posted July 11, 2004 06:53 PM              

I believe Islamic fundamentalist really do want to see the United States of America turned into a burning, festering wasteland of death and destruction. They want blood. They pretty much want genocide on Americans.

Peace and love are wonderful, righteous things to want for the world and all of mankind. Tolerance, empathy, patience and goodwill...is that so much to ask of humanity? No, not really.

But, how do we convince al-Qaida of that, so your nation can stand down, and focus on achieving that? How do you change the hearts of your enemies?

Not being patronizing here....looking for some real, concrete suggestions to resolving the conflict, confronting the hate that the extreme Islamic fundamentalist habor toward Western civilization, in order to move forward, beginning anew.

posted July 11, 2004 10:04 PM              

I have often wondered this myself. How do we achieve peace when others out there in the world hate us and their lives are based on planning to kill us all.

How do you help others to see that hatred and murder are not the way.

I do have some thoughts on this that I will post soon. But for now, I am posting a link that you may find interesting. I don't agree with everything here, but for the most part it is a very informative piece on the steps needed to achieve world peace.
____________________________________________ http://www.peace.ca/worldpeace.htm
(go to this link for the whole thing, I have only posted parts)

"HOW TO ACHIEVE WORLD PEACE"

A summary of the book Peace Within Our Grasp By Crandall R. Kline Jr., August 1999

Preamble by Robert Stewart

This "How To" manual for achieving world peace is quoted from Crandall R. Kline Jr.'s book Peace Within Our Grasp: Making the dream a reality
The reader is strongly encouraged to read Mr. Kline's book to understand the fullness of his explanations. You may not agree with everything, but this is the best "How To Achieve World Peace' book that I have read - if you have seen better, please let me know and I will share that too. It also promotes dialogue on all of the contents. Mr. Kline has done the world a great service by clearly demonstrating that World Peace is Achievable, and that a "How To" manual can be written, improved, and followed to significantly reduce violence in the world and its human cost. Thank you Crandall R. (Dale) Kline Jr. Happy reading, and please share this extremely valuable information with everyone you can. Robert Stewart (comments are invited to stewartr@peace.ca )

*
Chapter 1. The System is the Problem

Laws are made to determine where one person's rights end and the next person's rights begin.

International politics is being played with faulty rules and attitudes.

...a good set of rules and enforcement are needed to get people to live together peacefully.

To have world peace, we need some international rules and a means of enforcing them.

...governments should have no more right to kill than the civilians do.

Chapter 3. Better Rules are the Solution

Defense does not mean the right to make a preemptive strike. The first one to strike is the guilty party.

Our ultimate goal should be to adopt a rule that government leaders should have no right to kill anybody.

...all nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are not defensive weapons and should be eliminated.

...nations have no right to use military violence to settle their differences. ...the one who strikes first is the culprit and deserves the condemnation of the world community.

Nations should be allowed to defend themselves and the blame should be placed on the one who initiated the violence.

...a criminal has no right to defend himself from punishment imposed by a legitimate government.

The legitimacy of the government is important in this scene.

The government must be the choice of the people.

The government should be the assurer of nonviolence.

There must be some freedoms as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, especially freedom of speech and freedom for religions.

The majority must be charitable.

It must have a military and diplomatic policy of defense-only.

A government should be considered negligent if it does not provide the means for earning a living for all the people who want to work.

...a reasonable distribution of wealth

Rules Needed for World Peace:

1. Nonviolence - No one has the right to kill anyone else. Groups of people have no more right to kill than individuals have. Governments have no right to kill anyone.
2. No Aggression - Lives and land are sacred. Nations have no right to invade another, kill the people or take their land.
3. Defense - A nation that has a non-repressive government has a right to defend itself from an invasion or revolution.
4. Guilt - The nation that initiates or supports an invasion, revolution or terrorism is the guilty party. If their army is on another nation's land they are the guilty party.

The best system for defense is collective defense.

... the United Nations ...

In order for the United Nations to be effective, it must give a permanent warning to all nations that the U.N. will come to the aid of any victim of an invasion. ... As of now, the U.N. is not structured to do this.

Peace Defense basic tenets:

1. No one has the right to kill for any reason except as immediately and unavoidably required to protect human life or national borders.
2 & 3. Adequate defensive forces, in combination with rule number 3, are necessary to prevent aggression and repel the invaders. A world mutual defense pact (as expressed in the U.N. Charter) and a firm resolve by all members to join together to repel aggression (against any nation that complies with rule number 1) are essential.
4. Citizens must withdraw support for any leader that violates rule number 1.
5. Capital punishment is to be replaced with permanent life imprisonments.

These are five fundamental moral rules from which other rules can be derived in order to implement them. Not only do we need the right rules, but we need enough people who understand them and who are concerned enough that they will speak up and demand that the government implement them.

We need to distinguish between a military to be used for empire building and one for maintaining human rights.

The lesson is clear: Where anarchy prevails, as in Somalia, only the threat of superior force can restore a semblance of order.

All leaders should be given notice ahead of time that killing will not be tolerated.

If the United Nations had an international law against repression, the world opinion supporting that law would influence the leader's behaviour. And furthermore, if the International Criminal Court had the power to bring him to trial and a collective-defense military organization had the authority to arrest him, any leader with thoughts of violence would be deterred from doing any repressive acts.

