qaeda wouldn't stand up in a court as he presented it in the British parliament.
This was back around the first of Oct.

[Anonymous]

"Nations around the world has there own interest"
"Most often conflicting ones"
"How then will we attain peace?"
Wasabe King
"I Love Shushi"

[Paul Stevens]

Shama
I can't imagine what kind of morals would a person/government has when it allows its (so-called friends) to kill but says it will never do such thing on its land.

Wouldn't that be sticking our noses in some other countries business. Isn't that supposedly one of the "reasons" for the attack in the first place? Are we to rule the world and make all countries do what we want, the way we want? Isn't that exactly what we are accused of to begin with?

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Andrew Shafer:
I don't really buy into this whole they-want-to-destroy-our-civilization BS either. Didn't you guys get enough of that propaganda during the cold war? What happened? All the Russians that were bent on our destruction just snapped out of it? People are people, they all share similar desires and motivations. They want to live without fear and they want good things for their children.

I was going to stay away from this discussion, but Andrew found a way
My the strongest impression about the USA was that there is really very little difference between it and the former USSR (I remember ) even on political level, not to say about normal people
Makes me think what all cold war thing was about? What part of it was caused by real ideological or whatever differences and what by simple misunderstanding and irrationality from both sides... Wouldn't we all be better off if we did not spend 70 years hating each other?
Jason, I understand and respect your position, but I strongly feel that my duty as a former USSR's citizen is to try to undermine it
When I read "The only problem is that those people don't want to be our friends, they don't want our food, and they most definitely don't want our education. They happen to have a view of their religion that calls for our destruction"... wasn't it what you thought about the USSR and communism? On the other hand, it vividly reminds me our communistic leaders who kept on saying that the USSR waned only peace and these were capitalistic countries that wanted our destruction... Isn't it the same vision?
You are saying "As a great nation, our general responsibility is to look out for our interests. It is only natural that what is in our interests sometimes runs counter to sombody else" - wasn't it was motivated the USSR as well?
I myself believed that all "war hysteria" was intentional misinformation of our government, but after some better thinking... I suspect our communistic leaders were victims of it themselves, at least at the certain degree.
Some history.
What were the first things new Russian communistic government did in the field of foreign politics?
16 December 1917 independence of Ukraine was declared.
31 December 1917 independence of Finland was declared.
15 December 1917 an armistice with German was signed
15 March 1918 Russia stopped its participation in World War I...
What happened next? Great Britain, the USA, France, Japan, German, Turkey invaded Russia. By the summer of 1918 3/4 of the territory was under control of "inner enemies" and foreign invaders. The Civil War started. Regardless of what you think about communists - how do you think it affected their vision of other countries? They did see "capitalistic" countries as enemies ever since, but do not you think they had some reasons to?
You bomb Afghanistan because some part of its population presumably participated in destroying three your buildings. What would you feel if 3/4 parts of the USA was occupied? It could make your foreign politics a bit "aggressive", no?
I am not saying that communists were angels and communism is a highest manifestation of humanity, but... Do not you blame the other party for the very politics you find natural for yourself? Did "communism" want your destruction? Probably no more than you wanted its destruction. Does Islam want your destruction? I feel it's wrong to think this way also.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Andrew Shafer:
If the guy recovers from his beating and lashes out in the general direction of those he feels probably attacked him, is he really going to make things safer for himself? What does your personal experience and logic say?

I feel that overall the example does not apply, but specifically this paragraph is trying to make a false analogy. We know who pulled the trigger, we know who gave them the gun and the place to hideout. We are not lashing out in the "general" direction of those who attacked us, we are lashing out at those who attacked us. Will it make things safer for ourselves? Maybe, maybe not. These people only respect strength. Any show of weakness on our part, such as an un-united front, or being wishy-washy about military action, actually makes us a more tempting target since we show ourselves more likely to give into their demands. We are generally a "soft" target, by making ourselves a "hard" target we in turn make ourselves a less tempting target. Hardening of the target includes not only strict more stringent security, but also the knowledge by a potential attacker that there will be very dire consequences for choosing this particular target. In this way, in the long run, we are more safe.

