American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?

Subject: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 01:25 AM

As Part Twelve was over 100 posts I felt we should squeak one more in.

Peg, thanks for the heart felt comments. I understand. Feeling hearts and lizard brains don't mix well.

---

These are the threads in the series on the World Trade Center Tragedy. Please post only to the most recent thread in the series. The others are closed because they are too long for some browsers to open. There is no need to "refresh" old threads in this series. These links should be sufficient.
Thanks
-Joe Offer-

---

• World Trade Center-Unreal Disaster
• AMERICAN ATTACKS--PART TWO
• AMERICAN ATTACKS---PART THREE
• AMERICAN ATTACKS- - -PART FOUR
• AMERICAN ATTACKS- - - PART FIVE
• AMERICAN ATTACKS**SIX -about enough huh?
• AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART SEVEN..thoughts
• AMERICAN ATTACKS=PART EIGHT.more still
• AMERICAN ATTACKS**Part 9,one week later
• AMERICAN ATTACKS*PART TEN-&the future is
• AMERICAN ATTACKS**PART ELEVEN: Long Haul
• American Attacks**Part Fifty - Got him!
• American Attacks**Part Twelve: Steady On
• American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 01:28 AM

This link will take you to Part Twelve of this series.

Regards,

Amos

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 08:16 AM

Red White and Blue? They fly three flags next to our market square. One is the Union Jack, the others are the flag of the Czech Republic and of France. All Red White and Blue.

That also goes for Norway, Iceland, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Slovakia, Cuba, North Korea, Taiwan, Laos, Cambodia, and no doubt a few more.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Peg
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 10:32 AM

Very true, Amos, thanks.

Interesting how some war-mongering fools feel the need to defend their, uh, masculinity by attempting to erroneously equate a stance in favor of peace with lily-livered politically correct liberalism and the demonization of all white men...

It is my conviction that "real" men don't need to wave flags around or point their dicks, er, guns in the air. Gotta love the military, it really separates the boys from the men. But what do I know, I'm just an educated liberal with a heart and a soul.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From:
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 10:41 AM

The military is composed of a fair percentage of women, and likewise a fair percentage of men from minority groups, who I am sure likewise have hearts and souls. mg

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 11:02 AM

The problem is that our hearts and souls are pretty permanently anchored in current convenions to bodies. This is an unforetunate and arbitrary way of doing things. It precipitates huge amounts of unnecessary worry and toil and endless reams of traffic that could be used to better purposes. But it is how things work down here.

Given that, the premise seems to be that there is a threshold of interaction which when it gets violated justifies shifting gears down from communication into force and control. Talk as long as you can, according to this school of thought, but in the presence of excessive force, major physical assaults, etc., direct all your resources into assuring your own survival. Of course those resources can include heart and soul. But it seems to be a common thread that we believe that when we get pushed too far we have to resort to force to restore basic order.

I've run into this on a few occasions with individuals, and I imagine we all have. There is a level of insanity in an individual where communication has to be stepped down to just basic control.

Any mother knows there are lots of ways to impose control without resorting to phsyical violence. I guess these options dwindle in the face of hard weapons like exploding fuel and AK47s.

If an individual came at me with intent to kill me with a boxcutter, I think I would take him down if I could and take him out if I had to. If I could I would try to get him incapacitated without killing him. But I would want to be above all else effective in preserving my own life.

ANd I think this thinking extends, rightly or wrongly, to group dynamics.

A

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: kendall
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 11:15 AM

Well said Peg.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 04:11 PM

KINGTV, Seattle, gave me a chuckle last night. They presented a discussion on safety issues at various airports (Portland, Seattle, San Diego, etc; the point was that Portland is lax.)

The heading for the discussion was 'Security Breeches'. So, I guess if you want to feel really safe you could wear these. Maybe lead-lined?

Ebbie

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: InOBU
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 04:17 PM

My dear Amos:
Here is the problem with the analogy you propose about the box cutter. If every time someone with a box cutter, attacked in the manner you propose, won, then you would look for another way of dealing with things. In Israel, every time there is a violent attack, Israel goes in and arial bombs the communities that the attackers come from. It has never worked, and they have not yet come up with an alternative. Now, on the other hand, we have an oppertunity as Americans, who do not have the right to bank in untraceable accounts here in the US, to demand through ecconomic boycott and disinvestment, an end to numbered accounts in Switzerland and the Caimen Islands. Now that would be a huge crimp in the ability to organise the kind of thing that happened on the 11th. However, it would also have the result that American business would have to be conducted more in the open, and the Bush bros. would have harder time hiding their ill gotten gains, for example, so instead of providing real ecconomic fairness, and opening business to the light of day, and ending the ability of varrious organised crime communities to bank in the criminal center of the planet, we are on the verge of a world war, just what the perpitrators of this wanted, no matter who they are. I just think it makes good sence from a chess player point of view, to not do what the other side wants us to do.
Hi Peg!
Cheers
Larry

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 05:19 PM

Incapacitating them one way or another is the point, Larry.

I'm with you on that point in principle. If shining the spotlight on their money would work, I'd be all for it. I'm not entirely convinced it would, though. They have means of transfering money around through sympathetic businesses without using any banking system at all, for example.

A

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 05:49 PM

Larry said: I just think it makes good sence from a chess player point of view, to not do what the other side wants us to do.

Reminds me of that scene in Little Big Man where Custer says to Jack Crabbe, you want me to think that you don't want me to go down there. So in what he thinks is fair use of what he perceives to be reverse psychology, Custer goes down to the Little Big Horn and of course we all know what happened.

All humor aside though ----- I think it's worth exploring the possibility of doing the thing your opponent doesn't expect. I just don't know what that thing is.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 08:10 PM

They don't expect us to maintain a coalition that includes most of the countries in the world, including most, if not all, of the Islamic countries. I suspect they would never have anticipated that. I also suspect that they had in mind for us to go to war with many of the Islamic countries.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 08:58 PM

Possibly. What they may have had in mind was simply revenge...retalition for various things that they feel were done to them or their people previously. After all, if you truly believe that God is on your side...and these guys definitely do...then you will not let any argument turn you aside from what another might consider a very rash and dangerous course of action...even if it leads to your own destruction.

Such was the case with the guys who flew the airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon.

If your mind is all made up on that, then you can just fill in the rest of the blanks with whatever twisted logic you can come up with that seems to support the initial assumption.

Less religious and more pragmatic outfits are also capable of this kind of one-dimensional logic. It's based on the following type of assumptions:

1. We're the good guys. They are the bad guys.

2. We're right. They're wrong.

3. We will win in the end because we are right.

4. Their acts of violence are terrorism. Our acts of violence are a totally justified response to terrorism.

5. We are brave responsible people. They are cowards.

6. God, reason, sanity, justice, and freedom are on our side.

7. We cannot give in to weakness, but must persevere in the face of the "enemy" until final victory is achieved.

And so on...

You will find these basic assumptions woven throughout the rhetoric on both sides of any bloody conflict you could care to mention. History's winners and losers alike have repeated these statements with equal assurance. That's how crazy it gets.

This stems from a basic failure to recognize that humanity is a single family, common extensions of one Spirit. I've said that before, but I don't expect it will make much difference to say it again now.

Since I have control over my own behaviour, that's the behaviour I must take care to monitor with that understanding in mind...which means I will endeavour to harm no one, insofar as that is possible, but I will defend myself when it is required.

If I were in Bush's place, I am not quite sure what I would do at this point. I'd have to be there first, before I would know all the factors he is dealing with. And does he indeed know all the factors? I wonder...

I wonder if anybody does?

- LH

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 09:20 PM

Well, L, ya pays your money and ya takes yer choice as far as beliefs about the world are concerned.

I believe there are fundamentals that are more global than others. The common good of the species is far more global a concern than the rightness or wrongness of individual or partisan metaphysics.

I think anyone who presumes to say that God is on any side in a human division of force is a fool or a liar or both.

I believe in tolerance of speech and action and the sovereignty of the individual in choosing to believe as he deems fit.

I believe that when those freedoms encroach on and violate the survival of others that adjustments must be made in human affairs, including the adjustments of negotiation, education, PR, and where necessary, control to prevent the wider harm.

Any group that escalates their grievances to violent destruction of innocent individuals -- meaning innocent of individual actions, not thinking the wrong thoughts -- as has occurred in this instance must be brought back within the framework of decent human limits either by communication, by control, or by force.

It is by their actions and products that people weigh in to the arena of human exchange, in the final analysis. In this case the actions were murderous, massively so. That's what the secret knights of the Quesadilla have placed on the table. Let justifications, explanations, antecedents, rationalizations evaporate and a spade be named a spade. Murder is on the table.

Where do we go from here?

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 09:47 PM

I remember John Major, (who could well turn out to be the last Conservative Prime Minister of Britain in more senses than one), when he was the minister in charge of things to do with Law and Order ("Home Secretary"), made a speech in which he declared that what was needed was "To understand less and to condemn more".

I think most people agree that it wasn't really a very useful thing to say. If you don't understand why someone does something undesirable, your chances of anticipating what they are likely to try to do next is greatly diminished. I don't think many of us would want to put our lives in the hands of a doctor who said that kind of thing about an illness.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 10:00 PM

Was that a slip of the tongue in which he meant to say the opposite, or did Major really mean to say that?

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Skeptic
Date: 02 Oct 01 - 10:07 PM

Amos,

There you go again, being reasonable and confusing things with facts and rationality.

And I agree (for what that's worth).

I think we need to take action against bin Laden as there seems to be little else available. The Fatwah was fairly definitive and can't be looked out like some rabid editorial in a minor newspaper somewhere. It was a religious decree and whether bin Laden actually believes it, his followers view it in the sam elight as a devout Catholic vies a Papal Bull.