There is a serious need for non-lethal weapons.

Thus far the chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win wars. From now on, its chief purpose must be to avert them.

Just-Cause...

Towards a Global Ethic:

Ø We all have a responsibility for a better global order.
Ø Our involvement for the sake of human rights, freedom, justice, peace, and the preservation of the Earth is absolutely necessary.
Ø We do not consider ourselves better than other women and men.
Ø There will be no better global order without a global ethic.
Ø What you do not wish done to yourself, do not do to others.
Ø No one has the right physically or psychologically to torture, injure, much less kill, any other human being.
Ø No people, no state, no race, no religion has the right to hate.
Ø Commit to a life of truthfulness.

Pervasive honesty is necessary for the success of democracy. Corruption destroys any government.

Secular Golden Rule: Do nothing that harms another person, that injures, jeopardizes or even offends.

...treating everyone with respect...

...wisdom consists of knowing when a rule is to be followed and when it should not be followed.

Chapter 4. Getting the Rules Straight
Chapter 5. How Peace Defense Could Have Prevented Five (?) Wars
Chapter 6. How the United Nations Should Be Revised
Chapter 7. The Churches' Support for The U.N.
Chapter 8. Understanding Our Psychological Makeup, A Key to Peace
Chapter 9. Testosterone
Chapter 10. The Love of Risking One's Life
Chapter 11. What is Truth?
Chapter 12. The Psychological Roots of War
Chapter 13. Sacreligion
Chapter 14. Changing the Public's Opinion
Chapter 15. Alternatives to Violence

...showing respect...

Since we go to war to protect our egos, the way to avoid wars is to bolster the ego in some other way.

To avoid violence, we need to seek justice; we need to show concern for the person's needs.

... a wonderful goal, that all children in the world be trained to handle conflicts nonviolently.

The just-war rules say that the use of force must be the last resort. While nonviolent conflict resolution procedures may not always work, they must be given full, even excessive trials before resorting to threats of violence or actual force.

Chapter 16. Is It In Our National Interest?

This book holds high the idea that world peace is a primary national interest.

The question should be not only, "Is it in our national interest?" but, "Is it in humanity's interest?" We hold very strongly the view that world peace is at the pinnacle of humanity's best interests.

President Truman: "If history has taught us anything, it is that aggression anywhere in the world is a threat to peace everywhere in the world. When that aggression is supported by the cruel and selfish rulers of powerful nation who are bent on conquest, it becomes a clear and present danger to the security and independence of every free nation."

...political concerns greatly influence the decisions on what is the national interest and we need to be cautious about our decisions.

Peace should be held higher than any monetary benefit.

...if we have to violate basic moral principles that erode a peaceful world system to maintain our standard of living, then we should choose a lowering of our standard of living. In a tradeoff between war and standard of living, peace should be chosen, as long as we are following moral international laws in the process.

...a major point of this book, the importance of a good structure in society. We need rules and a means of enforcement. Just asking people to be nice isn't going to do it. Without rules and enforcement, people will not be nice.

To attain peace, we must allow the United Nations to be the enforcer of international laws.

...another major point of this book - peace requires that we have strong defensive forces.

In this world there are the good and the bad, and the good decide which is which.

Good is that which helps bring long, healthy and happy lives to everyone.

There needs to be a balance between the three parts: long life, healthy life and happy life.

Smoking where non-smokers are present, polluting or wasting scarce natural resources are examples of things that should not be done because they impinge on the rights of others.

Those who decide in favor of policies that provide for a long, healthy, happy life should be in charge.

To prevent wars, the "good people", those who follow the moral policies of equality, freedom, defense-only and peace defense, must speak out and take charge.

The rules must say that killing for any cause is never justified. If you (as a nation) are short of water, you have no right to conquer your neighbor to get water. If a nation has no natural supply of oil, it does not have a right to conquer another to gain a supply of oil. Each nation must learn to exist with the resources it has . Then it should use trade to obtain what it needs, exchanging what it has for things it doesn't have. Of course, if a famine occurs, other nations should help provide food.

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is for the good people to do nothing.

One of the things that make war prevention difficult is leaders who lie to mislead the public or other nations.

Breaking a cease-fire is the equivalent of an initiated attack and the first leader to break it should be put in jail by the U.N.

People in general are reluctant to embrace changes; they don't even like to talk about change. Yet, to progress toward peace, some changes need to be made.

posted July 11, 2004 10:16 PM              

There have always been those drawn toward leadership positions who seek to advance their own wealth and power (an the wealth and power of their "group") by fostering war, hatred and fear. We have such leaders in the U.S. (of course anyone is free to disagree with me, but in my own well-researched opinion this is the fact), and there are such leaders among the Islamic people as well. The majority of the people, however, of all nations and cultures, are not filled with hatred by nature. If and when they express it, it is because of particular grievances and because such grievances have been used by leaders to "whip up" the necessary fury to kill.

The first thing to realize is that Islamic fundamentalists - even those who allow themselves to be recruited into terrorism - do not hate us for our freedoms or our ideals, as OUR leaders are portraying. Rather they are angry with us for specific grievances that directly impact their lives, and the terrorist leaders cynically exploit this anger for their own power-hungry ends. The two main grievances that serve to fuel the anger that terrorist leaders feed on are 1) our economic and military interference in their cultures, and 2) our extremely one-sided support of Israel vs. the Palestinians (please, no accusations of anti-semitism, I am of Jewish blood and as far from an anti-semite as you can be.)

