Preserved Topic: What are your thoughts on this... (Page 1 of 3)

I am sure a lot of you have read (or heard) this already, what do you think?
CNN

edit: damn link

[This message has been edited by Prospero (edited 02-27-2002).]

What do I think about which part?

...American company polling Muslim nations?
Not surprising - Americans poll everybody for everything.

...thinking America is 'ruthless and arrogant'?
Not surprising - America (not Americans) is ruthless and arrogant.

...thinking attack on 11 Sept. was not morally justified?
Not surprising - it wasn't. Most people in the world see attacks on civilians as unjustifiable.

...thinking attack on Afghanistan was not morally justified?
Not surprising - it wasn't. Most people in the world see attacks on civilians as unjustifiable.

...thinking Arabs were not responsible for 11 Sept. attacks?
Not surprising - US won't take responsibility for it's own terror, why should anybody else? We're the 'world leader' after all.

...cited a bias against Palestine?
Not surprising - US is biased against Palestinians.

To sum up, in two word, "not surprising".
Not at all...

mobrul

^^^ 100% ACK.

Well today in Biology we watched a video, on the coverage on the san fransisco earth quake of 89. And I was terrified of what I saw relentlessly. It got me thinking about 911 and comparitive they were almost the same... Except of 1 person. Osama Bin Ladin, I use to not want to kill him, but now if I could just strangle him and beat the ever living shit out of him almost to death, and then show him how much of a fool he is, then decapitate him, then I would be a happier person. Fuck the hypocrites on the other side of the world that hate us for no reason. Fuck hitler for exterminating the jews for no reason. Fuck the stupid assholes that think its right to kill people and then hate us for no damn reason. Sorry if I wandered off the topic a bit... I think the majority which doesn't favor us are all blind to what really happened...

edit: I agree with mobrul on most of what he said...



[This message has been edited by InSiDeR (edited 02-27-2002).]

edit: fuck it, nevermind.

[This message has been edited by taxon (edited 02-27-2002).]

C'mon Taxon, I am interested in what you have to say...

InSiDeR, please tell me what good it would do, besides make you happy, to torture and maim Osama Bin Laden. Do you honestly think that you could possibly educate him in the ways of life and convince him that he is a fool? Unjustified, ill conceived thoughts that you just displayed is the reason that there is so much hatred towards americans, and one of the main reasons for the attacks of 9/11. Please go into detail about why the "stupid assholes" are hypocrites and have no right to hate the U.S. And last but definitely not least, please tell me how people who do not favor the U.S are blind to what happened.

Did anyone catch Hard Talk (i saw it on BBC) with Noam Chomsky regarding these events?

Quite interesting...

Are you going to let us in on it or do we have to all sit here in a cold sweat waiting?

lol...

edit: hmm.. maybe not. n/m.



[This message has been edited by Raptor (edited 02-28-2002).]

insider... some bits you said make some sense.
and maybe the "killing osama would make you happy" bit makes sense to you too.
but the "no reason" bit...
john lennon was (more or less) shot for 'no reason'. the guy was insane, he lacked the ability to 'reason'.
osama is not insane. hitler wasn't either.
they had their reasons.
now i can tell you, i don't know all their reasons, but i know they had them.
and i would have to say that i am even more blind than "the majority that doesn't favour us".
maybe they actually have a better idea than me as to what really happened.
maybe they actually have a better idea than you as to what really happened.
a different perspective is not always a wrong one.
thinking so is ignorance.


- - r e i t s m a - -
(tifkab)

[This message has been edited by reitsma (edited 02-28-2002).]

mobrul - "Hey 0\/erLo4D"
0\/erLo4D - "Yes, mobrul?"
mobrul - "Uh, please excuse my ignorance, but, what does 'ACK' mean?"
0\/erLo4D -"...."

[to be continued]

Sorry to kept you waiting

Well Chomsky looked at it from a rather interesting view. Don't ask me to exactly quote it all, but the general notion was something along what mobrul posted.