I think (or mayne its "hope") the intent is to capture him and have a public trial and lay out all the proof then. (Always assuming the yet unreleased, still classified proof is real)

And then we all have to step up to the plate and decide if we can and will live by and work for the global principles you articulate. That seems the real battle and the hardest for this country to face.

Peg,

As a liberal with both heart and soul who finds himself getting more liberal as I approach (with ill grace) 53, some of your remarks are troubling.

Engaging in jingoism, name calling and stereotyping would seem to be wrong whether done as a conservative war monger or a liberal with heart and soul.

I think that what Amos characterizes as sovereignty of the individual in choosing to believe as he deems fit. and I would call a respect for individual moral autonomy should be one the core values of a liberal, though perhaps our definitions differ.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 12:47 AM

Ya want jingoism, listen to the little wannabe mullets crying out to the world that "we are mujhadim", when they wouldn't know a spiritual epiphany if it bit them on the nose in many cases. I can't really justify my arrogance in claiming to assess their religous experience but I do know group-think party-line rahrah when i see it.

High or low, East or West, unthinkingness is unbecoming in homo sapiens sapiens. Self-elected blindness is the ultimate offense to God. I happen to know this personally because, see, he came by one night.....

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: DougR
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 12:56 AM

Kendall: "Well said, Peg." Does that mean you're waving yours! (flag, I mean of course) :>O

DougR

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Peg
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 01:07 AM

Skeptic; those definitions of "liberal" sound fine to me.

These days, if you are in any way not in favor of an all-out war effort in the face of the attacks on New York and Washington, you are seen as "un-American," or a "bleeding heart liberal" or a "Commie" or a "coward" or a "trust fund brat" or a "peacenik" or any number of insulting labels I have heard hurled at people who are somehow capable of holding two or more contradictory thoughts in their heads at one time...

"Liberal" is somehow seen as "against the war" these days and I do not see how something like this (this tragic event and our varied responses to it) can be reduced to petty matters like political affiliation but there it is...it is also distrubing to me that people are exploiting these events to make a profit, or to further their own political agendas...

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: DougR
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 01:23 AM

Interesting, Peg. You evidentlly feel there are political differences in the handling of the current situation. I see only political cooperation. I haven't seen such non-partisan cooperation since WWII.

Maybe I missed something. What are you referring to?

DougR

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Skeptic
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 07:29 AM

Peg,

Great minds think alike. :)

The "for us or against us" mantra when used by either side seems wrong and adds to the diviseness. Getting past the stereotypes (when that is possible) is possible, is daunting.

Some years ago, during a different war, a moderate friend asked me why my jingoism (anti-war, anti-draft etc) was superior to theirs. (America, Love it or Leave, My Country right or wrong).

Being then young and clearly having the Answer to everything, I didn't bother to answer. But it bounced around in my head for years and I kept coming up with the same answer: Because I'm RIGHT, damn it. It took longer (in hindsight) than it should have to realize that IF I was right, all the jingoes, slogans and sound-bites did nothing to prove it. And conversely, all their jingoism and so on didn't necessarily prove them wrong but its use by either extreme raised credible suspicion that perhaps we were both wrong At least in part. Certainly the catch phrases and assumptions and PC version of the world wasn't consistent with my core values. Which was the genesis of my comment and of my concern when those I think of as the good-guys start in on the jingoism of the left . Sorry. I have a compulsion to explain.

DougR,

Define "cooperation". And at what level and in what direction. Certainly Congress has been bipartisan in supporting Bush. To a point. Ashcroft's wish-list of anti-terrorism legislation, for instance, has run into bipartisan opposition and the neo-conservatives (in and out of Congress) are very un-happy with Bush's refusal to expand the war and take out Iraq. As the horror of the Attack recedes a little, things seem to be edging back to ward partisanship.

I think the media has portrayed the bipartisanship as more monolithic than it really is, perhaps not even consciously and that people who might normally be more critical are a little reluctant to do so as the run the risk of being out of the mainstream, or somewhat worse, being accused of being more concerned with ideology than with the individuals killed by the Attack.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 11:38 AM

I consider myself deeply liberal. But I am not liberal enough to lie down in front of an event of this kind and try to understand why it was really okay.

We are responsible for finding and preserving and communicating the best philosophy we can find and articulate for the evolution of human destiny.

But we cannot fulfill that responsibility unless we assure our physical survival and security first.

The practice of covert, random, arbitrary guerilla-style murder is not acceptable in the game.

I do not believe we have any choice but to reform or dissolve the offenders.

Anyway open to us.

And that is what we are doing, I hope, apparently with a lot of consensus from other nations who have similar feelings about the outlaw practices of terrorism.

A

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 11:53 AM

I do not believe we have any choice but to reform or dissolve the offenders.

That would be lovely, wouldn't it?

Bin Laden could become a born-again Muslim, and we could all chuckle on the weekends while we flip through the channels and see good old Uncle Osama telling us all how he used to to be an evil person, but thanks to good ol' American compassion, he reformed into a true man of Allah and forgot his fundamentalism ways. He'd be reading us the Koran and preaching peace and global harmony. But we'd still know he was responsible for thousands of deaths all over the globe, not only the innocent but the poor souls he convinced to do his bidding. So we can take down the FBI Most Wanted posters of him and all turn on PBS to watch "The Osama Peace Crusade Live at Yankee Stadium".

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 12:51 PM

All jesting aside...

It seems to me that bin Laden is something of a cult leader. The people who follow him are following HIM, and not necessarily Allah. He has brainwashed them into thinking that the US wants to demolish Islam - never mind that the US has a huge Muslim population, many of whom came here because of the likes of people like bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

I haven't heard anyone mention cultism in all of this, and I'm not sure why - maybe to avoid the perception that we think Islam itself is a cult, and we don't want to offend anyone. I'm just wondering if we might not think about approaching Al Qaeda from the cult angle...

Just musing out loud.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 12:57 PM

M. Ted:

According to this page at The Nando Times, Richard Kidd wrote that piece, or the bulk of it, for the Christian Science Monitor.

Kim C.: The cultist aspect of the Knioghts of the Quesadilla have been mentioned frequently. Before Bush spoke to the nation I posted several times here, and wrote the White House, suggesting we should characterize OBL's group as a vicious cult corrupting the spirit of Islam, and was delighted to see he did do as much in his address.

The motivations and attitudes of the "mujahadim" are cult-like in the extreme.

If you want, run a Forum search on my posts since 9-12 and you'll find five or six comments along this line.

A

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 01:28 PM

Is holding contradictory thoughts in one's head a commendable thing? Holding them provisionally, perhaps; or as possible options. Holding them permanently, as parts of one's worldview, would seem a refusal to think.

Amos, I salute you, and the tone you have held in this thread (at the least).

In a humorous vein, have y'all seen the emails now circulating about the worst possible punishment for bin Laden? Killing him would make him a martyr; holding him in prison would lead to rescue attempts. Let's give him a sex change and send him back to the Taliban as a woman.

I thought it was humorous. Use their hate and unreason against them. (Not that we could really do that to a person; it's just a joke.)

Alex

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 03:15 PM

Can't fault your reasonable position on this kind of thing, Amos, but try explaining it to the thousands of fiery-eyed young men in the streets of Pakistan and numerous other Islamic countries who are ready to go out and kill American soldiers...if given the opportunity.

I wouldn't want to try and explain it to them. They grew up with a different set of assumptions.

Look at it this way...in one society (a poor one, with quite limited resources) you get a guy who's willing to pilot a plane into a building or blow himself up with a bomb in a shopping mall full of people.

In another society (a rich, high-tech one) you get a professional soldier who is willing to press a button (if given the order) and incinerate a city full of people with a nuclear missile. Those who have high tech weapons of mass destruction do not need to hide bombs in their clothing or hijack civilian aircraft in order to wreak havoc on a large scale.

Both actions are insane, and indicate ignorance of a higher Truth, which is that we are all One...that one human being is intrinsically as valuable as another (i.e. "All men are created Equal"...remember who said that?)

But both actions are seen as doing one's proper and sworn "duty" by a person who cannot comprehend that we are all One.

So, pretty well everyone ends up doing, at the end of the day, what he thinks is "right", given his level of awareness.

That doesn't mean that I think that you should think what he does is right. Or that I think it's right.

But it certainly is tragic, isn't it?

Since I see how tragic it is, my solution is not to do it myself (I mean, me personally...I can't speak for other people).

And yes, there are times when a military response is pretty much unavoidable. But when will the world address the originating causes of all this conflict? Until that happens, conflict will simply go on and on, and more innocent people will die.

Everyone keeps reacting to the symptoms, but they WILL NOT treat the illness that caused the symptoms in the first place. That illness being: poverty, hugely unequal distribution of wealth and resources, hoarding of power and the benefits of power worldwide in the hands of a chosen few. Unfortunately, the financial system which runs this world has no intention of altering the status quo, because the ones who are in a position to alter it are the ones who most benefit from maintaining it.

In a town where everyone already has enough to eat, who will bother to steal a loaf of bread? Let alone kill for it?

- LH

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: mousethief
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 03:33 PM

"All men are created Equal"...remember who said that?

Thomas Jefferson, I think.

Alex

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 04:21 PM

I personally would be willing to stand up and say I agree with some of their thoughts about problems with American culture, and their fears of it tainting their children etc. If I had children, I would be afraid of it tainting mine. I think we need to take a good look at some of what is going on....young girls dressed like prostitutes used to dress, online porn and predators, teens and even children standing on street corners selling or running drugs, teens involved in so many pregnancies and abortions. What if your great great grandparents were brought in to see America today...they would have the same horror at some aspects of it, but of course would be proud at others. If I thought me personally taking the veil and wearing a cloak would help tone things down, I would do it. Better if Brittany Spears did it though...mg

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 04:28 PM

There's a helluvan idea. Not only Brittany Speers but EVERY woman on Western TV, for say 72 hours, including Brittany Speers and all the ones on the Playboy Channel which I am sure their upper brass grab off the sats at night -- wear the complete Moslem woman's costume, with veil and kaftan, hood and downcast look... but still singing country or advertising Cuisinarts or reporting the weather. Still laughing and saying what they think. Still acting in sdoap operas or lecturing or managing or governing or debating or teaching on TV.