Regardless of the merits of these grievances (and I personally think that in some instances they are perfectly warranted ... I sure as heck wouldn't want foreign soldiers on MY soil, or exploiting MY country's natural resources, or bulldozing MY neighbor's homes), it is these things, not irrational ideological hatred of freedom and democracy, that fuel the anger ... and of course once that anger exists, it is fanned and exploited by canny leaders into "holy war." But if the grievances went away, the leaders would have little or no success in recruiting holy warriors. I think that a shift in perspective to recognize this ... not necessarily and specific actions, but a simple shift in perspective ... is the first necessary "practical" step toward conflict resolution that is not based on wiping out the enemy.

Given this shift in perspective, a whole world of possible approaches opens up, and I certainly don't claim to know which of them are "best" or most likely to be successful. A few random thoughts would include things like: 1) HELPING the autocratically run countries move toward democracy, rather than trying to impose it on them. History has shown that as countries and cultures become more prosperous, less ridden with poverty and disease and hunger, they naturally become more democratic. Dictatorships exist when impoverished, desperate people are rallied by martial leaders. Healthy, well-fed people are not so easily led, and will in time become less and less tolerant of oppression. This is how autocratic rulers were toppled in the West (remember the Magna Carta?), not by outside forces sweeping in to "rescue" us from our kings. Humanitarian aid, education, sharing of medical technology, and other initiatives ... both by government and private organizations and individuals ... can in the long run be far more potent political "weapons" against dictatorships and repressive governments than tanks and bombs.

A reassessment of our political alliances toward a fairer stance is another approach. Israel certainly has the right to exist, but so does Paloestine. There are millions of people living in hellholes of refugee camps in abject poverty and humiliation, subject to arbitrary raids, confiscation of homes and property, killings of loved ones who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and so on. No, these conditions do not justify terrorism. But neither does the existence of terrorists justify the ghettoization and repression of an entire people. If our policy in Israel were not so unabashedly one-sided regardles of how hard-line and militant Israeli policy is ... if it simply demonstrated fairness and concern for the legitimate human rights and aspirations of Palestinians as well as Israelis, it would de-fuse and unimaginable amount of anger and resentment ... some of which eventually ends up in terrorist recruitment.

Of course terrorism must be opposed. But the committed ideological terrorists are relatively few in number, and with intelligent planning and international cooperation can be opposed like the criminals they are, rather than by sweeping military actions that are perceived as warfare against an entire culture. If such opposition were coupled with genuine and meaningful initiatives in other areas to weaken the legitimate grievances and support the non-terrorist human beings of these cultures ... well, that combination would be the start of a nonviolent conflict resolution that could change the shape of the world for the better.

These are just some random thoughts, and certainly far more specific planning and looking at details is necessary, but I think it outlines the general shape of how such conflict resolution might be initiated. I think we need more thinking along these lines, and less thinking along the lines of wiping 'em all out.

Regardless of right or wrong, if we direct our energies - and our conscious thoughts - toward destroying our enemies, it is a slam dunk certainty that our enemies will grow, and that their energies will be increasingly single-mindedly directed toward destroying US. That's just reality. And that's a no-win scenario for the entire human species.

Love,
Greg

posted July 11, 2004 10:22 PM              

Brainstorming peace is more fun than just shouting down war!

posted July 11, 2004 10:30 PM              

For now, though,

lioneye - I was putting Meg to be tonight (actually, I still am...she's nursing right now) when I saw a rolled-up old poster of Jase's that said something to the effect of,
"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready
to do violence on their behalf."
- George Orwell
That got me thinking about this post of yours.
I do not begin to have an adequate answer for you. If I did, I would be screaming it to the press, knocking down the doors of governments and committees, making sure that my sure-fire solution was known to all who would hear.

The main thought that strikes me, though, is that people on both (and all) sides probably hold that same sentiment: that the only measure of safety they have against a hostile and destructive world is to be prepared to meet out violence to any all threatening parties.
We see extremists wishing (and working) for our demise.
The "Arab Street" sees a generic West, drunk with power and ravenous for resources, ready to assmilate them or annihilate their ways of thinking and living.
Perhaps China sees a hungry world, raring to take resources and land which they see as theirs.
Some see a cultural fringe prepared to destroy the union which they had always held as sacrosanct.
Others see a cultural fringe inexplicably hostile to their living a normal, American life.
There's hostility everywhere, for those with eyes to see it.
We're like dogs fighting over a corner and some bones, our hackles up and our teeth bared. None will give an inch, for do so is death, or at least a more meagre measure of what we wish.

But, then, what do we have these big d*mn cerebra for? Surely, with those we can manage to dialogue, to think, to consider.
But perhaps that's not enough.
Perhaps we must use our intellect to direct our closed hearts.
Someone's got to make the first move to back down, or we'll stand forever snarling, always in a brawl.

posted July 11, 2004 11:30 PM            

It really gets one thinking and loving life alot more ever day. Known there are others out there feeling the way you do and I just wanted to let you know that this gives me so much hope in our society,that man will evolve into a much lighter place to be someday.

This also get me thinking about a post that was written not to long ago.