---------
...thinking attack on Afghanistan was not morally justified?
According to Chomsky the bombings was not even justified according to International Security Council (if i remembered correctly), and was in fact (according to international law) not an action of war, but an action of revenge. And as such a power display, showing that noone fucks with the US. No matter what international law says.

He also used another anology: Apparently much funding and planning for the IRA derives from Boston (US), so it would make as much sense for the UK to bomb Boston as it did for the US to bomb Afghanistan. Now that's a scary thought...

...thinking Arabs were not responsible for 11 Sept. attacks?
He was not sure that Usama and his crew were even responsible for the attacks. He said it could as well be that Usama's trying to take credit for the atrocities the attacks created and improve his position in the extremist hierarchy. He would also obtain a martyr status and prove his (oh so twisted) point if he was to be killed by the US.


Before the flamewar begin, let me state that this is what *Chomsky* said. I have not checked any facts, but he seems like a well-informed guy (although a bit biased against the US).

If you get the chance, tune in if he's on TV. Quite an interesting guy, with lots of mindboggling logic in his reasoning.


BTW: Dito that Prospero

[This message has been edited by Nimraw (edited 02-28-2002).]

Prospero,

I don't recall Insider making any allusions to that fact that torturing and maiming Bin Laden would educate him. Why would anyone try to teach him that what he does is wrong? It's not about teaching him, it's about hurting him.

What good would killing Bin Laden do? Well he sure as hell wouldn't be able to hurt anyone else now would he. That's plenty good if you ask me.

This helps me understand the Arab world's perspective better:

Me against my brother...
Me and my brother against my cousins...
Me, my brother, and my cousins against everyone else.

I know this is the way most of the countries in that region operate. This is not exclusive to Arab countries but it explains a lot of the sentiment I see in that article.

This part really bothers me, "Sixty-one percent said they did not believe Arab groups carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks." There can be no hope for reform with this level of denial.

Also the fact that it is a real case of "the pot calling the kettle black", i.e. record on slavery, treatment of women, medievalism, abject hatred of the Jews, etc.

Humanity as a whole is just one big uncivilized mess of hormone induced animalistic selfishness.

The entire wolrd is constantly running around beating on their chests like apes and pissing on the trees to mark their territory.

At least apes aren't claiming to be a more highly evolved species...

But we are a higher species. The problem is that we refuse to live up to our potential.

St. Seneca: I don't recall making any allusions that InSiDeR thought torturing and maiming Osama Bin Laden would educate him. Those are two different questions. The first question is referring to the statement that he would like to "strangle him and beat the ever living shit out of him almost to death". And the second referring to the statement "and then show him how much of a fool he is".

I am not trying to attack your opinions InSiDeR, you have your right to them. I am interested in understanding why you have the opinions that you do because they are so drastically different than my own.

Bugimus, wouldn't you agree that unity for a common belief is prominent in all cultures. I do not believe that there is no hope for reform so long as there are in fact people who believe in the truth (the approximate 18%). I think a lot of the people who do not believe that Arab groups carried out the attacks are in a way, trying to protect themselves and their countries. They have seen, or believe to have seen, so much conflict, hatred, oppression among each other, as well as the international communities. Being a victim is much easier than dealing with the truth.

Unfortunately, I missed Hard Talk with Chomsky pertaining to this issue. He has a knack for considering a lot of questions and situations that people are not willing to ask or consider. While I do not agree with his opinions all the time, I find what he has to say extremely interesting. I will have to check if it will be replayed anytime.

quote:

---

But we are a higher species

---

The fuck we are.

Our whole problem is that we think we are.

But at it's root our posturing and dung hurling is no more 'evolved' or 'enlightened' than any other species.

Our notions of 'god' and our ability to create stories on which to base our self-importance is no sign of being a higher species...it just means we've found more ways to express the same mentality.

The very fact that we're discussing whether or not we're a higher species proves that we are. Even on the most materialistic level we are the highest form of life on the planet. If you're just bummed that we use our higher abilities to royally screw up ourselves and our environment, then you've got no argument from me.

>>The very fact that we're discussing whether or not we're a higher species proves that we are.

Not to be argumentative, but white mice and dolphins around the world could be doing that very thing right now, and we wouldn't know it.