That would throw them for a loop. We could show them what their women mightr look like being free in a prosperous economy. Nothing left for them to say but "I want me some of that!!"

Volunteers?

LOL.

A.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 05:25 PM

Amos, I know people have mentioned that the Muslims in question are extremists and not representative of the Muslim population in general... I just had not heard anyone actually use the word "cult." Of course, I have heard/read so many things, they have all turned my brains to jello and I may have just missed it. :-)

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 08:01 PM

I think it's a good idea to try to think yourself into other people's heads, try to work out how they tick, rtergardless of how you disagree with them. Imaginary role play.

It just seems so obvious, I've been trying to work out why some people seem to see it as a sort of treachery, justifying the unjustifiable and so forth. I suppose it must be some idea that if you think yourself into someone's way of thinking, you might get stuck there.

There's a section in one of Chesterton's Father Brown books about this very thing.

"The secret is," he said; and then stopped as if unable to go on. Then he began again and said: "You see, it was I who killed all those people...So, of course, I knew how it was done...

"...I had planned out each of the crimes very carefully," went on Father Brown. "I had thought out exactly how a thing like that could be done, and in what style or state of mind a man could really do it. And when I was quite sure that I felt exactly like the murderer myself, of course I knew who he was...

"I mean that I really did see myself, and my real self, committing the murders. I didn't actually kill the men by material means; but that's not the point. Any brick or bit of machinery might have killed them by material means. I mean that I thought and thought about how a man might come to be like that, until I realized that I really was like that, in everything except actual final consent to the action. It was once suggested to me by a friend of mine, as a sort of religious exercise. I believe he got it from Pope Leo XIII, who was always rather a hero of mine...

"...No man's really any good till he knows how bad he is, or might be; till he's realized exactly how much right he has to all this snobbery, and sneering, and talking about 'criminals,' as if they were apes in a forest ten thousand miles away; till he's got rid of all the dirty self-deception of talking about low types and deficient skulls; till he's squeezed out of his soul the last drop of the oil of the Pharisees; till his only hope is somehow or other to have captured one criminal, and kept him safe and sane under his own hat."

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 08:31 PM

Incidentally I've just noticed that out of the top 20 threads on the Mudcat at this moment, only two of them are non-music.

So much for the lamentations about how music is being driven out by discussion and BS.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: GUEST,just a nobody
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 09:59 PM

Peg,

Seems to me that the only person I have heard outright attacking opposing viewpoints here is you. I have never refered to anyone who does not support military action as unamerican, cowardly, or what-have you. Personally, I remember several of your comments about war mongering dick wavers several times. Those I find equally offensive. But who am I? just someone that does not agree with you, so name calling and bashing is your response. There are several here that I dissagree with. Most have put thier thoughts together very well and made a good argument for thier case. CarolC did that rather well, an while I may disagree with her, I respect her opinion because they are well defended. She did not just attack anyone that was on the opposite side. You are the one that brought Libralism into the argument. I hope you are not the example of one. One that sits there and condemns the other side because you feel you have been condemned. I had a talk with my wife today, she was upset with things people were saying. I told her, it is far easier to hate and point fingers than it is to trust. Seems that way for you Peg. Easier to insult those that oppose your views, than to make a good argument. If you really feel that it is becomming a liberal vs. conservative fight, do what I did, write to your political offices. Let them know that now is not the time for politics as usual. I simply stated that the nation watches them now, and the ones that wish to go back to politics as usuall, will find themselves looking for new jobs come election. Sure, alone I can be ignored, but groups.... much harder to brush off.

Peg, just a thought. You have very general and sweeping comments, war mongers.. and by implication only Liberals have heart and soul.... with such a broad generalization against those that dissagree with you... I wonder, should I then believe that every Muslim, every Arab is guilty of what happened? I certainly hope that your generalizations end at political associations.

Just a nobody

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From:
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 11:13 PM

About taking the veil..I will if necessary and I think I mentioned on another post that I have a scarf with my jacket that I will wear in areas where Muslim women are being harassed. I didn't think it would be this close to home, but the Astoria radio station reported Muslim women being afraid to leave their homes for fear of being killed. So I wore it in Astoria and women are wearing it in Seattle...it started in Seattle in a medical clinic. I think it is a great idea. Pick a day and we'll see who signs up to do it. Sunday is best. mg

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Paul G.
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 11:30 PM

I hope a few of you (in the States) watched the special episode of "West Wing" tonight. Brilliant. A balanced discussion of the difficult issues involved from understanding who the "enemy" is to racial profiling.

...and by the way, Thomas Jefferson may have said that all men are created equal, but he also held slaves, even to the day he dies. Even the he didn't free them.

pg

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: DougR
Date: 03 Oct 01 - 11:45 PM

Only a Liberal would view the West Wing episode tonight as "brilliant." Glad you enjoyed it, pg. I can just imagine, during a crisis such as that the one that happened on September 11, sitting around giving high school students a history lesson, as they view American history.

I thought it was very weak drama, myself.

DougR

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 01:35 AM

People generalize when they are upset. I think we've been at a loss at one level or another all around. Perhaps the most important point we can make is trying to focus on CORRECT targets. What I heard Peg saying

An analysis of the tradition of "Jihad" vs. "Crusade" and their meaning in Islamic context can be found at this site. An interesting piece of the "understanding" puzzle.

Regards,

A.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 01:43 AM

This article from Judical Watch describes a strong business connection between George Bush Sr. and the bin Laden family which gave Osama to the world and then disowned him.

FYI.

A.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Peg
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 01:55 AM

alex wrote:

"Is holding contradictory thoughts in one's head a commendable thing?" --why, yes, I believe it is. But you twist my words, don't you? I referred to the CAPABILITY of holding more than one contradictory thought in one's head at a given time. Such a capability is, I believe the first step towards having compassion for one's fellow man.

"Holding them provisionally, perhaps; or as possible options."

--so what is your point? You get so bogged down in semantics all the time. "Holding" does not mean "squeezing to death and blotting out all reason." Okay?

"Holding them permanently, as parts of one's worldview, would seem a refusal to think."

--if you are accusing me of refusing to think, I likewise accuse you of being unwilling to actually read what I have written with an open mind (not to mention a reasonable grasp of the subtlety of our language). But that is nothing new.

Some NOBODY wrote:

Peg, Seems to me that the only person I have heard outright attacking opposing viewpoints here is you.

--and you are doing what to me, exactly?

"I have never refered to anyone who does not support military action as unamerican, cowardly, or what-have you."

--goody goody for you. Where did I say that these comments came from someone in the Mudcat? I was talking about comments I have heard in general, out int he real world. And that is quite clear in my post. Does your need to take this so personally somehow justify your attack on me? I thought not.

"Personally, I remember several of your comments about war mongering dick wavers several times."

--several? Where?

"Those I find equally offensive."

--excellent. The behavior itself is offensive to me.

"But who am I?"

--um, lemme guess...just a nobody?

"just someone that does not agree with you, so name calling and bashing is your response."

--oh, please. Again, you seem to have taken what I said about behavior I witnessed in the general population and applied it to yourself just so you could have carte blanche to rip me apart in this forum. That is just fine if you feel the need to do that, sonny jim, but have the fucking balls to sign your name.

"There are several here that I dissagree with. Most have put thier thoughts together very well and made a good argument for thier case. CarolC did that rather well, an while I may disagree with her, I respect her opinion because they are well defended. She did not just attack anyone that was on the opposite side."

-nor have I. I have not attacked anyone in this thread until now, actually. Mousethief is just up to his old games; it is kind of like swatting at a gnat. You, however, well, you are clearly looking for a fight. I guess all that flag waving must be putting you in the mood...

"You are the one that brought Libralism into the argument."

--I am? Little old me? Gee, that's funny, I had been hearing all htis bi-partisan crap for weeks now in regards to this issue; and whattya know, NOW I am told I STARTED IT ALL!

"I hope you are not the example of one."

--hope all you want...

"One that sits there and condemns the other side because you feel you have been condemned."

--my mom used to refer to this sort of statement as "the pot calling the kettle black."

"I had a talk with my wife today, she was upset with things people were saying. I told her, it is far easier to hate and point fingers than it is to trust."

--no argument from me.

"Seems that way for you Peg. Easier to insult those that oppose your views, than to make a good argument."

--I do not insult people BECAUSE THEY OPPOSE MY VIEW. I happen to take issue with the immature, bullying, meat-headed, war-mongering behavior I have witnessed in recent weeks.

"If you really feel that it is becomming a liberal vs. conservative fight,"

--but I don't. Sounds like YOU do, though.

"do what I did, write to your political offices. Let them know that now is not the time for politics as usual."

--if this is how you feel, then why are you accusing me of this crap? I did not know I was your little liberal whipping boy.

"I simply stated that the nation watches them now, and the ones that wish to go back to politics as usuall, will find themselves looking for new jobs come election."

--we can only hope.

"Sure, alone I can be ignored, but groups.... much harder to brush off."

--yeah. Funny thing that.

"Peg, just a thought. You have very general and sweeping comments, war mongers.. and by implication only Liberals have heart and soul...."

--I am pretty sure I never said "only liberals have heart and soul."

"with such a broad generalization against those that dissagree with you"

--as I said, I do not generalize about people because they disagree with ME; but based on what actual ideology they hold, what statements they make, and what behavior they engage in...

"I wonder, should I then believe that every Muslim, every Arab is guilty of what happened?"

--no, I do not think you should feel that way. Why are you asking ME that? Do you honestly think *I* feel that way? Becauase if you do, you're an even bigger idiot than I thought previously.

"I certainly hope that your generalizations end at political associations."