Posted by one of our fellow knowflakes Juniperb, Topic: Venus Transit: Global Oneness

These's posting also give me many wonderful insites into human kind and our spiritual and conscious mindset on how we as one can truely evolve evolutionary as a culture.

Truely blessed and filled with so much hope, isn't that what it's all about? Sharing ones believes and making things like this really matter and that alone, creates creative and conscious change.

Filled with much love, thanks again guys!!!

posted July 12, 2004 12:58 AM              

26T, Greg, Prox, after reading through your post, I had a few eureka moments, but also a couple of 'Yeah...BUT' moments...

First of all, in my opinion, the al-Qaida was the "First to strike"...the convoluted path that was followed after that point, whethor it was the right one or not, is certainly debatable, but the fact remains, they were the first to strike. And with great, destructive magnitude too. They're not 'whistling dixie', that much is clear.

It's true that no definative connection between that fatefull day and Saddam have been made, but, connections HAVE been made between his government, and the al-Quaida network. I would not be surprised to learn that he played a very instrumental role in the objective to destroy America, perhaps even inspiring the objective it's very inception. He's THAT kind of person.

Secondly, based on the criteria set forth by Crandall R. Kline Jr., in this book you refer to here, I can't help but acknowledge that getting rid of Saddam was a GOOD thing to do. He offended every one of those principals as a simple matter of course, all those things made up a simple 'day at the office' for him and his government. To have any world leaders like him would be counter-productive to world peace, according to Kline's criteria.

Also, Western government's policies already do reflect much of these ideals, and most certainly American policy does. But, yet they're condemned for having any dealings of trade with the oil rich nations. If a nation cannot aquire enough resources to 'fuel' it's nation, then the common man is the one who feels it. This one opens up a whole other world of discussion, though.

Which brings me to another point. "Nations have to learn to cope with the resources they have, and what they don't have, they have to negotiate with other nations, trading the resources that they ARE rich in. This one has two "Yeah...but"s to it. Firstly, some nations are very poor in national resources of any kind, and have really nothing of value to give them bargening power in the international scene. This one could only work if the world's borders were all redefined, to ensure that each nation had some area rich on resources to bargain with, and provide prosperity to the people. Then, we get into ethnic issues and living space conflicts. Look at Isreal for an example of this. You can't just say..."ok, we're taking this chunk of land from you, and giving it to these guys". It causes people to feel robbed, so they just don't cooperate with that.

I like this one

quote:

---

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is for the good people to do nothing

---

EXACTLY.

And Prox, I think you're suggesting that the right thing to do in response to the attacks on 9/11 would have been...nothing at all. To turn the other cheek. And you're probably right, in fact, I know you're right, in a Christian ideological sense. I just don't think that would have sat well with those who suffered a personal loss that day. We're not angels (yet). We're still human beings. Also, see the point above. That is how many many people feel about it.

Ok, so now that you're in Iraq and up to your eyeballs in it, and there's not much point in playing the "coulda, shoulda, woulda" game. You're there. Period. As far as I can see, the only right thing to do now, is to finish establishing some semblance of normalcy, keep the violence at bay, and then get out and hope it moves ahead on it's own as planned (but, still be willing to offer assistance if called upon).

The only other option, at this point in time, is to bail out now, and let the pieces fall where they may. And that would not be regarded well by the international community. As far as I see it, for the role your country plays in international conflicts, you guys are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

"Why aren't they/we (the US) helping THESE people?! It's awful what's going on there!" Then, when you do go to intervene, it's "What business is it of yours anyway, America?! Get out and mind your own business, would ya!? What are you, the world police?! You think you're so great. Get over yourselves!"

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

posted July 12, 2004 11:30 AM              

quote:

---

Secondly, based on the criteria set forth by Crandall R. Kline Jr., in this book you refer to here, I can't help but acknowledge that getting rid of Saddam was a GOOD thing to do. He offended every one of those principals as a simple matter of course ...

---

• The deaths of over a thousand American and allied troops (so far), and continuing to climb.
• The deaths of MANY thousands of Iraqis who were not guilty of any of Saddam's crimes.
• The loss of the goodwill and trust of a large portion of the world (not because Saddam was removed, but because it was done in a way that asserted America's unilateral will in defiance of overwhelming international opinion). I don't think any of us fully appreciate this latter cost, but it is enormous. For much of this century, America has been admired and trusted as the land of freedom, fairness and opportunity ... but those days are gone. America is now the most feared and hated nation in the world. My daughter, who is now traveling in Europe, has been insulted, discriminated against and threatened in every country she's visited, simply because she's an American. The people doing this are not "Saddam lovers," they are ordinary people who fear and resent a country that uses force to do things it's own way, in its own time, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. The loss that this represents to America, and to the hopes for peace and harmony in the world at large, is so large it cannot be meaningfully calculated.
• As a result of the invasion, the torture scandals, the continued loss of life in the insurgencies against American occupation, the resentment against a handful of government-connected rich corporations profiting by billions of dollars from the "reconstruction" efforts, etcetera, terrorism is a far stronger and more popular movement than ever.

As you say, we are now there, and nothing we can say will change the past. Our task now is to deal with the situation as it exists, and to extricate ourselves as honorably as possible without leaving that nation vulnerable to total chaos and takeover by an even more brutal government than the one that was ousted. But that doesn't mean it is "pointless" to examine our mistakes or acknowledge where we went wrong: nations, like individuals, grow by making mistakes and learning from them. If we cannot see and acknowledge our mistakes, we cannot learn from them ... and will only make MORE mistakes of the same kind in the future.

quote:

---

Summon the heads of the al-Qaida network, or find a liason to communicate with them through, and ASK THEM. What is it you want America to do?