People are people, they all share similar desires and motivations. They want to live without fear and they want good things for their children.

You would like to think so, and in your experience I'm sure this is true, but that's not really the way it is all the time. It is dangerous to project our motivations onto another culture, or group of people. They have very different motivations from us. Living without fear to them means ruling the roost, not peacefully coexisting with other cultures. Wanting good things for their children includes having them grow up in a strict islamic fundamentalist world, a world without Jews, without Christians, and without the view of life that the civilized nations hold. If they wanted good things for their children, they would not be supporting a regime like the Taliban which virtually casts aside their female children. If they wanted good things for their children they would not be forcing them to throw rocks at armed soldiers in the hopes that they get killed so that they can be used for propoganda purposes. If they wanted good things for their children they would not be making soldiers out of them, or in the case of Somalia, having their children run ammo in the middle of a firefight. These people most certainly do not share our values, and projecting our values onto them is the basic flaw of the anti-war movement.
[This message has been edited by Jason Menard (edited October 29, 2001).]

[Jason Menard]

Map,
As one who actually "fought" against the Soviets in the Cold War, I think I can lend some insight. While in general it is true that the philosophies of the USA and USSR were diametrically opposed to each other, it was a different situation. We alwaus believed that for the most part the Soviets were basically like us, that they held the same motivations, wants, and desires. I think we very much felt that it was our governments that were at odds, not so much the people who were at odds with each other. I think you can see now that we were very much alike, and while there is still some distrust amongst our governments, there is much promise for the future.
This is not the case in this situation. While things like Mutually Assured Destruction were enough to keep sane civilizations at peace, this is not the case here. They do not care so much if they live or die, as long as their view of their religion dominates and their enemies are destroyed, all else is secondary. It is very difficult to fight an enemy who does not hold your values, or whose way of thinking is vastly different from your own. It is very difficult to fight an enemy who has no qualms about using any means to victory, when you must in fact abide by rules of war set forth by civilized nations. We will fight as morally as we can, and in fact the world will hold us to it, but this will not be true of the Islamics., and the world will not hold them to the same standard.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
You would like to think so, and in your experience I'm sure this is true, but that's not really the way it is all the time. It is dangerous to project our motivations onto another culture, or group of people.

Hm. Interesting. Maybe you are right. I personally never felt a danger of projecting my motivations onto another culture. Maybe it's a mission of my culture Some people believe that the ultimate mission of Russian culture is to work out some kind of blend of European and Asian cultures, which they, naturally, cannot work out on their own (alternative opinion was that it's all too much vodka, but we will disregard it as politically incorrect ). Trying to be serious: as you are right about a danger of projection your motivations onto another culture, as you miss a danger of NOT projecting your motivations onto another culture.
They do not care so much if they live or die, as long as their view of their religion dominates and their enemies are destroyed.
Whom are you talking about? I am sure there are such people in every society whether Muslim, or Russian or American or whatever-else... Something physiological These passionaries always have a "sacral enemy" they will fight "until the last drop of blood" (I am using my own proprietary idiomatic expression), when most of population cares about children, prices - or other boring stuff.
As one who actually "fought" against the Soviets in the Cold War
So how did you "fought"? Just curious. I do not think I "fought" the USA in any way but both my parents spent whole their lives working on military factories (they were engineers) until they retired. They were producing weapon - well, guess who was the main target? They never told me what they were doing. I think as soon as I learnt how to speak, I was told that I can ask any question, except what my parents were doing. I never asked. It's only after the Soviet Union died, I learnt that my father did something related to space weapon and my mother's factory produced tanks. I have no idea how productive my mother was with tanks, I know that she was really good with plants - all our apartment was green and blooming. I know that my father is much smarter than me, and thinking that he honestly applied his intellect - as he was supposed to - to find more effective ways to kill people - to kill you, to tell all the truth... It just turns me inside out.
It is very difficult to fight an enemy who does not hold your values, or whose way of thinking is vastly different from your own.
Are you sure there is such thing as "way of thinking vastly different from your own"?
It is very difficult to fight an enemy who has no qualms about using any means to victory, when you must in fact abide by rules of war set forth by civilized nations. We will fight as morally as we can, and in fact the world will hold us to it, but this will not be true of the Islamics., and the world will not hold them to the same standard.
I think I understand your frustration. Frankly, I think once a country decided to hold a war, it should forget about "civilized" rules of war - for not to betray its soldiers. It's to talk about "civilized" rules sitting on the couch and watching TV, but when it affects your own chances to survive... "Civilized" rules would be probably the last thing to remember.