--and I certainly hope that yours extend to their logical conclusion.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 09:26 AM

After seeing Beneath The Veil, The simplest way to get rid of the Taliban is to ARM the Afghan women!

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Paul G.
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 10:06 AM

Doug R.

I can appreciate that one of "conservative leanings" would find last nights West Wing "weak". The point was not that it was ever intended to be a realistic reinactment of what might have occurred on 9/11, but a much less serious scenario that developed an opportunity to air the issues. At least the producers had the guts to address the issue in a popular (and well done in my opinion) forum. Now as for my political leanings, here's the drill: I'm certainly liberal on social issues, moderate on economic policy, and actually fairly conservative on security and foreign policy issues. Yes, the occasional episodes of schizophrenia keep me awake nights. I would consider myself certainly to be a patriot in any event, and one who was indirectly impacted by the events of 9/11 (a graduate school classmate of mine lost her husband at the Pentagon, and on resident of my home town in NY of my exact age, died at the WTC). Careful about painting people's politics with such a broad brush.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 02:21 PM

I am wondering if there is any polite way to say something like Get that flag out of my face, patriotism is part of the problem? I'm really bothered by all this... things like firefighters getting FIRED for refusing to put a flag on their apparatus that would have impeded its function...

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 02:22 PM

As Paul G said, the West Wing episode was clearly not about September 11th. They made the clear point that there was a 'crash' about every week, and this was just another one.

Given that, I thought it was very well done. It addressed several issues that we're currently concerned with: racial profiling, prejudice, ignorance about the world, its history and geography, the Taliban versus the Afghanis...

DougR, I liked the inclusion in the story of an Arabic figure who came up shining brighter than his interrogator. How can it be called "weak"?

Ebbie

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 04:04 PM

More dirt from the queen of fling. Big surprise here. Move over guest, we are apparently tablemates here.

Alex

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 04:17 PM

Yo' rascally chillun doan quit yore sparrin an carryin on, someone gonna feel a hickory switch sure enuff!! Go wash your hands out with soap!! :>)

A.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: DougR
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 06:43 PM

Paul G., Ebbie: Perhaps I over-reached when I used the word Liberal (though I do beieve the show itself definitely espouses the Liberal philosophy). I am aware that September 11 had noting to do with the theme of the script, but it seemed to me that Sorkin was seizing the opportunity to use the Bully-pulpit to "preach" to America, and his message was heavily tilted to reflect his personal philosophy.

If there had been a real "shut down" at the White House because of some national emergency I can assure you the whole White House staff (or the President) would not have informally gathered in the White House cafeteria to give a history/civics lesson to a group of high school students (and the television audience of course).

They would have been VERY busy.

If you have listened to CNN or Fox News Network, or read a newspaper today you will see that I am not alone in my criticism.

You liked, and that's fine. It was intended to entertain, I suppose, and it definitely enjoyed good viewership.

DougR

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 06:56 PM

If there had been a real "shut down" at the White House because of some national emergency I can assure you the whole White House staff (or the President) would not have informally gathered in the White House cafeteria to give a history/civics lesson to a group of high school students (and the television audience of course).

They would have been VERY busy.

But busy at what? Weren't those roughly the circunmstances in which Slick Willy got together with young Monica?

Civics lectures in the cafe would maybe have been a better use of the situation.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Skeptic
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 07:13 PM

Guest,Mrr,

things like firefighters getting FIRED for refusing to put a flag on their apparatus that would have impeded its function...

If you are talking about the case here in Florida:

The "flag obstructing vision" version came out a day or so after the incident. The origional claim by the firefighters was that they refused becasue the flag was a symbol of oppression.

However, the EMT patch they had worn on their uniform for years had an American Flag as part of the design. They had never objected before.

A local firefighter now working in my home town, who used to work with the men, was of the opinion that it was mostly a play for media attention that backfired.

As no one got to see where the flag actually was, it?s hard to say which of their versions was accurate. The "obstruction of vision" came out only after they were told that they faced disiplinary actions. The last I heard they had not been fired but I admit I stopped following the story.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 07:24 PM

Isn't it kind of sad, though, when the flag becomes the thing around which these kinds of dramas unfold, rather than the principles that the flag is supposed to represent?

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: DougR
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 08:14 PM

McGrath: I was working in Washington, D.C. at the heighth of the Viet Nam protests and was a good friend of the Deputy Attorney General at the time. He was in charge of security of the Capital. Protestors were overturning cars in the streets setting them afire, causing damage to government buildings, etc. I can assure you, based on his discussions with me after, no one in the White House or in the upper echelons of government were sitting around a cafeteria sipping coffee or lecturing to anyone.

Do you suppose when the Terriorists hit the Pentagon and the WTC, Vice President Cheney was sitting around chatting in the cafeteria.

Get real. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Paul G.
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 08:20 PM

Doug R -- you clearly have some experience with and exposure to the Washington environment during a crisis. Here's a question that's been on my mind almost constantly the last few days...Just where is the Vice President? What's he doing? While Powell, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and even Tommy Thompson have been getting daily heavy press, we hear and see nothing of the VEEP. Is the S.O.P. or is he just hiding out in the Senate chamber?

Paul

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 08:31 PM

Hey Doug,

Here are the original names of the main Canadian political parties...

The Liberals.

The Progressive Conservatives (cute, eh?).

The New Democratic Party or NDP (socialist).

And more recently...the Bloc Quebecois (separatist) and the Reform Party (far right), recently renamed the Canadian Alliance (or something like that...trying hard not to be quite so far right as before, but no one is convinced).

What did comedians call them? The Gliberals, the Regressive Constipatives, and the Nearly Defunct Party (NDP)...HA! HA! HA!

As for the Bloc...well, how about Block-head-EK-WA...and the Canadian Reform Alliance Party, of course had the brief and unfortunate acronym CRAP (no kidding!)...which gave the press a field day, as you can imagine.

All this has nothing to do with Attacks on America, but I thought you could use a little Canadian comic relief.

By the way, the most brilliant of the above psuedonyms is definitely...the GLIBerals!!! Marvellous! It sums them up to a "T".

And they are the only ones with any hope of winning a majority government...which they have now done twice...I think...or is it 3 times...geez...it's like watching "I Love Lucy" reruns. No surprises here. :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Troll
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 08:58 PM

You can pick on these guys all you like.

You might be an armchair patriot if........

1. You didn't own a Flag prior to 9/11.

2. When you went into buy a flag, you had to ask the sales clerk which one was the American flag. (This is definitive. No need to read further).

3. You don't know what the 13 stripes or 50 stars are for.

4. You think the purpose of Memorial and Veterans Day is so Sears can have a blockbuster sale. And get mad when all teh parades tie up traffic.

5. You have never registered to vote.

6. You have ever lied so you wouldn't have to serve on a jury.

7. You really meant to give blood but there was a game on TV you really couldn't miss.

8. You're not sure what the Bill of Rights is but think it's probably not a good idea.

9. You think that anyone who disagrees with the president should be deported.

10. You are registered but have never bothered to vote.

11. You worry a lot about dependence of Mid East Oil while you drive to the Rally for America in your SUV. Alone. Because your spouse needed stop at Public on the way home and you didn't want to have to wait.

12. You think "My Country Right or Wrong" is silly because it's impossible for the US to be wrong.

13. You think that the solution is to nuke Somebody. Anybody. Bagdad, Kabul, Cairo, Miami.

14 You just figured out that the Star Spangled Banner was the National Anthem, not the NFL/ NCAA theme song.

15. You think radio talk show hosts are a reliable source of information about American History. Extra credit if you feel the same way about "People Magazine" and Jay Leno and David Letterman.

16. You fully support the statement: "What's good for General Motors is good for the USA"

17. You think that what we really need to do is get rid of all those foreign looking types. Even if they have lived in here for a few generations.

18. Before 9/11, you thought Afghanistan was somewhere in South America. Which you though was somewhere near Africa. Or maybe Japan.

But leave the rest of us out of your silly little diatribes. Childish name calling solves exactly nothing.

troll

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 11:17 PM

Huh?

Man, there are gonna be a whole whack of "armchair patriots" out there really ticked off at you now, troll...

Almost everyone I've ever met is somewhere on that list!

Well, no, not really, but....hell, there are plenty of people like that in Canada. They eat at Tim Hortons and "read" the Toronto Sun (it's about 99% advertising and pictures...mostly of girls in bikinis or grisly scenes of violence and destruction).

In fact, your list of possible options sounds a lot like the editorial page of the Toronto Sun. :-)

- LH

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Troll
Date: 04 Oct 01 - 11:51 PM

Yeah...well... the truth hurts sometimes. But I get tired of being lumped in with those yahoos. I figured I'd lay 'em out so those who like to take potshots would have something to aim at.

troll

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: DougR
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 12:06 AM

PaulG: I have no idea where the VP is, but I would assume he is a part of the team planning future events. It hadn't occurred to me, but I really haven't seen much or read much about him recently.

DougR

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: DougR
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 12:08 AM

I don't know if they ran nationally, but Public TV had a couple of very interesting programs on tonight. One on Afghanstan, and the other (Front Line) narrated by Bill Moyers, a summation of the U. S. and it's exposure to terriorism.

DougR

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Troll
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 02:01 AM

Something to ponder in the wee small hours of the night.

click here

troll hope this works

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: GUEST,Boris
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 03:28 AM

Tom Lehrer did a song in 1965 about whatever became of Hubert Humphrey? Veeps disappearing into the woodwork is as American as apple pie.

Boris

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: BlueJay
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 03:59 AM

Troll, you're right. This sick diatribe is exactly what I need to read in the middle of the night. Don't paint all us "liberals" with the same brush. I feel that Bush is doing a pretty good job, and has some excellent advisors at this time. I feel no need to blame America for this tragedy,and I am hopeful that a multinational coalition can at least reduce this sort of thing.