But they aren't

ah.. so may i assume you're fairly fluent in dolphin?

*squeek*
*squeak*
i am totally fluent in dolphin, and those morons talk about little more than the weather, and where they're going for the summer.
mice i'm not too sure about, but if dolphins are anything to go by...

- - r e i t s m a - -
(tifkab)

Douglas Adams (RIP) was right all along!!

Bugimus - there are species that have survived for far longer than humans have been alive.

There are species that have formed extremely complex societies that work together for the survival of the whole entity as opposed to self gain.

There are species that have been shown to communiate in complex and highly effective manners.

There are species who have done these things without causing inconceivable amounts of damage to their environment.

The fact that we're sitting here discussing whether or not we're a higher species is just more proof of how selfinvolved we are as a species.

The fact that *our* science, religion, and philosophy point to us being the higher species again only proves our inflated self image.




[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 03-01-2002).]

...of course, the *our* religion bit pointing to us could be realigned to *God's* religion pointing to us as an instrument of worship for Him...
Of course with this perspective, the simple *fact* that God gave man the job to look after His planet - all other earthly beings under man, the argument would be solved.
or, perhaps, shifted to another endless religion debate.
woo hoo!


ok - for those who need it spelt slower - i'm not looking for a theological debate, merely pointing out how one's religion changes (or should change) one's view on many different subjects, such as mankind's purpose and 'superiority' on earth.

- - r e i t s m a - -
(tifkab)

[This message has been edited by reitsma (edited 03-01-2002).]

"There are species that have formed extremely complex societies that work together for the survival of the whole entity as opposed to self gain."

So everyone living in subsistence, where no one is ever entitled to anything extra, no games, no vocations, no computers, no television, no cars - unless assigned to everyone - no matter how hard one works for it, or how qualified they are, or how much they benifit society? Yeah... thats *almost* civilized. Except by 'almost', I mean definately, and 'civilized', I mean prehistoric.


"There are species that have been shown to communiate in complex and highly effective manners."

Growl once for yes, and thrice for no? We haven't proven any other species have developed effective languages, and its generally accepted that most species of animals can only communicate on a very simple level. They don't have conversations about how another animals day went, or which stocks are doing good, just simple crys for help, or calls which gather the younger animals, and mating calls.


"There are species who have done these things without causing inconceivable amounts of damage to their environment.'

Ok...? How many animals have developed the technology to sustain their own life in any climate, anywhere in the world? How many have systems of transportation that allows them to travel quickly to another city? country? continent? Do any animals have the ingenuity to use the environment made available to them to create a better life for themselves and their children?

Under similar circumstances (being: *if* animals were really as developed as humans) animals would use and abuse the environment as much as humans. Lacking the required intelligence to do so definately doesn't make them a higher form of life.


"The fact that we're sitting here discussing whether or not we're a higher species is just more proof of how selfinvolved we are as a species."

Sure, but we're a self-involved ADVANCED species


"The fact that *our* science, religion, and philosophy point to us being the higher species again only proves our inflated self image."

I can't say much for religion.. I don't belive in any. and philosophers? I don't believe them either. Science however doesn't point to us being a higher species, its used to prove what we as humans already knew, and to explore ourselves and the world we live in. If animals understood science, they'd use it against us.


Now back to the issue of this thread. I completely agree with what was said by mobrul on every point but one:

"...thinking Arabs were not responsible for 11 Sept. attacks?
Not surprising - US won't take responsibility for it's own terror, why should anybody else? We're the 'world leader' after all."

If you call terror - helping the country through donations, and human aid more than any other country in the world would ever even think about. Even while fighting a war, they still did as much as possible to help the innocent civillians caught in the middle. What the US did wasn't terror, they were ensuring the safety of all people here in North America, because for the first time, the terrorists hit home, they moved the battlefield to this side of the ocean. What was done was terrible, and maybe inhuman. But its better that it was done than to have all people living in fear of terrorists killing them in their homes, or work. What they did was move the fighting from our side of the ocean, to theirs. EVERY SINGLE PERSON that died, and everyone that will die in Afghanistan or any other country which supports these terrorists, is 100% the fault of these terrorists and their actions. Having the US retalliate through military action was not only foreseeable, but it was a scientific certainty, and regardless of who was in power in the US, or which party they represent, the same choices would have been made. The people would revolt, and overthrow a government for making them any differently.