[Petr Igorovich Kurchatov]

Originally posted by Jason Menard :
We alwaus believed that for the most part the Soviets were basically like us, that they held the same motivations, wants, and desires. I think we very much felt that it was our governments that were at odds, not so much the people who were at odds with each other. I think you can see now that we were very much alike, and while there is still some distrust amongst our governments, there is much promise for the future.

A laudable sentiment Menard. Did your feeling of kinship extend to all the ethnic groups in the soviet union or just white russians ?

Orginally posted by Shama Khan :
By the way in relation to being American or Anti American, I strongly reject the suggestion that opposing a certain policy of our government is tantamount to disloyalty

While I disagree with Shama Khan's thinly veiled support for the fundamentalist cause I must say
she has a point here. People like Jason Menard do not seem to be able to get this fact into perspective.
In my country we consider it our birthright to criticise our government. If an American citizen with an Asian sounding name posts a message here criticising the government everybody is up in arms. Is the right to criticise your government restricted to people of certain ethnic origins? In my country we call it racism , what do you call this in America ?

Originally posted by Andrew Shafer:
I don't really buy into this whole theywanttodestroyourcivilization BS either. Didn't you guys get enough of that propaganda during the cold war? What happened? All the Russians that were bent on our destruction just snapped out of it? People are people, they all share similar desires and motivations. They want to live without fear and they want good things for their children.

The original cause of the dissent with the Soviet Union was communism. While the merits of communism are disputable, at least it was a modern movement with obejctives based on humanism and did not merit the vehemence with which it was loathed and opposed. The reason why the experiment failed in most countries isn't because of a flaw in the concept but because the ideals of communism are incompatible with human nature. Perhaps the human race is far too young for communism and needs to take a few more steps up the evolutionary ladder before it can attempt such an experiment again. In view of the results produced by the interaction between communism and human nature we must conclude that communism is not an ideal system. However it did not qualify to be branded as the greatest of all evils. Islamic fundamentalism is different thing altogether. The current agenda of Islamic fundamentalism is to take the entire human race back into the dark ages. It is rather late in
the day for the US to realise which is the greater of the two evils. The way the war is going it is doubtful if the US will be able to dislodge the Taliban. All they have achieved is to cast serious doubts on America's status as a superpower. They seem to specialise in botched operations.
A newspaper report says
"Already, the administration has been spinning for all it is worth to staunch speculation that its first incursion with ground forces last week was also botched, and that US forces fled when confronted by the Taliban. With no successes to show for in this war, Washington is finding it hard to staunch critical opinion that is beginning to surface."

http://www.timesofindia.com/articleshow.asp?catkey=1811284689&art_id=1473799702&sType=1

Originally posted by Jake the Snake :
I did have much higher/more respectable opinion of quite a few JavaRanchers until I have seen their posts in MD.

I used to have great respect for Jim Yingst. I never suspected that he was capable of posting lewd and suggestive messages until recently

[This message has been edited by Petr Igorovich Kurchatov (edited November 02, 2001).]

[Jason Menard]

Origninally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Trying to be
serious: as you are right about a danger of projection your motivations onto another culture, as you miss a danger of
NOT projecting your motivations onto another culture.

To take a page from developmental psychology, I feel this comes down to the classic question of nature versus nurture. It is my belief that nurture is more dominant than nature. If this is true, saying that "people are all the same" really doesn't apply when we may be raised under vastly different conditions. If you are raised learning nothing other than a twisted view of God, you are fed a constant diet of hate, and you are told that it is the greatest thing you may do to die for God, then you are going to have a radically different set of morals, motivations, way of thinking, etc... then if you were raised how most of us here were.