But last night, on the Politically Incorrect, some Republican dickhead attacked the much reviled Susan Sontag, and stated, people like you "should not be permitted" to express their opinions in public. Because she said in some piece that we need to look at the reasons for terrorism, and not just willy nilly bomb the hell out of them. This from someone professing to believe in individual rights.

He later retracted that statement, but his retraction rang hollow to me. He said what he meant. That's why the Conservative movement has always been pretty scary to me.

Tonight's show was pretty much the same. Bill Maher and Jesse Jackson were on the side of trying to understand why this act of terrorism occured, and a couple of conservatives stating that this is not necessary, we just need to go and get the bastards. And a comedian thrown in for laughs.

You know what? I, a known Liberal, also think we ought to go and get the bastards. But I think we need to examine the causes of terrorism as well. How long is it going to be before the millions of AIDS victims in Africa begin commiting terrorist acts against the U.S. and Europe? What about South America? Indonesia? Southeast Asia? We'd better damn well start thinking about this shit.

I think Bush's handlers have done fairly well so far. If Bush's daddy had shown even half the compassion for the Afghans after the Soviet war, that the Junior is showing today, we might not be in the position we are today. I am NOT attacking America, but that was a serious blunder, by Republicans and Democrats as well.

I don't have the answers. Obviously, we can't afford to feed everyone in the world. But as long as two thirds of the world's population is living in diseased, abject poverty and famine, these types of attacks will continue. We have made a start. Some of the drug companies who produce AIDS medications have reduced their prices to third world countries. And that was before September 11th. I applaud them. But it's just a start.

Thanks, BlueJay

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Troll
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 08:48 AM

Bluejay, get down off the ceiling and re-read the piece. He's talking about the far left, not the moderate liberals. We have the exact mindset with the far right, the "Nuke 'em all. Let God sort 'em out" types.
Everyone is aware that our Govt. has made poilcy blunders over the years. It's no big secret.
As far as Maher's show, he invites people on who will give predictable responses off which he or his other guests can play.
That's really a no-brainer and I'm surprised you haven't figured it out yet.
He invites a hard lefty like Sontag and a couple of hard rightists to appear on the same show and you expect cordial debate. Hell, they'ed probably attack her if she said it's a nice day.
That's why he invited them in the first place. To stir the pot. What kind of show would he have with Sontag and Chomsky and Jackson and Sharpton. Pretty dull I would imagine.
The next time you watch "Politically Incorrect" ask yourself WHY he has those particular people on as guests.

troll

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Peg
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 10:19 AM

Well said, Blue Jay.

Gosh, Troll. You figured out the strategy of Bill Maher's guest rosters on Politically Incorrect. Well done.

The point is, people like Maher and Sontag (who make their livings by more or less expressing their opinions on current events) have been demonized for saying some very reasonable things...and likewise some very passionate things. But because their views do not dovetail with the "new patriotism" (we got attacked, we are hurting and angry, bomb 'em all and ask questions later) they are treated as if they're advocating boiling up babies for stew or something...

Censorship is a dangerous thing. This country has been heading towards it for some time now, and it is certainly true that ultra-political correctness is responsible for a great deal of it (like the banning of To Kill a Mockingbird in a southern school not long ago, by a board on which most of the members had not even read it!). What concerns me is that many of the moves towarsd stifling opinions such as those mentioned above have been waiting in thewings for along time...now the amplified mood and tension in this country has allowed people to believe it is a good idea to stifle opinions and dissension from the prevailing war cry...this is most un-American if you ask me.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 10:53 AM

Self-righteousness and self-lefteousness will never tire of demonizing one another. It's their stock in trade. Each one of them is utterly "un-American" in the eyes of the other.

Of course, most of the world is un-American too...by definition.

Take a look at the globe. Scary, scary...un-Americans in all directions, despite the fact that there are McDonalds restaurants in Moscow and Beijing now.

How the heck did that happen anyway? Where did it all go wrong after 1776? (whimsical sarcasm)

What I am suggesting is that the USA is the only society presently on Earth that subconsciously thinks it owns and has the right to run this planet. This is such a deeply held assumption (reflected constantly in American entertainment and media) that a good many Americans tend not to be consciously aware of it, like not seeing the forest for the trees, but the rest of the world is keenly aware of it...and doesn't like it one bit.

This certainly does not justify any act of terrorism, but it gives some insight into at least one reason why terrorism happens in the first place.

- LH

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: M.Ted
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 10:55 AM

I think that the Sullivan editorial was a bit unfair--well, actually, I think that it was stupid, distorted, and biased, but, for the sake of our discussion, I'll stand on unfair. He basically says that anyone is an extreme leftist(and, by extension, a "liberal") if they say that American foreign policy may have had something to do with the terrorist attack--basically, a stupid contention--We all know that we were attacked because of our dominant political/economic and military position in the world(if you don't believe it, ask Bin Laden)--

His whole lambast of the "liberal"/leftist position is based on an attack on ideas that are no longer the exclusive property of the liberal cause(if they ever were)-- he says:

>One of the most telling things I have seen since the Sept. 11 massacre was an early "peace movement" e-mail. It listed >>>three major demands: stop the war; stop racism; stop ethnic scapegoating.

If you look at the record, you'll see that our President, hardly a liberal, let alone a leftwing extremist, has been one of the strongest voices against ethnic scapegoating--on the issues of racism and sexism, take a look at his cabinet, you may disagree with their politics, but one cannot help but notice the diversity, and even though he has been emphatic in his use of the concept of "War on Terrorism", he has also been very, very, conscious of the folly of the "show of military force" approach, and has been clear from the beginning that this war won't be big on headlines--

If Sullivan is right, it must be very painful for the conservatives out their to see how wholeheartedly their President has embraced these "liberal" causes--

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 11:06 AM

Peg, you won't believe this, but I agree with you! Censorship of the unpatriotic or seemingly unpatriotic during these hyper-patriotic times (very broad but how deep? but that's a question for another post) must be spoken up against. Clamping down on freedom of expression is just making this country more like the sort of country bin Laden apparently prefers. Our liberty breeds libertines, but it also breeds heroes and hardworking ordinary Joes (and Janes). We mustn't give up our freedom to protest those who hate us because of it.

***

Shutters on storefronts, shutters on the mind
We kill ourselves to keep ourselves safe from crime
That's the gospel of bondage.
--Bruce Cockburn

***

Alex

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Troll
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 11:31 AM

No Ted. Sullivan makes a distinction between the hard leftists and the liberals. And I believe he makes that pretty clear. His contention is that they don't want to come out against terrorism because then they can't blame America.
I have no idea if this is true or not since I don't normally hang around folks of that political persuasion but based on some columns I've read, it sounds likely.
The Liberal establishment HAS regarded such things as racism and sexism as their personal property, but they are not the only ones who feel strongly about those issues. As you said, look at President Bush.
What Sullivan was refering to is the extreme left, a small but very vocal minority who have influence far in excess of their numbers. Why? Because the Liberal establishment was reluctant to disagree for fear they would be called reactionary.
The Conservative establishment has been no better. The neoconservatives (far right to a man. Or woman)have been no better, calling for the immediate bombing of Iran and excoriating the President when he said no.
The extermes of both parties have much in common but the latest thing is that they are being repudiated by the more moderate members of their respective political groups.
Sorry if it upset you. BTW, have you read bin Ladens writings? I don't recall him saying anything about our dominant political/economic and military position in the world. He was mostly pissed about our troops in Saudi Arabir and our support of Israel. Maybe I mised something.
Peg, I spotted Mahers guest strategy the first time I ever saw the show. We used to do much the same thing when I was in TV back in the 60's. I just wasn't sure if Bluejay had. As I said, it's a no-brainer.

troll

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 11:54 AM

Troll - Without its dominant military/political/economic system in the world, I don't think the USA would presently have those troops in Saudia Arabia, nor have the Saudi government in their pocket. Highly doubtful. So yeah, I think you may have missed what is implicitly obvious in Bin Laden's writings.

When Britain was the dominant world power, it had troops in many far flung places too. If Bin Laden were living in the 1800's he might well be besieging Kartoum or participating in the Indian Mutiny, throwing the Sahibs and Memsahibs in the Black Hole of Calcutta...or defending the Kyber Pass against a British column.

So it goes...

- LH

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: GUEST,Ozzie
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 12:01 PM

Little hawk,

It MIGHT be true that some Americans unconsciously think that they own the planet and have the right to run it. However, it is also true that a lot of people elsewhere consciously think that they should own the planet and run it their way. Most of them are a lot more scary than us, so count your blessings.

Ten or so duplicate copies of this message deleted. (Do you have any idea how tedious that is?) --JoeClone, 5-Oct-01.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 12:42 PM

Hey Ozazie -- be a little patient with that Submit button thing!! It really does work the first time! :>)

A

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Pseudolus
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 12:45 PM

The trouble with getting into a thread late is that there is so much to respond to. I'll try to be brief....

I don't mean to pick on Peg but it is her comments that have me wanting to respond the most. Yes I do wave the flag, and I am proud to do so. I believe that the people who hate Americans enough to plan and execute this horrific deed see that same flag with hatred because it represents to them, the American way of life. Do I want retaliation? Yes, but not in the conventional way, go bomb the beJesus out of Afghanistan or anything like that. We are a diverse population in the US. Different religious beliefs, different ethnicities, different cultures and different regional backgrounds. The flag is one thing that all Americans have in common regardless of our differences, it's the one thing we can all share. So I display it at my home, at work and on my car. This is my belief. You, in my opinion, have pretty clearly stated that flag-waving Americans all fit very neatly into a dick waving, trash talkin, gun totin' mob. I don't agree. Is it so bad for me to be proud to be an American? I have no problem with you not waving a flag why should you care that I do?

I'm 43 and it's unlikely that my country would ask me to participate in any wartime activities. But I would if they did. And I will support in any way I can those people who support the freedoms that terrorist organizations would like to take away from me.....