---

posted July 12, 2004 09:51 PM              

Imagine that your own family had an enemy this vicious, an enemy who had already inflicted an brutal hit upon them. Would you not go into commando mode? A president is expected to protect his nation. He is the father and protector, and as testosterone would have it, when faced with the possibility of harm to his people that he's taken an oath to protect, he will go into commando mode. Humans are not the only animal who responds to threat this way. All of the animal kingdom has these same responses built in to the wiring....not to mention that the current president happens to be one of the most feircely defensive and protective signs, Cancer...also known to be one of the most patriotic signs of the zodiac.

Saddam could have spared his countrymen from sustaining alot of destruction if he hadn't been so cowardly and hid out for as long as he did, knowing what his people were being subjected to while the search was on for HIM. But, one thing is certain, a martyr he is NOT. He serves himself, at the expense of his people, always has.

I would have liked to be a fly on the wall when the closed door discussions were taking place to determine what course of action to follow in response to 9/11. I wouldn't imagine the decision to eliminate Saddam was arrived at over night. And I'm sure that every possible chain of thought was followed out to the nth degree. I don't think the president arrived at the decision on his own but rather, it was the arrived at through exhaustive discussion after discussion, with the intellectual think-tank that brain storms along with the president. Saddam was the one person who stood out as the single most biggest cheerleader and supporter of the mission to "KILL AMERICA".

And I think that the fact that no WoMD were found, is only because Saddam was given a great deal of warning beforehand. Of course they weren't found. The man may be evil, but he's not entirely stupid. He wasn't going to allow them to be found, just to have them taken away from him. But, you can bet, if allowed to go unchecked, any WoMD he did have would have been used on America. But, we'll never know that for sure now, because he's been neutered.

And like Randall said, Americans have been glared at, spit at, shouted at while travelling in other countries long before the invasion of Iraq took place.

And so, what to do now? Sit tight and wait, and see where the next hit is. Hope it's not your town, your office building, your subway, or for that matter, anyone you care about.

You've been bad, now take your lumps. Is that the idea? You'll be singing a different song if this really does happen to you and the people you care about. You'll be saying to your governement DO SOMETHING, DAMM YOU!

posted July 13, 2004 01:18 AM              

Everybody is eithor all FOR, or all AGAINST, and I don't think something as complicated as this can possibly be that simple. I see people jumping on philosphical band-wagons, and falling into mob mentality, and that...is disconcerting.

This is not true of everyone, some do play both sides, considering the good, but noticing the bad too, and all in all being fair in their thinking, but this type of person appears to be rather rare. Emotions take over, and it's no longer a cerebral affair. Then, you might as well not have a brain at all, as it ceases to function at that point.

And I find it odd that many people who idealize love, forgiveness, compassion, understanding, etc, have none of that to offer the man who is in the perilous position of leading your nation. So, that's only doled out to the enemy then? That's not fair thinking, especially considering the sins of said enemies.

posted July 13, 2004 01:26 AM              

I respect your opinions, but I disagree with them strongly. There are certainly some fundamentalists - Al Qaida members like you qote, who have3 been recruited and propagandized into zealous fervor - who rabidly hate Americans. Are there not many Americans who rabidly hate Islamic fundamentalists, or even all Muslims? Every front has a back, the bigger the front, the bigger the back, and there are no exceptions to this rule. But the majority of citizens, in both their region of the world and ours, do not blindly hate. Painting "the enemy" in those terms is simply standard "demonization" propaganda that is business as usual on both sides of all wars throughout history. It's easier to kill folks if you can believe them to be subhuman beasts driven by crazed irrational hatred. The majority of Islamic citizens have genuine grievances, not blind hatred. Proxieme's post on He's Not Partisan, He's My Brother does a good job of outlining the major grievances.

When you ask

quote:

---

Imagine that your own family had an enemy this vicious, an enemy who had already inflicted an brutal hit upon them. Would you not go into commando mode?

---

And when you say

quote:

---

I would have liked to be a fly on the wall when the closed door discussions were taking place to determine what course of action to follow in response to 9/11. I wouldn't imagine the decision to eliminate Saddam was arrived at over night. And I'm sure that every possible chain of thought was followed out to the nth degree.

---

I can certianly understand why you would hold these views -- they are the views that have been overwhelmingly "sold" to us by the administration and the mass media. But I do believe that a little independent research from sources not committed to defending the President's policies will show that, at the very least, there are some major unanswered questions in them.

Love,
Greg

posted July 13, 2004 12:39 PM            

quote:

---

The problem here, as I see it, is a SYSTEMIC problem in the American government, especially the executive branch, in which the revolving door between mega-rich corporations and the halls of government have all but erased the boundaries and turned our country into an instrument for extending corporate power. IMHO, of course

---

posted July 13, 2004 02:06 PM            

I wait with bated breath to hear from the 'lefties' in here - it seems Gregory was the only one that had anything resembling a plan.

posted July 13, 2004 02:09 PM              

And, whethor it occured before 9/11, or after, I still believe the decision to eliminate Saddam from the world scene was arrived at after much deliberation.