Whom are you talking about? I am sure there are such people in every society whether Muslim, or Russian or
American or whatever-else... Something physiological These passionaries always have a "sacral enemy" they will
fight "until the last drop of blood" (I am using my own proprietary idiomatic expression), when most of population
cares about children, prices - or other boring stuff.

I am referring to Radical Islamic Fundamentalists. See above. This version of islam is a movement of the people, not so much a political ideology such as Communism or Democracy. The followers of this twisted version of the religion might care about prices, children, and other boring stuff, but the destruction of the "enemies of Islam" isn't far from their minds either.

So how did you "fought"?

I joined the military in 1988, towards the end of the Cold War. I say "fought" since because it was a cold war, as opposed to a hot one, very little fighting between the US and Soviets actually took place, fighting that war meant something different. For me it meant being stationed at an A-10 (ground attack fighter) base in the UK, where our mission in the event of hostilities breaking out was to deploy to West Germany to try to keep the advancing "Soviet Hoardes" at bay while reinforcements came from the States. It was thought at the time that the Soviets would use its massive amounts of tanks and such to push across western Europe. The A-10 was specifically designed to kill these tanks, known as a "tank buster". We were always told that we would just basically be a speedbump and that all we could do was try to hold on as long as possible, hopefully until reinforcements arrived. It was kind of disheartening that everytime we held military exercises to "practice" this, they would end with our base getting nuked.

I know that my father is much smarter than me, and thinking that he
honestly applied his intellect - as he was supposed to - to find more effective ways to kill people - to kill you, to tell
all the truth... It just turns me inside out.[/b

Your father, like many others besides him in both countries, was only being a patriot. He was most likely only doing what he thought was best for his country and its people, and that is something to be honored, not to be ashamed of.

[b]Are you sure there is such thing as "way of thinking vastly different from your own"?

If you come across an injured child, for example, I'm sure that most of us would do what we can to lend aid to that child, regardless of race, color, ethnic background etc... On the other hand, would any of us, upon recognizing that child was of a different religious background, walk up to him place a gun against his head and pull the trigger while his parents watched? The Bosnian Serbs, as an example, had little problem with this. I would say that there are two completely different thought processes, or ways of thinking, that would have to take place leading up to either action. Thankfully most of us have the former and not the latter way of thinking.

I think I understand your frustration. Frankly, I think once a country decided to hold a war, it should forget about
"civilized" rules of war - for not to betray its soldiers. It's to talk about "civilized" rules sitting on the couch and
watching TV, but when it affects your own chances to survive... "Civilized" rules would be probably the last thing to
remember.

You are talking about a personal fight for survival between individuals. I am talking about the way wars are waged between nations or international entities. This is a macro view rather than a micro view. It is not civilized for us to consider poisoning the enemy nations water supply. I would say that they have no similar moral dillema. US military, at least, has to abide by what are called the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC). LOAC states among other things that we cannot intentionally target something bearing the "red cross" or "red crescent" under most conditions. LOAC also states that you cannot misuse these symbols for anything other than their intended purpose. LOAC says pretty much the same thing regarding churches, mosques, hospitals, etc... Now what the Taliban are doing is purposely placing their troops and equipment in and around these facilities, with the hope that we will not attack them there because LOAC states that we cannot target such facilities. The unfortunate thing that they accomplish however is to now make these facilities that they are hiding in and around, legitimate military targets. I think we are still avoiding attacking them there for the most part, even though we legally can, simply because we don't want to give them a PR advantage.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Petr Igorovich Kurchatov:
A laudable sentiment Menard. Did your feeling of kinship extend to all the ethnic groups in the soviet union or just
white russians ?

Uh I never called it a feeling of kinship, but my stated belief applied to the whole of the Soviet people Kurchatov, why wouldn't it?

Orginally posted by Shama Khan :
By the way in relation to being American or Anti American, I strongly reject the suggestion that opposing a
certain policy of our government is tantamount to disloyalty

I don't think I ever stated or implied this. I agree with you. I have problems with many things our government does.

If an American citizen with an Asian sounding
name posts a message here criticising the government everybody is up in arms. Is the right to criticise your
government restricted to people of certain ethnic origins? In my country we call it racism , what do you call this in
America ?