I am NOT saying that your opinion on the subject is wrong. You have your right to believe what you want and I respect that. In turn, I can believe what I want....just one of those many freedoms that we both share.

Frank

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 12:49 PM

LH:

I think there are important differences between British Imperialism and American imperialism.

Their empire was autocratic and political, and economically oppressive for the benefit of the conquerors.

Ours -- we assert -- is commercial and ideational. We are not much into conquering nations. Our moves against Afghans are going to be selective, focused on the sub-class of those participating in the military attack against us. Mind you there are good arguments that we are reorganizing Afghanistan in the long-term interests of big oil. But I am not sure I buy that.

A

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Troll
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 01:47 PM

LH the fact that we exist could also be a reason we are in Saudi Arabia. The truth is that the Saudis invited us there to help protect them from Saddam.
Bin Laden had offered to use his "expertise" to set up a defense force but the Saudi Govt. turned him down and requested US help instead. This rebuff put him down on us AND the Saudi Govt. You may say that this was because of our dominant military/political/economic system but It's probably because we have a better army than anything bin Laden could have cobbled together. Remember, Saddam had the sixth largest army in the world at that time.
We didn't just go barging in; they invited us and after it was over they asked us to stay. They are terrified of Saddam and rightly so. The Saudi defense force is mostly a bunch of playboy princes playing jet jockey. Bin Laden does not like the fact that we are there on a number of levels which I have enumerated. His other reason for hating us is because of our support for Israel. I suppose that this too, can be ascribed to our powerful position in the world.
But then, how do you explain the other countries who offer Israel their support?

troll

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: M.Ted
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 02:15 PM

Troll, He makes no actual distinctions, he doesn't even back up his claims with quotes from any of the people he lumps into his concept of the left--Typical Wall Street Journal editorial, in that it bashes academics and intellectuals and restates one of their favorite ideas, which is that the Ivory Tower crowd are fundamentally weak and anti-American--As a longtime Journal reader, I have seen this over and over again, in many different contexts, and find it to be one of the less likeable aspects of the publication--

The Journal readers themselves generally care little if anything about international politics and a lot about international finances-- they tend toward an odd and unconsidered sort of social liberalism, combined with the old Republican ideas of fiscal conservatism(which, cynically translated, means "keep government out of my business unless I need a bailout")--most have not even tried to reconcil the longstanding Wall Street need to expand international trade, with the American businessman's general tendency toward isolationism--

Not withstanding the fact that I think his editorial is generally wrongheaded--he does have an accurate sense of the fact that the Liberal and Left community are held together by a compulsion toward re-affirming what used to be called "The Party Line", no matter how absurd the context--

Don't get me started, Troll, because I may kick into my own anti-liberal rant, which I am trying to avoid, in the spirit of national unity--

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 02:23 PM

the Saudis invited us there - the Saudi government represents nobody but itself, a family not unlike a Mafia family. About as representative as the Taliban, and pretty similar in a lot of ways - except a lot wealthier. And as I understand it the reason they have asked the Americans to stay is to protect them against the rest of the Saudi population.

And the only reason Saddam had such a big powerful army was largely because the USA been helped built it up to fight Iran. And, for the British and the French arms dealers and their political subordinates, he was a great customer.

The basis of this thing is the old belief that "my enemy's enemy is my friend", and it looks as if, beneath the rhetoric of fighting for freedom and against terrorism, that is still the underlying assumption.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: DougR
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 02:37 PM

Frank: I hope you won't expect to receive the same courteous reply from our Liberal friends to your post that you exhibit in yours. The Liberal view is never wrong;the Conservative view is never right. Simple. Liberals can write or say anything they wish, when Conservatives do so, they are right-wing extremist kooks. Simple.

Incidentially, I forgot who asked about the whereabouts of the V.P., but I just saw him appear at a press conference with the president, so he's still aound.

DougR

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 03:03 PM

McGrath has provided my answer.

- LH

And the British...well, they did empire-building in the manner and ethic of their time. That manner and ethic has changed since the end of WWII, official colonialism being unacceptable now...it's done through marketing now, backed up by military strength...the big wallet and the Big Stick...when it's needed. And everyone out there in the world knows it.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Pseudolus
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 03:07 PM

I'm afraid you're probably right Doug....To be honest I don't like the person described in the posts about flag wavers, which is why I guess is why I don't want to be associated with them.

Sometimes I think that is why the descriptions are like that, it's a lot easier to sound right when you describe the other person as an idiot......

Take Care,
Frank

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 03:13 PM

What's so unusual or reprehensible about Maher's approach to choosing guests? It is standard practice to choose known viewpoints just to keep things interesting. We even do it at dinner parties: If you want a lively discussion, invite people with differing viewpoints.

How long would we watch a show where everyone agreed?

As for me, I can't imagine how anyone sitting at home watching Bill Maher's show last night could have agreed with Conroy's views. I can understand her passion but I thought she was off the wall when it comes to implementing a response to terrorism. (Not 'terriorism', DougR. I keep picturing a feisty little dog. *G*)

Eb

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 03:50 PM

"What's so unusual or reprehensible about Maher's approach to choosing guests? "

I didn't see that show, but from what people have said it sounds like what is wrong is that it was put together by people interested primarily in making an entertaining show. And there are some times when being entertaining is not what the most important thing, and this is one of them.

When something important and frightening has happened, discussing it is important, and that should include all kind of people with all kinds of ways of seeing it and there'll be disagreements.

But when it turns into a flaming session, with people sounding off about side issues and sneering at other people's politics - that is a waste of space, and it's disrespectful to those who have died and those who are going to die before we are through. Whether on the telly or on the net.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 03:51 PM

"The flag is one thing that all Americans have in common regardless of our differences, it's the one thing we can all share." - how about our ideals? Our wishes for a tolerance of diversity, whether it be of religion, creed, or personal attributes?

I guess I can't understand being proud of anything that just happened, through no fault of/no thanks to anybody. I can't be proud of my race or my gender or my nationality, these are not achievements, they are all accidents of birth. I am, however, GLAD I'm American, GLAD that I live in the US, and I wouldn't trade either my race or gender for the other possibilities abounding. But I will not pledge allegience to a scrap of cloth, no matter how meaningful to others - all right, even meaningful to ME. It's a flag. It's not America. It's not even what America was meant to be, which is a nation of tolerance and diversity.On the other hand, if I'd suffered hardships elsewhere and survived to BECOME an American citizen, THEN I might be "proud" of it. It would then be an accomplishment, which my being BORN American is not. But as I said, I wouldn't trade it, and I have lived outside of the US for slightly under half my life.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Skeptic
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 03:53 PM

Change the orientation and the Sullivan article could be about the radical right with similar conclusions about extremist conservatives. The cry by the neo-conservatives to bomb Bagdad and take out Saddam is as shrill as that of the "America deserved it" crowd.

The political situation is complex. It is complicated by multiple economic, military, social and moral realities. The solutions will be equally complex which, maybe, people are beginning to realize. In part thanks to the absurd positions of the extremes.

The Attack has served to highlight the extremes to both their detriment and too give the slightly left and right of center moderates more credibility and, hopefully, more political clout.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Skeptic
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 04:10 PM

troll,

While I recognize that plagiarism is a form of flattery and appreciate the implied compliment, I see no reason for you to get the credit and/or take the blame* for my "You might be a Super-Patriot if..."

As background, it was written for another forum as a satirical comment to some of the conservatives there (who make most of the conservatives here look like bleeding heart liberals).

However, in the spirit of equal time for all:

You might be an Left Wing Liberal Nut if....... . 1. The only flag you owned prior to 9/11 was the UN Flag and it still is. 2. When you went into buy a flag, you were outraged that Wal-Mart wasn't carrying Taliban Flags and planb to organize a protest. 3. You don't know what the 13 stripes or 50 stars are for but you are sure they are symbolic of oppression and war-mongering. 4. You think the purpose of Memorial and Veterans Day is to glorify war. You usually wear a black armband for all the innocents unjustly murdered and fly a Peace flag. 5. You have been registered to vote since you were old enough. 6. You have never had to serve on a jury as your impassioned speech explaining why the jury system was part of the plot by white males to oppress people of color. 7. You refuse to give blood because of a boycott against the company that makes the needles.. 8. You support the Bill of Rights but are sure the penumbra of rights includes a prohibition against war-mongering conservative, big-money white males being allowed any rights at all. Other than paying for social programs. 9. You think that anyone who agrees with the president should be deported. 10. You are registered to vote but you have never voted as a symbolic protest against the oppressive, racist establishment that discriminates against the victimized poor and people of color. 11. You worry a lot about dependence of Mid East Oil while you drive to the Rally for Feminists Against War in your SUV. Alone. Because your spouse needed stop at Public on the way home and you didn't want to have to wait. 12. You think "My Country Right or Wrong" is silly because it's impossible for the US to be right.. 13. You think that the solution is to engage in meaningful dialogue with the al qaeda and to begin by offering full reparations for all past wrongs and future ones as well. 14 The Star Spangled Banner is a jingoistic, hard to sing song that glorifies war and the oppression of people of color everywhere. As a Nation we should allow each distinct ethnic or interest group there own National Anthem at all public events and include a period of silence for those to whom all anthems are offensive. 15. You think radical/liberal internet sites are a reliable source of information about American History. Extra credit if you get ALL your ideas from Noam Chomsky and approved feminists sites. 16. You fully support the statement: "What's wrong with America is male dominated capitalism " 17. You think that what we really need to do is make all white anglo-saxon males pay reparations to anyone who feels they have been victimized. Those members of minorities who don't feel they are victims are in denial and need to be counseled and helped to understand the extent of their victimization 18. You know exactly where Afghanistan is. In fact, you know the physical address of the UN aid mission to Kabul. You aren't too sure about where the local homeless shelter is but wish all those tacky homeless sorts wouldn't hang around the peace rally.