And as for Afghanastan, that's where most of their training camps were, under the wing of the Talaban. And the Talaban was a very oppressive, cruel governing body, so getting them out of the picture was a MUST if we are to be advocates of simple human rights at all, especially those of women.

quote:

---

the President's immediate first reaction to 9/11 was to instruct his analysts to try to find a link between the WTC bombings and Iraq, even though there was no evidence of such a link, then or since

---

I do need to read-up on the Isreal/Palestine situation though. Can you recommend a link to a reliable, non-partisan source of information?

As for systematic flaws within the structuring of you government....that has a nameless, faceless culprit - the result of years and years of progressively biased policy making. We have the same problem here in Canada.

posted July 13, 2004 04:53 PM            

It seems to be rather non-partisan, though I haven't read it all.

I doubt you could classify her as 'non-partisan' but if you are interested in a more personal assessment of the most recent events there, I'd recommend checking out some of Starhawk's writings on the matter. She is Jewish with family in Israel and has spent alot of time in Palestine, bearing witness to the plight of the people there and writing extensively about her experiences there.

Starhawk's Israel/Palestine Page

Her writings convey the human faces behind the story in a way that the BBC can't.

Have you seen the wall that Sharon is building? They say it's for protection but it appears to be a blatant grab for more Palestinian land and would effectively end any hope of a two-state solution. It's as if they are constructing a massive concentration camp.

posted July 13, 2004 05:32 PM              

I want to thank you to bring this subject to discussion...and I promisse not to talk about Love...at least here

quote:

---

A Brief Outline of the History of the Palestine-Israel Conflict

In 1947, the United Nations Partition Plan sought to divide the former nation of Palestine into two nations to allow the Zionist settlers (Jews) to have a nation.

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, there was a feeling that certain reparations should be made to Jews. Even though the Zionist settlers made up only 30% of the population, and just over 6% of the land ownership, they were given 57% of Palestine in this plan.

A significant reason for this inequity was that the United States were an aggressive player in the move towards partition - and there was (and still is) a significant number of Jewish voters in the USA.

Even though the Zionists achieved a good settlement from the UN Plan, their immediate reaction was to launch a reign of military terror, in order to seize the remaining Arab sections of Palestine. 750,000 Palestinians were driven out of their own country, in an act that was clearly in contravention of the UN Charter.

The United Nations Resolution 194 (1948), called on Israel to allow the Palestinians back onto their land. In spite of the resolution being repassed 28 times, Israel is still in violation of this resolution.

At the end of the 1948 war the Zionists had grabbed nearly 80% of the former Palestine.

In 1967, Israel, in a military action supported by the United States, attacked the remaining parts of Palestine, and finally took the whole of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. They also seized the Golan Heights which belonged to Syria.

From 1967 to 1982, Israel's military government demolished 1,338 Palestinian homes on the West Bank. Over this period, more than 300,000 Palestinians were detained without trial by Israeli security forces.

The occupation and creation of settlements in Palestine is in violation of the Geneva Convention Article 49, which states that an occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

It is clear therefore that the continued Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, West Bank and the Golan Heights is in contravention of International Law.

The continued violence and ethnic cleansing can only be described as "state terrorism".

The solution to the Palestine-Israel Conflict will be a major part of the battle to rid the world of terrorism.

If the United States fails to force Israel to give back the Palestiniam homelands that they stole, then they will have failed in their "War against Terrorism".

---

For a more detailed explanation click on "The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict". This document has been produced by 'Jews for Justice in The Middle East'. http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

posted July 13, 2004 05:43 PM              

For many historians and intellectuals the atomic bombs used against Japan on the 2nd WW, were the biggest terrorist attack already practiced until today. More than 170 thousand civilians lost their lives in an attack that didn't have as objective to win the war, but to do a demonstration of force to the Soviet Union.

The UN, doesn't know what is terrorism. Kofi Annan call it "a phenomenon ".
After all, what is terrorism for a nation, can be a fight for freedom for other.

In the moment, the problem (which?) it’s to know(how and when?)which weapons we can use to attack (where?) the enemy (who?).

The "enemy" is new and nuclear weapons are useless because this is a "war of everything": religious, classes, politics, geographical, ideological.

The western culture cultivated,(since XIX century with the colonialist expansion) a certain superiority presumption in relation to the east.
In our minds,(Western people, European, Christian, Anglo-Saxon) our civilization is rational, developed and balanced. A civilization where the dynamism, the optimism and the diversity governs the creative capacity to progress and to transform.

The occident, besides those noble virtues, would have the kindness and the Christian altruism to not compete, but to share the "divine gifts of wealth" with the underdeveloped oriental people, static in time.

The east would be barbaric and fearsome, miserable and primitive and "we", people of the West, with our arms open would give them the benefits of civilization to mitigate their millenarian suffering and to rescue the latent humanity's feeling that could exist in their hearts.

Excellent rhetoric that translated means: the occident should occupy, subdue, pacify, explore and cultivate through cruel wars an image of power and control that allowed the exploration of those wealth...in benefit of the occident of course!

Now it's time to pay the bill...

My second question is: “Who are the terrorists?”

We can mention the classic: al-Qaeda, the Palestinian, the IRA, the Basque, Hamas, Al Fatah etc, etc, etc.