Get off your high horse. Just because you may like to view things in terms of race doesn't meant that everybody does. Don't go trying to raise the spector of racism where none exists. Just as it is her right to have dissenting opinions, it is the right of others to have opinions which disent from hers. As we are both Americans, Sharma and myself are free to discuss what we see are the merits or problems with our country without getting our panties in a twist. Now somebody else from another country wants to start taking shots at us just to be hostile (as opposed to wanting an honest two-way discussion), then they're not going to get a very nice response. Thirty years ago citizens who were openly critical of your government probably got paid a nice visit by the police.

The way the war is going it is doubtful if the US
will be able to dislodge the Taliban. All they have achieved is to cast serious doubts on America's status as a
superpower.

Spoken like a true Soviet. An American victory in Afghanistan will be a severe blow to the pride of many a former Soviet. And a quote from a foreign newspaper commenting on how the war is going for us doesn't hold much water.

My apologies for using an assumed name. Most of the regulars can easily guess who I am. Of late I have
realised that I shouldn't be using my real name here. I know it woul make Thinku Mama unhappy , but I may have
to delete all previous messages posted under my real name.

A true coward. Holds no convictions in his own thoughts and is ashamed of them. Obviously afraid of what others may think of his opinions. Maybe there is a good reason to be ashamed.
[This message has been edited by Jason Menard (edited October 31, 2001).]

[Shama Khan]

While I disagree with Shama Khan's thinly veiled support for the fundamentalist cause I must say
she has a point here.

You are wrong. I don't support fundamentalists. But I do understand some of how they came to be. Your accusation sounds like like Bush's speech -" if you are not with us - you are with the terrorists" what is that anyway! Read the article I mention below to get the doublespeak.
By the way fundamentalists is the wrong term for the violent extremists who smear the name of a Islam
.
Fundamentalism just mean following the foundation/basis of ... so Islamic fundamentalism means following the 5 pillars of Islam - 5 times prayer, fasting, giving to charity, once in a life time pilgrimmage to Mecca, and belief in unity of God and prophet Muhammad being last messenger.
Nowhere in the 5 pillars is the mention of allowing violence to get what you don't have. Therefore, I don't support the violence. To me a human killed is a human killed - it doesn't matter what his/her ethnicity or religion was - and killing is something against everyone's beliefs including mine. Bombing a country for weeks to catch one person is beyond my understanding.
In my posts however, I try to show that there are always 2 sides to a coin - I am only trying to show the other side.
For example, if one watched BBC last night at 7pm E.T then one would know that the Phillipines' President made a speech at the South East Asia Economic summit and blamed poverty for terrorism.
She requested all to help eradicate poverty to be able to eradicate terrorism.
I watched CNN to see if they would cover that. They didn't.
You also wouldn't find the following article here:
Backyard terrorism
The US has been training terrorists at a camp in Georgia for years - and it's still at it http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,583254,00.html
I think after the 'not so well thought out' accusation, I better stop posting here.
Shama

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Shama Khan:
But I thought we were supposed to be a moral nation too. What happened to morality. If Egypt goes out, searches and hangs muslim bearded men on a weekly basis without any proof of their guilt of anything then it's alright as long as Egypt is taking the U.S. dollars to support the policies of U.S. and Israel.

I think we do strive to be a moral nation. The question arises as to where you draw the line between morals and national interest where the two aren't mutually compatible. I have no easy answer. Thank goodness there are other people paid to make these tough decisions for us.

I can't imagine what kind of morals would a person/government has when it allows its (so-called friends) to kill but says it will never do such thing on its land.

This is I think the unfortunate nature of the world we live in. We cannot exert the kind of control you are suggesting on all of our allies. I know we do try to exert a lot of control on Israel, but that meets with mixed success. So if an "ally" does something we might not like, we have a couple of alternatives. We could ask that they modify their behavior, we can insist they modify their behavior or there will be some consequence, we can ignore it. I think we most often choose the first option. For practical reasons we sometimes must look at the bigger picture and deal with these far from perfect regimes.