But asides from that, we'll assume that the actions the US takes are terrorism. The US doesn't say that they didn't commit the actions, they try to justify them and claim that "they arn't terrorism". These polls showed that 61% of Muslims didn't think that it was an Arab organization who planned out, and carried out the september 11th crimes. Even with the overwhelming evidence, and enough circumstancial proof, these people are still in denial. This question wasn't about taking responcibility, all it did was show that these people either didn't know what actually happened, or were conviced by their Tyrant leaders that these acts were carried out as the will of their God.

Patriotism is a double edged sword, because there's generally two routes to take with it. There's the blind loyalty ("America rocks, everyone else sucks and you suck if you dissagree with me"), and there's the more intelligent, open minded route ("America rocks but it isn't the greatest country in the world and we probably have more inner problems than any other country in the world... nevermind our nose-ing in on others' business.")

Unfortunately, the latter is often seen as being unpatriotic in and of itself (ala the double edged sword part).

It's also difficult to find a proper position on this whole mess and still retain some form of patriotism and actual intelligence. Being, I guess there's no better route than the most direct.

Am I a patriotic person? Yes, I am. I believe that a country strives on the support of it's citizens, and without that, the government will fail. Being patriotic doesn't always mean blind, however, because I often times find and point out (even make the subject of conversation) the faults in our government. We aren't perfect, and it's kinda foolish to expect a government, a species for that matter, to be so.

Now, turning to 911... Osama is a target. And by target, I mean a unified enbodiment of all of the hatred and evil in this whole conflict... and the only reason he's deemed the title is for the simple reason that we, as Americans, were bloodlusting the first couple weeks after 9/11. We needed someone to hate, because we can't hate something as spread out as 'Terrorist Factions'. We couldn't say, "Alright, now we hate everyone evil.... EVEN MORE!!!"... we needed a unified whipping boy, and we found him in Osama.

To clarify, I beleive that he did mastermind a majority of the attacks, perhaps even this one... does he need to be punished for his actions? Of course, just as everyone else that ever picked up a bomb and waltzed into a building of innocent people and detonated themselves.

However, I don't believe that we really went out of our way to hit civilian targets. Hell we dropped notice after notice, food ration after food ration to try and prove to the civilians that we were, in fact, not trying to 'up the other guy' or 'exact revenge on their people for the loss of ours'. What we did is seek out those that have been linked to being involved with the training, the manufacturing and the masterminding of terrorist acts... and turned *them* into dust in the wind. Were there civilian losses? Of course! It's a friggin' war! It happens! Again, was it intentional? I don't believe so.

Insider has only proved my point (no bad to you mate, just using you as an example). We were (and for some part, still are) bloodlusting. We feel violated for having such things happen to us, just as every victim does. Therefore and then such, we want to exact revenge.

I think we did a good enough job keeping things to a minimum as far as cruelty towards innocents. But then the polls taken in that country are biased to themselves, just as our polls are to us! They have a certain amount of patriotism too, after all. It's expected, it's life, it's the status quo.

I know there's more I want to say... but I don't really feel like bogging everyone else down with a multichaptered thesis on how I believe this and that and blah blah blah.

Therefore and thensuch, I stand down from my soap box and continue my regularly scheduled programming: they've got lesbian cousin strippers on Jerry Springer tonight!

--njuice42--

P.S. Anyone who thinks that we're different from dung beetles is dead wrong. Though they may be shaped in the form of a BMW or a top-of-the-line computer generated Photoshop document, it's all essentially the same ball of poo.

edit: Signature doesn't exactly fit for this post, forgot to uncheck the little box thinggie...

[This message has been edited by njuice42 (edited 03-01-2002).]

>However, I don't believe that we really went out of our way to hit civilian targets.

Which is of course the reason why the US government has such an open information politic on Afghanistan and what happens there.