Regards

John

* Your "I was just trying to protect you" argument won't hold water.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Troll
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 04:34 PM

I wasn't trying to protect you. I stole the thing outright and had absolutely no intention of giving you any credit whatsoever.
And if you try to make something of it, I'll order the most expensive item on the menu tonight. Remember, it's your turn to pay.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

troll

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 04:34 PM

(no idea where those italics came from)

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: M.Ted
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 04:42 PM

Skeptic-The miracle of the internet is that it is possible for people to engage in long discussions without either having, or expressing, an original thought--it's all just cut and paste--I must admit that I thought Troll's post was original--Tsk,Tsk,Tsk.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Skeptic
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 04:46 PM

troll

And next week it will be my turn. Since it bothers you far more than it does me....order away. I'll return the favor.

I really don't need you to protect me. I spent 13 years as Purchasing/CSR Manager in a hospital. I have been harassed by true professionals of the art. After listening to a 5 minute screaming tirade (it was impressive. Didn't repeat himself once. And it was multi-lingual)from an opthamologist about how the surgical gloves we had for him would cause the patient to go blind (they were the same gloves he always used and in fact was the brand he demanded we carry), I don't think I have a lot to worry about from Mudcat.

Though willing to be proved wrong as I appreciate watching a true artist at work.

BTW, I think we ought to start alternating where we go for diner. The Mexican place this week and Wolfgang's next and so on. Suddenly, I'm glad its my turn.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Skeptic
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 04:50 PM

M Ted,

Original no, Unique, yes. There is truly only one of him and he proves that God really does play dice with the universe and has a wierd sense of humor besides.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 05:02 PM

You might be an armchair patriot if........

1. You didn't own a Flag prior to 9/11.

One of the flags I own was carried by me as the leader of the Idaho delegation of Viet Nam veterans at our Homecoming Parade in Washington D.C - November 1982.

2. When you went into buy a flag, you had to ask the sales clerk which one was the American flag. (This is definitive. No need to read further).

See #1

3. You don't know what the 13 stripes or 50 stars are for.

My state is one of those stars and the men in my last outfit probably came from most of those fifty - and my Best Friend was from one of the original 13 - and to further our study here - the Marine rifle company I was assigned to in July of 1966 shed the red part of that symbol. Did you know that the point element of my company died in under 30 seconds?

4. You think the purpose of Memorial and Veterans Day is so Sears can have a blockbuster sale. And get mad when all the parades tie up traffic.

And then have the gall to not consider hiring one of those the days are for because they aren't "normal."

5. You have never registered to vote.

I turned 21 the week my company died on the DMZ in Viet Nam. First thing I did when I got home was register - and vote every year. Never have voted for the person that won - until Mr. Clinton.

6. You have ever lied so you wouldn't have to serve on a jury.

I didn't have to - my disability was too high for "problems" associated with my service to MY country - I was dismissed.

7. You really meant to give blood but there was a game on TV you really couldn't miss.

Know what Gammaglobulin is? The first troops in Viet Nam got this stuff shot in out asses in the millions of units. That was before they figured out that minute amounts of it would mess you up. I can't give blood. But then maybe the blood out of my hands that occurred as I pulled the red hot chunk of steel out of Ira Jones leg at DaNang during a mortar attack would count?

8. You're not sure what the Bill of Rights is but think it's probably not a good idea.

Don't even fucking go there with me. And I consider myself a liberal.

9. You think that anyone who disagrees with the president should be deported.

This outfit was founded on disagreement. I like it.

10. You are registered but have never bothered to vote.

See #5

11. You worry a lot about dependence of Mid East Oil while you drive to the Rally for America in your SUV. Alone. Because your spouse needed stop at Public on the way home and you didn't want to have to wait.

I worry about alternative modes of transportation as I drive my Harley wherever I want to. Until things change they will stay the same.

12. You think "My Country Right or Wrong" is silly because it's impossible for the US to be wrong.

I don't think - I fucking know that when I was in the middle of a shit hole fire fight I didn't give a good God Damn about whether or not my country was right or wrong - I was too Damned worried about living for the next 30 seconds or so. And so will the world after this show gets the curtain raised.

13. You think that the solution is to nuke Somebody. Anybody. Bagdad, Kabul, Cairo, Miami.

The sloution is so complicated that I have yet to meet any one person that has it figured out yet - and it will take generations for those same solutions to have an impact/effect. Little Hawk, and others, are right about the humanitarian piece of this as are the rest about the killing that is coming.

14 You just figured out that the Star Spangled Banner was the National Anthem, not the NFL/ NCAA theme song.

And I don't give a flying shit what anyone says - the last line of the National Anthem is, "Gentlemen Start You Engines." It epitomizes what I fought for.

15. You think radio talk show hosts are a reliable source of information about American History. Extra credit if you feel the same way about "People Magazine" and Jay Leno and David Letterman.

Yeah and I am going to get to chat with Jeff Gordon - all I have to do is get on line at noon - real personal and all. Skewed at best. And Bill Mahar is a joke. He should have been left on PBS where no one noticed.

16. You fully support the statement: "What's good for General Motors is good for the USA"

I've always owned GM, except for my Ford and Harleys, so I don't know what to think about this. Maybe I don't care. Is it OK that I don't care about some things?

17. You think that what we really need to do is get rid of all those foreign looking types. Even if they have lived in here for a few generations.

My best friend mentioned above? Did I mention that he was blown to bits at a shitty little river crossing where some NVA Mortar team had their shit together and put one down the hatch of his Amtrack? And that his parents were from Latvia? And that his older brother was killed by German mortar fire in 1944 as his parents ran from the Germans?

18. Before 9/11, you thought Afghanistan was somewhere in South America. Which you though was somewhere near Africa. Or maybe Japan.

Or did I sit and cry as I watched the young Russian troops die in their own Viet Nam.

But leave the rest of us out of your silly little diatribes. Childish name calling solves exactly nothing.

No shit.

Steve Neff
US Marines
1962-1967
Viet Nam 65-66

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: DougR
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 05:09 PM

McGrath: That program is intended as entertainment. As someone already said (I sure don't want to claim authorship), controversy evidently is what makes it entertaining. I don't anyone views it as a news show.

Eb; I guess the president can't talk right, and I can't spell right. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 05:19 PM

Frank: I hope you won't expect to receive the same courteous reply from our Liberal friends to your post that you exhibit in yours. The Liberal view is never wrong;the Conservative view is never right. Simple. Liberals can write or say anything they wish, when Conservatives do so, they are right-wing extremist kooks. Simple.

DougR, I actually take exception to that statement. I consider myself a liberal (who votes moderate). Would you put me in the category you described above?

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 05:20 PM

Well said, Mrrz! Brava!

I always wondered how you could ally yourself with a flag.

Where the flag flaps, there flap I?

What I can't understand are people who seem to actively despise the USA, loudly, and yet stay here. (Not meaning anybody on this thread (really!) but thinking specifically of a person from a mailing list I'm on...).

The great thing about this country is that you can complain about it, out loud, without being carted off to the gulags or the Donskoi Monastery. And you can leave whenever you want, if only you can find someone willing to let you into THEIR country.

Alex

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Pseudolus
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 05:33 PM

Mrrzy, when you were in school did you ever have a situation where a school team, whether it be athletic or schoolastic, achieved something and you felt school pride? Or even a team that maybe wasn't the best, but you supported them anyway and felt school pride? How about watching the olympics and seeing someone from your country win a medal, perhaps against great odds? Being born and raised in the US is not something I chose but I'm certainly not ashamed of it, in fact I would tell someone that I am an American with pride. The folks that worked and continue to work in the WTC rescue effort are a group of people of whom I've met none. The one tie that I have with them is that they are Americans, predominantly, and they are people I am proud to be associated with even if it is in a small way, that we are Americans.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, my point earlier was that I may have a different opinion than others, but I am entitled to that opinion. I am not a war monger because I wave the flag proudly. This is just the type of American I choose to be......

Frank

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 05:47 PM

Doug R - somewhere back, if you unravel this this thread back far enough you said with regard to peace protesters in Washing, DC, probably around the fall of 1969:

"Protestors were overturning cars in the streets setting them afire, causing damage to government buildings, etc."

I find that kind of generalization irritating, implying that maybe some large percentage of the protesters were doing such acts. There were some 600,000 of us in Ocotber of 1969 marching peacefully down the Mall. Well, some of us were shouting chants and singing. There might have been as many as 600 who were indulging themselves in attacking private and public property, probably some proportion of them being paid provocators. But don't worry. That's old history and you're free to make of it what you want...

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 05:56 PM

Maybe it'd be useful to make a distinction between being proud for something and proud of it.

When your team wins you feel proud for the way they played; but only the players really have the right to feel proud of the way they played.

And the same would go for being ashamed - of your team, things done by your country, whatever.

If I was a Muslim now I'd be feeling that the terrorist had brought shame on my religion, but I wouldn't agree with anyone who suggested that I had should be feeling ashamed of being a Muslim. The same if I'd been an American at the time of My Lai, or the carpet bombing campaign of carnage.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 05:59 PM

I was bumped by a kind soul here that my response to Troll's parody on the recently patriotic and the generally apathetic could be construed as an attack on the poster. It isn't. I didn't take it as bad - rather I took it as a means by which to vent about some of the things that have been said here. I've been a bit on the prod lately and after reading the post I realized I needed to go back and say that I was not responding in a negative way - just that some of the things said over the past several weeks has deeply affected those of us who do have convictions - and not recent ones either.

I'm deeply patriotic to my country. I was, and still am, very proud of my service to my country. In 1969 when folks were marching in D.C. against the war I was part of the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War that provided protection for them from those who would have conspired to deny them their rights.

I fought for everyone. Not some simple sector or piece of it. For all of it. Thanks so much for PMing me - sometimes I need a wake up call that I am not being clear. It happens when I get to remembering and get cranky. Forgive me if this response hit those it wasn't intended for.