[Andy Ceponis]

Originally posted by Shama Khan:
You are wrong. I don't support fundamentalists. But I do understand some of how they came to be. Your accusation sounds like like Bush's speech -" if you are not with us - you are with the terrorists" what is that anyway!

What is that anyway.?. Well i am 100% in agreement with that statement. If you are not against the terrorists, then you might as well be with them. Some issues dont lend themselves to much of a middle ground. This is one of them. Dont try to say that you are against the terrorists when the majority of your posts only show one side(not both like you claim) of the story. You keep draggin up articles that consistently show only YOUR views and none other.

For example, if one watched BBC last night at 7pm E.T then one would know that the Phillipines' President made a speech at the South East Asia Economic summit and blamed poverty for terrorism.
She requested all to help eradicate poverty to be able to eradicate terrorism.
I watched CNN to see if they would cover that. They didn't.
Shama

So why would cnn cover that? Do you think they should cover everything everyone says? Is there any sort of evidence to corroborate those statements? Thats like me saying "The cause of terrorism is that the men's beards are a harvest for miniture aliens who are burrowing in the chins of those terrorists and causing them to do evil." Cnn should cover that as well i guess.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
If this is true, saying that "people are all the same" really doesn't apply when we may be raised under vastly different conditions.

"people are all the same" is oversimplification, of course. I read somewhere a better version: "In some respects all people are the same. In some respects people that belong to certain groups are the same. In some respects all people are different." Ultimate truth
If you are raised learning nothing other than a twisted view of God, you are fed a constant diet of hate, and you are told that it is the greatest thing you may do to die for God, then you are going to have a radically different set of morals, motivations, way of thinking, etc... then if you were raised how most of us here were.
Hey, I myself was raised learning nothing other than a twisted view of Western philosophy, I was fed a constant diet of hate, and I was told that it is the greatest thing I could do to die for my Communistic Party. Still I do not feel that I have a radically different set of morals, motivations, way of thinking than you You may say that Radical Islamic Fundamentalism is different. Do you know what their values are? What do they teach? Because I do not. Actually, would be to have a discussion with somebody radically Islamic in this forum, but where is this person? In our frustration we are trying to use Shama as a plenipotentiary of devil, but she is too spoiled by Western Liberalism to make a good full-blown enemy
Your father, like many others besides him in both countries, was only being a patriot. He was most likely only doing what he thought was best for his country and its people, and that is something to be honored, not to be ashamed of.
I would say it's something to think about and be afraid of. Shows that it's perfectly possible to be a decent well-intended person and still ultimately serve destructive goals. (well, in this case only potentially). I read a story about a manager in one of European countries who worked on a big construction project. He worked 12 hours a day, inspiring his employees, very enthusiastic and hard-working guy. He did almost impossible job. I thought that if he lived in the USSR he would be a big Communistic Hero If he lived in the USA - he would probably become rich very quickly. In both cases he would be a respected member of society. In fact, he lived in Germany and his project was a concentration camp designed to solve Jews problem with maximum effectiveness. Perhaps also was doing what he thought was best for his country. Perhaps Talibs now are doing what they think is best for their country.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

I would say it's something to think about and be afraid of. Shows that it's perfectly possible to be a decent well-intended person and still ultimately serve destructive goals. (well, in this case only potentially). I read a story about a manager in one of European countries who worked on a big construction project. He worked 12 hours a day, inspiring his employees, very enthusiastic and hard-working guy. He did almost impossible job. I thought that if he lived in the USSR he would be a big Communistic Hero If he lived in the USA - he would probably become rich very quickly. In both cases he would be a respected member of society. In fact, he lived in Germany and his project was a concentration camp designed to solve Jews problem with maximum effectiveness. Perhaps also was doing what he thought was best for his country. Perhaps Talibs now are doing what they think is best for their country.