At the same time, looking through another perspective, some people may believe that the Basque, the IRA, the Palestinians, the Chechens, are not terrorists, they are people struggling with self-determination for what they believe.

And the Indians’ rights ?
Maybe they are entitled of asking that we evacuated our houses because 500 years ago they were the true owners.

Other groups believe that the true terrorists are the governments of the western potencies that invaded several countries like India, Palestine, South Africa, etc, etc, etc,...that influencing the fall of legitimately elected regimes; that are omitted before the misfortunes of the African people; that deny access of pharmaceutical technology to AIDS’s pacients of poor countries; that invented, armed and trained men and governments in the Middle East; that supported dictatorial regimes -the list is immense, varied and sophisticated: Pinochet(Chile), Videla (Argentina), Noriega (Panama), Papa Doc (Haiti), Sukarno (Indonesia), Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines)etc,etc. -just seeking for their own interest .

...Everyday of my life I envy people that go direct to the crucial point... for being exactly the opposite of these people I write immense posts...

Now, I’ll try to answer your question.

The best form to combat terrorism is to attack the causes.

If the world just arrest, judge, condemn and execute them, others will be born, more angry and smart. With their hate quadruplicated, this hunt will continue indefinitely.

With the death of Bin Laden, he will become a martyr, a hero and a lot of others " Bin Ladens" will appears. So, this is not the solution, especially because he is just the most visible face of a deeper problem.

Of course the prison of all terrorists is indispensable and urgent, yet, the fundamental and what nobody talks about, it’s how to extirpate its causes.

Therefore the first thing that we should do it’s try to understand the connection among the “war of terror" and the invasion of Iraq. In the center of that connection it is the political crisis of Saudi Arabia.

At least for me, it’s not that easy to approach this problem using the same criteria, rules or measures.
Nor it’s easy to indicate a medicine or a placebo.

Whatever the answer, it must at least satisfy a moral truism: If we propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree that this principle apply to us as well.

Love
Jackie

PS: Greg, thanks for being here and thank you for share your brilliant ideas with us

posted July 14, 2004 01:36 AM              

Harpyr, thank you for that link to Starhawk's wonderful page. Her writings are so poignant and insightful ... and a wonderful example of people of different cultures focusing on finding a path forward to peace, instead of one-sidedly fostering rage and hatred. She shows the human side of what's happening there, in a very moving way.

This also illustrates something that those of us in the US are rarely shown ... namely that all Israelis do not share the militant aggression toward the Palestinians that the country's military and political leadership does. Ther are many, many Israelis who fiercely decry the actions agains the Palestinians, and would like nothing better than an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied lands and peaceful coexistance with an independent Palestinian state. But here in America we are generally led to believe that if we criticize or fail to support the actions of the Israeli government no matter what, then that makes us anti-semitic or "against the Jews."

A little bit like disagreeing with the U.S. President's policies makes us "anti-American," I suppose.

Lioneyes, I would not go so far as to say that the Palestinian issue is the only cause of anti-American sentiment in the Arab world, but it's a VERY big one, probably the single biggest one. And you're 100% right about Saudi Arabia, which is where a huge amount of terrorist activity originates. But here's the same propaganda problem in reverse: we are shown a picture of the Saudis as our friends and allies (although the Saudi regime is an autocratic and often brutal one whose political system is COMPLETELY out of sync with democaratic values) ... but they are heavy investors in the U.S., business partners with many present and former administration officials, and so on; therefore they are deemed to be in our "strategic interest." Nothing whatsoever to do with freedom and democracy, it's all about money (and oil).

Human beings CAN work productively toward peace with each other, if the effort is approached with mutual goodwill and sincere desire. But when conflict is approached with the attitude that "might makes right" is the only acceptable strategy, then peace is indeed impossible.

posted July 14, 2004 03:09 AM            

Harpyr - I've seen what the BBC has to say regarding the conflict, and I do recall they did seem to present a fairly factual account of events, etc...haven't been there in a few years, I'll go check it out again.

Jacq - not sure where you got that blurb, but it leaves out some truly pertinent facts. I'll address only the most glaring for the sake of keeping the thread from becoming a novel, then paste a link that presents IMO a more balanced view of the entire situation instead of one that only portrays the Israelis as evil land-grabbing dominators.

quote:

---

In 1967, Israel, in a military action supported by the United States, attacked the remaining parts of Palestine, and finally took the whole of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. They also seized the Golan Heights which belonged to Syria.

---

Supported is hardly the word I'd use to characterize the US' stance. Anyway -

"In May 1967, Egypt and Syria took a number of steps which led Israel to believe that an Arab attack was imminent. On May 16, Nasser ordered a withdrawal of the United Nations Emergency Forces (UNEF) stationed on the Egyptian-Israeli border, thus removing the international buffer between Egypt and Israel which had existed since 1957. On May 22, Egypt announced a blockade of all goods bound to and from Israel through the Straits of Tiran. Israel had held since 1957 that another Egyptian blockade of the Tiran Straits would justify Israeli military action to maintain free access to the port of Eilat. Syria increased border clashes with Israel along the Golan Heights and mobilized its troops.

The U.S. feared a major Arab-Israeli and superpower confrontation and asked Israel to delay military action pending a diplomatic resolution of the crisis. On May 23, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson publicly reaffirmed that the Gulf of Aqaba was an international waterway and declared that a blockade of Israeli shipping was illegal. In accordance with U.S. wishes, the Israeli cabinet voted five days later to withhold military action.