> Hell we dropped notice after notice, food ration after food ration to try and prove to the civilians that we were, in fact, not trying > to 'up the other guy' or 'exact revenge on their people for the loss of ours'.

Please excuse those civilians! They are so stupid they cannot even see that you are bombing their country to help them.


Beauty is only skin deep - ugliness goes to the bone.

quote:

---

"There are species that have been shown to communiate in complex and highly effective manners."

Growl once for yes, and thrice for no? We haven't proven any other species have developed effective languages, and its generally accepted that most species of animals can only communicate on a very simple level. They don't have conversations about how another animals day went, or which stocks are doing good, just simple crys for help, or calls which gather the younger animals, and mating calls.

---

Research with chimps, gorillas and parrots have shown that they are perfectly capable of communicating (often quite complex information) - the real difference is our ability to produce speech which is a secondary consequence of our move to full bipedalism and a more meat based diet which began around 1.8 million years ago. Its a very intersting ability that has allowed us to do some amazing things but it says nothing about the communication abilities of other species (and it seems a little anthrocentric of us to use it as a criteria for assessing which species is 'higher' - a subjective and bankrupt concept in itself and one which, hopefully, went to the wall in evolutionary theory decades ago).

Communicating with dolphins is still difficult (I suspect the are having too much fun to bother) and I was intrigued a few years back to hear that they are flying gorillas (who knew sign language) out to Hawaii to see if they could be taught to communicate directly with dolphins (however, I've never heard anything more from this).

Emps

Dan,
When I said "US won't take responsibility for their own terror..." I wasn't simply addressing the immediate issue at hand (though it too had elements of terror). One action does not terrorism make. One action could be a mistake, a case of bad judgement. Not nice, but forgivable.
I was addressing a long list of atrocities far outdoing the results of 11 Sept, however horrible that was.
I was addressing (among many other things too numerous for this, or any single post or article):
[in no particular order except as they flow from my memory]

-giving smallpox infected blankets to Native Americans under the guise of a humanitarian assistance.
-slavery.
-lynchings and Jim Crow laws.
-Reagan illegally giving support to the contras of Nicaragua.
-supporting, giving money and military to a government called the worst human rights offender in the world...many many years in a row - Columbia.
-propping non-democratic, authoritarian regimes in Jordon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, etc.
-supporting Turkey's oppression of the Kurds.
-supporting Israel's oppression of the Palestinians.
-the overthrow and assassination of the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende.
-COINTELPRO.
-installing and supporting a murderous regime in Indonesia.
-police brutality in our urban (read:colored, black, African-American, whatever) streets. A man (black man, urban setting) is stopped by cops. He reached into his back pocket for his wallet and gets shot to death. He is unarmed. The cops say, "we thought he might have had a gun". White folks, imagine yourself in that situation. That is terror.
-incouraging Saddam Hussein to use chemical weapons to gas the Kurdish people in the north of Iraq. (That was before he was an 'official' bad guy. He was still a bad guy, but he was 'our' bad guy...so he was a good guy.)
-policies that have lead to the deaths of over 1 million civilians in Iraq, the whole time strengthening their horrible dictator.
-support for aparteid in South Africa.
-supporting the execution of environmental activists in Nigeria.
-hiding and protecting wanted terrorists (like, blowing up civilian jetliners type terrorists) and refusing to extradite them to the governments who are asking for them.(who have, by the way, provided far more evidence to us of their guilt than we ever provided to the Taliban of OBL's guilt).
-The School of the Americas
-setting a truck bomb outside a mosque in Beirut, set to go off at exactly the time church got out. They were trying to hit the head clergy (who happened to get away)...but if 250 innocent civilians die in the result, so be it. It's only church.
-being the only country in the world (not person, but government) to have been 'convicted' by the International Court of Justice (under the UN) of 'illegal use of force against a civilian population'...that sounds a whole lot like terrorism.

You say, Dan, it's different. We justify our actions as not being terrorist, while 'they' are simply in denial. On the one hand, I would like to argue that point as not exactly being true. On the other hand, I gotta ask if there is really any difference. Being in denial is being in denial. Maybe their method is less sophisticated than ours, but it is still denial either way one looks at it.