Regarding the concentration camp manager, there is a point where we have to look within ourselves and see how things we are asked to do measure up against our own personal morals. Society as a whole (macro view) has a collective set of morals, or what is and is not acceptable. The human race as a whole has determined that death camps are not acceptable.
While I do think you have a valid point, in defense of your father and others like him, while they were designing weapons, they were designing weapons that in many cases were never meant to be used. The purpose of many of these weapons wasn't necessarily to kill, their purpose was actually to deter peopple from killing each other. This was a twisted kind of logic to be sure, but I do think it is an important distinction.
Remember the US and USSR were in what amounted to a 50 year chess match. I don't know from the Soviet side, although I suspect it was the same, but I always had the impression that most of what we did was actually to prevent a hot war. True we were both maneuvering to bring down the other, but we were trying to do it without having to come to blows. Why? Nuclear weapons and the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. It wasn't pretty, but it ended up being effective. The world was "safe" because we held each other in check, and we held our allies in check. We knew that if it ever did actually come to shooting then it would all be over. True it was safety under the threat of nuclear holocaust, but I think neither side believed the other was crazy enough to actually use the weapons.
This is not the case with all these little third world countries with unstable regimes or hostile politics who have either acquired nukes (two countries in central Asia come to mind), or are very actively trying to acquire nukes (North Korea, Iraq, Iran, prety much the entire Middle East). While we believed the Soviets and Chinese weren't psychotic enough to use strategic nukes, we do not have that same feeling towards these other countries. The result is now more than it ever was during the Cold War has it become likely that a nuclear device is used. Whether it be one central asian country versus another, some hostile regime against us, or some country that does something so horrendous towards us that we feel a nuclear response is called for (tactical or strategic). Before 9/11 I would have said the latter is unlikely, but if they were for example to nuke us, or release a virulent biological agent against us resulting in extreme casualties, all gloves are off I think.
Whoa I sure went off on a tangent. Big surprise.
Btw I just wanted to say that this thread has had some of the best discussion on the topic I've seen in awhile, particularly from Andrew, Map, and even Sharma .
[This message has been edited by Jason Menard (edited October 30, 2001).]

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Btw I just wanted to say that this thread has had some of the best discussion on the topic I've seen in awhile, particularly from Andrew, Map, and even Shama

But all four of us have the opposite opinion!

[Andrew Shafer]

Some great points being made today people, wish I had time to contribute more today, but alas.
One thing I think we should really spend a lot of time and energy arguing about: Is it really possible to have 4 opinions be the opposite of each other?

just kidding

[zaeem masood ashar]

Originally posted by Shama Khan:
I think after the 'not so well thought out' accusation, I better stop posting here.

Shama,
Please dont do that. Your ideas makes the most sense
Rgds

[Andrew Shafer]

Ok, today is a new day.
I love sushi! If I could afford it, I'd go on the all sushi diet.

I myself believed that all "war hysteria" was intentional misinformation of our government, but after some better thinking... I suspect our communistic leaders were victims of it themselves, at least at the certain degree.

This is a very profound statement. The keys phrases being: intentional misinformation and leaders were victims of it themselves.

We know who pulled the trigger, we know who gave them the gun and the place to hideout. We are not lashing out in the "general" direction of those who attacked us, we are lashing out at those who attacked us.

Really? The only way, I or you could KNOW is if we believe everything our leaders and CNN are spoon feeding us. (cross reference this with your comments in the other thread and sprinkle a little bit of Map's intentional misinformation on top for good measure.) Further, let's pretend like we really believe that it was %100 Bin Laden and his minions. How many of the accused terrorists were Afgan? Let's do the math, 19 hijackers, 0 Afgans, 0 divided by 19 equals 0. We are unequivocally lashing out in the 'general' direction.

These people only respect strength. Any show of weakness on our part, such as an un-united front, or being wishy-washy about military action, actually makes us a more tempting target since we show ourselves more likely to give into their demands.

Is that what your leaders told you? It's not that I don't partly agree, but I'm starting feel like I'm listening to some analyst from CNN. Niccolo Machiavelli set it straight 500+ years ago, at least if your only concern is maintaining dominion over your principality. People should be embraced or destroyed, because they will always seek to avenge minor grievances. All we have done so far is punish a war torn people who had little personal involvment in 9/11, strengthening their distrust and steeling their resolve.

Wanting good things for their children includes having them grow up in a strict islamic fundamentalist world, a world without Jews, without Christians, and without the view of life that the civilized nations hold.