The U.S., however, gained little support in the international community for its idea of a maritime force that would compel Egypt to open the waterway and it abandoned its diplomatic efforts in this regard. On May 30, President Nasser and King Hussein signed a mutual defense pact, followed on June 4 by a defense pact between Cairo and Baghdad. Also that week, Arab states began mobilizing their troops. Against this backdrop, Nasser and other Egyptian leaders intensified their anti-Israel rhetoric and repeatedly called for a war of total destruction against Israel.

Arab mobilization compelled Israel to mobilize its troops, 80 percent of which were reserve civilians. Israel feared slow economic strangulation because long-term mobilization of such a majority of the society meant that the Israeli economy and polity would be brought to a virtual standstill. Militarily, Israeli leaders feared the consequences of absorbing an Arab first strike against its civilian population, many of whom lived only miles from Arab-controlled territory. Incendiary Arab rhetoric threatening Israel's annihilation terrified Israeli society and contributed to the pressures to go to war.

Against this background, Israel launched a pre-emptive strike against Egypt on June 5, 1967 and captured the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. Despite an Israeli appeal to Jordan to stay out of the conflict, Jordan attacked Israel and lost control of the West Bank and the eastern sector of Jerusalem. Israel went on to capture the Golan Heights from Syria. The war ended on June 10."

For more info http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/sixdaywar.html

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

Ok, in 1973, on Yom Kippur, a day when the entire State of Israel is closed down (at the time, that included radio stations, airports, everything) due to a jewish law that states you must refrain from any sort of work on the sabbath, which apparently Yom Kippur falls on, Syria and Egypt attacked Israel - unprovoked (meaning Israel did nothing in the period immediately leading up to the attack) - purposely on Yom Kippur because they knew communications would be hindered thus delaying a response to the attack. The government had to drop leaflets to notify the public of what was going on and rally them to Israel's defense (since most of Israel's military are reserves). Now, if we attacked, say, Mecca, during the Hajj...well, we'd be likened to, well, Hitler... I just bring that up because both sides are equally guilty - each hold equal part responsibility for the crisis, no matter how one side or the other chooses to present it.

I found the site below to be very interesting; just as the BBC bit on the crisis has a slight leftist Pro-Palestine lean, but tries to stay true to the facts, this site has a slight pro-Israel lean but tries to stay true to the facts as well. Between both sites I think you may actually get a really decent idea not only of the facts and history, but just what a horrific mire it has all become.
http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/index.html

posted July 14, 2004 12:21 PM              

quote:

---

Supported is hardly the word I'd use to characterize the US' stance.

---

quote:

---

"...this site has a slight pro-Israel lean but tries to stay true to the facts as well."

---

Historically there have been terrible things done by both Arabs and Israelis in this tragic conflict, and there continue to be such atrocities on both sides to this day. These intractable conflicts continue because there is a small core of militant Israelis who believe that Palestine has no right to exist AT ALL, and a small core of militant Arabs who believe that Israel has no right to exist AT ALL. As long as either of these factions has any influence whatsoever over their populations, peace is genuinely impossible, because both factions are committed irrevocably to the proposition that the only acceptable outcome is the total elimination of the other. Sadly, it is the radical extremists of both sides who have the loudest voices; and as a result most of the debate over the Israeli-Palestinian crisis hearkens back to these radical positions (even when the debaters claim to be seeking "peace") ... and genuine peace WILL be impossible as long as this remains the case.

TODAY the vast majority of both Palestinians and Israelis are innocent of such "final solution" intentions toward the other, and wish for nothing more than peaceful coexistence in fairness and human dignity ... but the legacy and the intractable stance of the hardliners make that impossible. Today millions of Palestinians live and die in abject poverty and hopelessness in "refugee camps" where they are subject to arbitrary curfews, bulldozing of their homes, killing of their children, harrassment and separation from their lands and livelihoods, and so on, while the Israeli military routinely raids and bombs entire communities to get at a particular individual they want to assassinate, with no more than a shrug of the shoulders over the "collateral casualties." At the same time innocent Israeli schoolchildren, families and others who have no guilt or involvement whatsoever are subject to being blown to pieces out of the blue by terrorist suicide bombers.

In this ghastly situation, no government that arbitrarily supports and sanctions one side of this conflict - financially, militarily and morally - while ignoring or blaming the other, can claim to be a force for "peace" or a supporter of "humanitarian values" in the region. As long as the United States fails to deal fairly with both sides, and to DEMAND an end to aggressive violence as a precondition to American financial and military support -- it will continue to be a target of hatred throughout the Arab world, as well as throughout much of the rest of the world that sees this situation in a clearer context than the black-and-white "Israelis good, Palestinians bad" picture we are mainly shown. There is much we CAN do to support genuine peace in the region ... and become heroes in the process ... but not without a shift in policy that emphasizes objective fairness, holding both sides to the SAME standards as a pre-requisite for any financial assistance, and a genuine humanitarian concern for ALL human beings in the region, rather than unquestioning and unconditional support for Israeli hardliners while meting out empty lip service about peace to the Palestinians.

posted July 15, 2004 11:49 PM              

I don't recall the details, but the message was clear, they didn't want to have peace, and they didn't want the US to get involved in making them accept peace.