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