Did you learn this from CNN? Did you know Mohammad said that Jesus was going to come back? Did you know that Abraham is considered the founder of Islam? There may be a small group of 'fundamentalists' that would echo these sentiments, but their views of Islam as are distorted as yours. Do you believe that is the view of the 'Afgan on the street'?

These people most certainly do not share our values, and projecting our values onto them is the basic flaw of the anti-war movement.

Perhaps, but misrepresenting their motives and distorting their values is a tool of the war pigs.

It is very difficult to fight an enemy who has no qualms about using any means to victory, when you must in fact abide by rules of war set forth by civilized nations. We will fight as morally as we can,

Cluster bombs? Hospitals? I'm not so young that I can't remember the 'Soviet threat'. I don't remember hearing about how the Russians are basically like us. I remember something about Godless bloodthirty monsters bent on our destruction. Somehow they magically changed and we all lived happily ever after? Intentional misinformation. . .Intentional misinformation. . .Is there an echo in here?

I joined the military in 1988, towards the end of the Cold War. I say "fought" since because it was a cold war, as opposed to a hot one, very little fighting between the US and Soviets actually took place, fighting that war meant something different.

Mostly it meant having an active imagination. I joined the military in 1991, and was very aware of the international politics all through the 80's. Intentional Misinformation.

On the other hand, would any of us, upon recognizing that child was of a different religious background, walk up to him place a gun against his head and pull the trigger while his parents watched?

Ever heard of Vietnam? Americans are as capable of commiting atrocity as any other group. War is bad, ok, it twists people up mentally and emotionally. I've seen photos of US infantry from the invasion of Iraq. They were taking snap shots of Iraqi corpses that had been flash fried by fuel air explosives. Not just taking pictures, but actually picking up the dead and posing with big American smiles on their faces.

Well i am 100% in agreement with that statement. If you are not against the terrorists, then you might as well be with them. Some issues dont lend themselves to much of a middle ground. This is one of them. Dont try to say that you are against the terrorists when the majority of your posts only show one side(not both like you claim) of the story. You keep draggin up articles that consistently show only YOUR views and none other.

This is the type of reasoning that leads to witch hunting. If you are being an obnoxious jerk and someone punches you in the mouth, I might agree that it was wrong to punch you, but rest assured I'll also point out what an obnoxious jerk you were. Just because I don't want people attacking you, doesn't mean I think you should be a jerk. You can get all pissy when I tell you that you were being an obnoxious jerk, and accuse me of wanting you to get punched, but it doesn't make it true, it just makes you an even more obnoxious jerk.
Shama didn't claim to show both sides of the story, go back and reread her post. She claims to show the 'OTHER' side. I guess she figures Jason will more than take care of the counterpoint.

Cnn should cover that as well i guess.

Hmm, president, economic summit, terrorism, poverty, seems like a pretty substantive and relevant speech. Intentional Misinformation

While we believed the Soviets and Chinese weren't psychotic enough to use strategic nukes,

The only one psychotic enough to actually drop nukes on people so far was been the US. Its definitely a tangent, but dropping nukes on people is heavy business. Whether chemical, biological, or nuclear, I hope the highest wisdom prevails and prevents the use of this class of weapons. Another tangent, but are we getting any closer to solving the mail order anthrax mystery?
Another thing I'm puzzled with, after the first several days, we Americans had a good chuckle because Afganistan was running out of targets. Now after several weeks of bombing, it seems like every other day the reports are coming back about the 'heaviest bombing yet'. If they ran out of targets after several days, what exactly are we bombing so heavily now?

[This message has been edited by Andrew Shafer (edited October 31, 2001).]

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Andrew Shafer:
One thing I think we should really spend a lot of time and energy arguing about: Is it really possible to have 4 opinions be the opposite of each other?

You mean we three should unite and establish anti-Jason coalition?

[Anonymous]

Don't be a playa hata....be a playa congratulator!!!

[Andrew Shafer]

He's just not like us Map, he's different.
I think he is very actively trying to aquire nukes and wants nothing but to destroy our very civilization. We must take action or our children will all be forced to worship Ronald McDonald.