I don't mean this to say that *everything* America or Americans do is wrong or bad. It's just that they/we/our government don't/doesn't care. It's about flexing muscles and making money. If some poor innocent slob (or a thousand poor innocent slobs) have to die for us to make a buck or look stronger, so be it. It helps if they got brown skin too.

Denial is still denial, however you justify it.

mobrul

Dan,

dung beetles? Am I supposed to take that personally? But seriously, I think we are very different than dung beetles. Animals have bodies whereas we have bodies and spirits. I don't believe in a mind, body, & soul but rather a body and a spirit. The fact that we are made in the Great Maker's image is that spirit part. (for the record, if it's ever demonstrated that any creature possesses a spirit, I will welcome them as a sibling)

mobrul,

How would you answer if I told you that *you* support the murder of innocent children? You live and work in the US. You pay taxes to a government that supports, with welfare and other programs, people who buy guns that are used to terrorize peace loving neighborhoods with violence and extortion.

Would you actually accept responsibility for this charge?

I'm asking this question in an effort to cut to the heart of some of our differences of opinion. I tried several different ways of responding and all of them would have become multi-page so please accept the question as an effort towards efficiency.

Dan/Bugimus -

Again, everything said there is very subjective and only proves that we have set up our belief systems to in such a way as to prove to ourselves how great we are.

It's a farce.

When we create the criteria, it's easy to place ourselves at the top - but it doesn't *prove* jack shit.

On top of which, Dan, you put a lot of words in my mouth in your 1st paragraph - you sound a little defensive there

Accepted as efficiency...who doesn't like efficiency?

To your charge, I absolutely take responsibility for that.
100% I completely agree.
I feel pretty shitty about it too.

On the other hand, I am a realist. I realize that simply feeling shitty about it does nothing to actually help the problem.

I write letters to my congressmen and woman all the time. I actively try to educate people to the things their government is doing. I am part of a local advocacy group working with the police to stop police brutality. I write letters to the local news sources and meet with journalists, trying to get them to print or speak about some of these issues. I've started anti-racism organizations on 3 university campuses, working on getting speakers to come and address issues of oppression - locally, nationally and internationally.

I read, I study, I talk, I try.

This does not absolve me of my part. I am not Catholic, I do not believe that salvation can be reached through good works. (Please, Catholics, no offense intended. That wasn't a dis, simply stating my opinion on good works, sin and guilt.) If there is a hell I fully expect to be tortured into eternity for my support (through tax dollars, work, etc) of a ruling class that treats people lower than money.
I may as well make something of the time I have here. Maybe someone will come along, after I am long gone, who is strong enough to institute change for the better. Until then I can only struggle.

mobrul


<edit>stupid misspelled word</edit>

[This message has been edited by mobrul (edited 03-01-2002).]

Overlord - You missed my point entirely. We didn't ATTACK the civilians. We ATTACKED the training grounds, weapons factories and air strips that provided the bulk of the enemy forces, NOT the civilians. You're right, they're probably pretty pissed off at us for hitting their homeland period, but how else are we going to do the job effectively? We can't send open invitations to every single person involved to stand in the middle of the ocean so we can bomb them, now can we? I don't feel that what we've done is anywhere as evil as their actions, nor does it warrant the amount of flak that we've gotten for it.

When the world was in trouble, we were the first ones to step up and help everyone out. Famine over here? Alright, let's spend a billion dollars and give em all food. Civil war over there, killing numerous innocents? Let's go ahead and help this situation out and prevent things from escalating into a chaotic warzone. But when we were attacked, on our home soil, no one stepped in immediately to give us aide. Sure, the UK and a hand full of other countries gave their consolidation and agreed to give us a few platoons of troops to help sweep the camps out, but no one helped us the way we helped everyone else. I'm sorry if you dissagree, but hey, that's the way I feel.


--njuice42--

edit: took out a rather self-destroying paragraph that didn't need to be there. Hey, I've been awake for an hour tops, not every post can be a gem.