Like my friend Little Hawk said to me one day, "I was just having a bad day I guess."

Steve

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 09:55 PM

I kind of liked your post, Steve. It reminded me of what my father said about his first firefight with the Germans in WWII, in a field not far from Normandy. More than anything, he wished desperately that he could be anywhere but there, and he decided right then that he was going to get through it alive one way or another...whatever it took...until the fighting ended...and then never go to war again. He did that, and managed to be a pretty good soldier too in the interim, winning medals for valour.

A lot of the young Germans he was fighting against must have felt the same way he did, and a lot of them (and more than a few of my Dad's mates) didn't make it. Those who did rebuilt the postwar world, and they accomplished with peace far greater things than they had ever done in war.

War is a tragedy and a misery I wish upon no one.

- LH

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Troll
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 11:00 PM

Steve, I was in the amphibs from 63 to 67, USS GUAM-LPH9. We were in the Carribean Ready Squadron, four ships, one Marine helo squadron and a reinforced batallion landing team.

We trained the Grunts in Helo ops, take 'em in, land 'em behind the beachhead, and bring up their gear. In the four or five months we were down there each year, we got to know the grunts prety well. We were proud of them. We helped train them. They were "our" Marines.

Then they went to Viet Nam and when they came back the next year to train the replacments, we grieved with them.

I was involved in that ratf**k in Santo Domingo. I was a BAR man on the ships landing party.

A friend of mine got greased. I got a campaign ribbon. I still can't look at the WALL.

I don't know what brought this on. I guess it was us being in at the same time.

stay loose

troll

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 11:09 PM

Thanks, troll.

Thanks.

A.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 05 Oct 01 - 11:25 PM

Jesus Troll - Semper Fi my Brother - been to the wall once - enough for me - a couple of the guys in my first outfit had fought in Santo Domingo - and they said it was a ratf**k. Humpin a BAR really dates you - Cranky Old fart like me.

Little Hawk - I really want to meet you some day. I believe that you and carol have some good energy about you.

Maybe I can talk my partner into riding our bikes out to wherever it is you live one of these days.

Steve

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: DougR
Date: 06 Oct 01 - 01:19 AM

Well, Charlie, I was there, and I assume you were too. I lived in Virginia at the time, but was forwarned by a friend in the Administration that the plan of the "anti-whatever you want to call it" was to block the bridges connecting Virgina and Maryland to the District of Columbia, on a certain day so that federal employees could not report to work that day. The goal was to freeze the government.

On that particular day, the agency I worked for had appropriations hearings on Capital Hill. The Chairman of our agency, and a few key program directors, and myself were expected to testify before the Congressional committe that controlled our budget request.

The Deputy Chairman of our agency was in London at the time, but owned a home in Georgetown (the home Jackie Kennedy bought after her husband was assinated). Our Chairman asked that I spend the night in his home so that, if the protestors were successful in blocking the bridges, I would be available to go to the Hill with our delegation.

My wife drove me into Georgetown that night and we had dinner, at a local restaurant. She dropped me off at the DC's house and drove back to McClean.

The town looked like a military base. Army troops, and vehicles, outnumbered taxicabs.

The following morning I was awakened by the sound of helicopters hovering overhead. The house had a cupola on the roof that allowed a view of the bridges leading into Washington from Virginia and Maryland. I could see that Army troops were standing shoulder to shoulder on the bridges, and that traffic was moving slowly into the District of Columbia. The protesters failed to keep traffic from entering the District.

The protesters had rented Ryder and Hertz rental trucks and mounted Viet Cong flags on them. They drove the trucks through the streets of Georgetown and young protesters, armed with brooms, riding in the backs of the trucks swept broken glass into the streets intended to destroy tires of cars driving the streets.

Taxis, of course. were non-existant.

I began walking from the Deputy Chairman's home in Georgetown to our offices on 14th Street. Young people carrying Viet Cong flags were setting cars afire on "M" street and turned over on their side. Store windows were broken by thrown rocks, etc. I walked through that whole mess to our office witnessing needless destruction along the way.

Charley Nobel: I can't comment on what took place when you were involved in the protests. I didn't go to Washington until July of 1970. The 600,000 march, which frankly I wasn't aware of (that's lots of people!) was before my time.

But that's the way it was when I was there, and I'm SURE it colored my attitude toward so-called peacefull protestors forever.

DougR

Dougr

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Troll
Date: 06 Oct 01 - 11:41 AM

Yeah. 61 in Dec. We had M1's and the Grunts had M14's. Then they got M16's but the Navy still had M1's. Hell, we carried '03's in boot! Like I said, '63 to '67.

Skeptic tells me you have a '49 Knucklehead. Sweet. He's my kid brother. He was a corpsman.

troll

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Peg
Date: 06 Oct 01 - 12:06 PM

Pseudolus/Frank: thank you for your thoughtful comments and you have offered a perspective which at least tries to encapsulate the complexity of this issue (not an easy task).

And I am afraid I will offer what may seem a simplistic answer to your words, which is that, although the flag is a symbol of our country and therefore of the things we often say America "stands for" (such as freedom, pride, courage, individuality, etc.), the problem is that soemone displaying a flag in this time of crisis may be saying one thing, and another flag displayer may be saying another, etc. I am certainly proud to be an American. I certainly do take comfort in the fact that in some communities this tragedy has helped draw people together.

However, I don't wish to display a flag at this time, not because it is not an important symbol, etc. but because there seems to be an assumption that something specific is meant by it. Some people say it simply stands for unity, for national pride, for compassion, etc. Some say it is honoring the dead (then why not a black armband or black flag?) But my observation has been that the flag is at this moment in time, and for MANY, a symbol of a desire for retaliation, for nationalism. We are a very diverse nation. We ae also a very racist nation. The attacks upon Americans on our home turf, Americans whose skin color or mode of dress or religion or language make them somehow emblematic of our "enemy" (do we even know exactly who this is?) has served only to drive us apart, not unite us. Sad to say, the types of people engaged in this sort of profiling out of blind rage or ignorance are ALSO usually the militant flag wavers.

The majority of people displayig flags on their homes, cars or desks are not war-mongers and I know that. But without talking directly to someone and finding out where they stand it is all too easy to make assumptions. And one assumption I see being made over and over again in my community, as well as in the national media, is that waving a flag is synonymous with being in favor of indiscriminate military action. I do not know how to rectify this problem. Perhaps there is no way to do so.

Sadly, some cannot allow that this potent symbol can stand for peace as easily as for war. And because so many are waving it while speaking words of hatred and violence, I choose not to wave it as accompaniment to my prayers or words in favor of peace and justice.

I guess I am saying, thereis just too much confusion out there as to what this symbol means right now. And I remember the Gulf War and the proliferation of flags and yellow ribbons...and the jingoistic slogans.

I am glad our government is so far holding off on any dramatic military actions but I do fear that, within a few days, some major attack will occur and the terrorism will begin anew.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 01 - 01:03 PM

Well, Peg, you are seeing clearly into the problem not only of the flag but of symbols in general.

People intending to make parking lots out of foreign nations will see that in the symbol; people intending to balance the world's equation of violence so that terrorism is reduced or eliminated will see that in the flag.

There is no dictionary for flags or automobiles or mink coats where you can find out what they mean.

At least when ten people come up with ten ridiculous interpretations of "Consittutional rtights" they can refer to a source and find out where they are relative to it.

I too am exercising a free choice to be patriotic in the best sense I can come up with without posting any flags about it.

A

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 01 - 01:11 PM

Please POST TO PART FOURTEEN which can be found over here, instead of to this thread which is now over 100 posts.

Thanks,

A.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Oct 01 - 01:42 PM

Quite a lot more flags around where I live than normal right now, some English, some British. That's because there was a crucial football match, England v Greece. (Two all draw).

The only flag I've got is an Irish tricolour, and that's just for sporting events.

Subject: RE: American Attacks:Thirteen and Lucky?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Oct 01 - 01:53 PM

Doug - I would have been similarly disgusted by the destructive actions of those antiwar protestors you saw in DC, although I was bitterly opposed to that war.

I'm afraid there are generally assholes on both sides of any given issue, and they give the rest of the people a bad name.

My idea of protest is to speak out, to write letters and articles, and perhaps to march in the streets, but NEVER to destroy property or inflict violence on people.

There are always individuals out there who are willing and eager to be destructive, and are just looking for an excuse. I believe that is mainly because they are angry inside about their own failures in life...the failure to achieve success, happiness, whatever...and they want to take it out on someone else, some scapegoat.

Just yesterday I was in the grocery lineup, and the guy ahead of me inadvertently stepped back and I guess he caught his heel on the front of my shopping cart. He reacted with a sudden burst of anger and pushed the cart back violently. I wasn't looking his way at the time, so I didn't see his eyes, just caught the incident in my peripheral vision, so to speak. He then walked away very fast toward the bank machine, muttered something, and then came back to the checkout. Then he got in a rambling conversation with the checkout girl about how he had lost $500 dollars somehow, through some misadventure or someone's dishonesty or something. The girl was trying to be polite and calculate his grocery bill. He then got on the subject of "people who rob little old ladies" and how he WISHED he could get hold of one of them and absolutely beat the crap out of him...this appeared to be his keenest desire in life at that moment.

I was rapidly becoming aware that this guy was teetering on the edge of losing it. He was filled with pointless anger. The girl was aware of it too, and she just kept agreeing with him, and eventually got him through the checkout, and off he went.

I thought "there is a guy who may very well hurt or kill someone any time soon, and he probably doesn't even have the slightest idea why".

Maybe he was once a young protestor who thought he did know why. Maybe not.

Anyway, there are some people out there with either not much maturity or not much self-control, and when there's a demonstration some of them can get out of hand.

Steve - Well, I live in Orillia, Ontario, and Carol lives fairly near Washington DC, I believe...so you'd have to make 2 trips unless she comes up here for another visit. Thanks for the kind words.

- LH

- LH