[This message has been edited by njuice42 (edited 03-01-2002).]

www.media-alliance.org/mediafile/20-5/
www.commondreams.org/views02/0102-03.htm
www.fcnl.org/issues/air-violence/terror/stmt_tenpoints.htm

DL, I'm sorry I put words in your mouth, I was just trying to get at what I thought you were implying.

Mobrul, I still can't agree with you on the terrorism aspect, because even with that long list of actions Americans, specifically the US government, has done were done with good intentions at the time. I think for at least a couple of them can be argued as just, even today. (Like siding with Isreal over Palestine). In fact, its disgusting that you call it oppression by the Isrealites. The US didn't send out to exterminate the Palestines, they just picked favourties, well within their rights. The actions that the Palestines did: started throwing stones at Jewish people, and attacking them on the street, which evolved into shooting at them, suicide bombings, trying to scare them into giving the Palestines the country, *that* is terrorism.

The difference between these and the current situation, is that the attacks were used not to help their cause in a war, or to help a friend country, or an ally, or done with the thought that they could better themselves, and their people. These attacks were done to hurt, and scare the American people. Thats what terrorism is.. when your actions are designed to make a group of people scared of you, more so than to get your point across.

Reading over your list again. Some of the actions commited by the American government are atrocious, and deffinately terrorism. But the majority only qualify as political decisions. Not unlike the kinds made by every country in the world every day. I deffinately wouldn't have a problem prosecuting the Americans responcible for the terrorism commited by Americans. Just as I believe that the US is well within its rights to continue this war on the terrorists who commited the september 11th crimes.

"The difference between these and the current situation, is that the attacks were used not to help their cause in a war, or to help a friend country, or an ally, or done with the thought that they could better themselves, and their people."

Is this difference important - Is killing innocent people acceptable when it "help their cause in a war, or to help a friend country, or an ally, or done with the thought that they could better themselves, and their people." ?

"Reading over your list again. Some of the actions commited by the American government are atrocious, and deffinately terrorism."

That would be enough, or not? The US don´t claim that Osama never did anything else than terrorism in his life - They want to kill him for the thing that *were* terrorism.

"I deffinately wouldn't have a problem prosecuting the Americans responcible for the terrorism commited by Americans. "

And you wouldn´t mind a few thousand american civilians being "accidentially" killed in the process...

"Just as I believe that the US is well within its rights to continue this war on the terrorists who commited the september 11th crimes."

[This message has been edited by 0\/erLo4D (edited 03-02-2002).]

Someone who believes every single one of those, nay, even one of those options listed was done with the ideals of freedom & liberty for all in mind is in denial. Each of those was/is a serious violation of human and/or civil rights of the powerless, by the powerful.

To call Palestinian rock throwing terrorism, when compared to the massive, overwhelming and illegal occupation of their land, the extrajudicial executions by apache gun ship, the bantusian style seperation of Palestinian neighborhoods, the demolition of random Palestinian homes and infrastructure, the torture, the beatings, the humiliation at the hands of Israeli soldiers, the destruction of Palestinian business and industry, the kidnappings, the inability to build schools in their own neighborhoods, the abject poverty and misery forced upon them and many generations into the future, goes beyond denial. It is absolute subservience to the voices of power and ignorance.

UN Resolution 242 calls for immediate withdraw of the Israelis to the pre-1963 border. Not "if the Palestinians stop throwing rocks", but now. No questions asked. Israel is in violation of that Security Council Resolution, 2 others just like it, and uncountable General Assembly Resolutions saying the same thing. They are in violation of international law, and you want to call rock throwing 'terrorism'?

Saddam Hussein goes against a UN Resolution and his people starve to death for the next 10 years.
Why is America still giving billions of dollars of military equipment and aid to Israel?
Why is America still supporting the doubling of 'settlement' population since Oslo?
Why is there an embassy in Tel Aviv?
Why isn't every single media pundit asking aloud on primetime TV if we should send in Special Ops forces to assassinate Arial Sharon and his henchmen?
Liberty for all?
Freedom for all?

...land for peace my ass.

Be happy the Palestinians don't think like Americans. They would have built and dropped a couple atomic bombs by now.

mobrul