Does Terrorism Work?

[Andy D]

This is a sad day almost 200 people in Spain killed, and the World is angry and asks the questions why?

We see almost daily the killing of Isrealis and Palistinians, the killing of people in Iraq, and now we have the another atrocity in Europe. So what is this about?

Does terrorism work? What are the causes of terrorism? Are these important? and if they are how do we stop/deal with the terrorist threat? Do we only care about what happens and possible causes, when it directly effects us?

I know there are many questions but dealing with human nature as I do, I still feel the sadness and the anger.

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

I don't see where it is totally successful, as people continue to go about their everyday lives.

It has it successes however in that it is an expensive thing for governments, & corporations. It does scare the wits out of us, but it is a temporary condition, we all go back to our regular lives. Corporations thrive and go bankrupt, another one takes it's place, nothing new, it just accellerates the condition.

A government might end up falling, but there are very few changes in countries borders due to war, or because of terrorism that I have ever seen, Russia has gone back to being just Russia for the most part, and her satallite states, for the most part have their independence from her. France is still France, Germany still Germany, Japan is still Japan, and so it goes, hellish conditions caused by war, but these countries have remained, and have retained their own identity.

Terrorism is like the mosquito buzzing in our ear, we will survive it's annoyances and it's diseases, and we will thrive, while we will end up swatting it away, sometimes with sucess, sometimes not.

Sure the Terrorists have had and will have their successes, but there are too many senseable people out there that will work against them, and their small numbers. We have more legitimate threats, those of too many self seeking politicians and corporate giants that bleed us much more in the long run.

[solarjazzband]

We need to find out their truly motifs for their actions.

[Andy D]

I deal with people who are motivated everyday, well at least they attempt to justify their actions. This could be hitting their parents or their teacher, self-harming, setting fire to things, hurting people and animals etc.

Now whilst they may think they are justified, I have to work within the framework that my society sets, within the law and within some kind of moral and ethical context. There are times when their actions are not acceptable, no matter what their motive or motivations are.

Sure there are people who are abused, have suffered, are affected by drugs etc, but I need to try and help them see that there are many ways to resolve their difficulties other than some of the action they take. Often this can be done, people change in many ways and at different times. Sometimes trying to understand a persons history, their anger, their motivations etc is not enough and these people, in my case children need to be secured as much for their own safety and that of the wider community.

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

I once considered myself a radical, fighting for one cause and another, then something happened, I found that other people had different views than mine, held them just as passionate and as strong and I began to realise that there are many truths out there, and non is more corrent, more justified than another.

So now I try and work with extremes. try and find alternative ways forward, and still hold on to a sense of what it is like to be a human being.

Regards

Andy D.

[yawuh]

Originally posted by Andy D
there are many truths out there, and non is more corrent, more justified than another

??? Surely you write this in haste, or in a dream? Terrorism comes down to life vs. anti-life. Not to be simplistic about it, but there it is. People who kill innocents do not share your world view, Andy, and you needn't try to even it all out under some fake blanket of relativism. The terrorists differ from most of us in the most direct, affective way, as those who have lost family or friends will attest.

Terrorism is an immediate, fundamental evil, and it's a self-serving mistake to view it thru political glasses. As in the earlier poster who compared people who blow up other people (mosquitos!) with the big bad corporations - none of which, I would assume, have enriched the quality of life of anyone on this board, right? From a distance, we can see this event thru whatever sociopoli glasses we want (in an election year, it will only get worse from both sides), but up close, it's only senseless death.

It's wearying to think about, saddening to think about - and that's very presumptuous for me to say being thousands of miles from the epicenter of tragedy. Almost as wearying is the commentary that uses this tragedy to platform anti-US sentiment, i.e., "let's hope Spain goes about dealing with terrorism the RIGHT way." As if you can negotiate with people who value neither the future nor life itself, and who will slap every cheek you want to turn. The slaughtered innocents deserve to be avenged in no uncertain terms, and the remaining innocents deserve to be protected in no uncertain terms.

I'm rambling - I'll shut up. It's frustrating to think about this and what the future might hold.

-chris

[Saundra Hummer]

What can, or do you do Andy, when you have someone who, for a better term, is a religious zealot, having been programed by their parents, friends, schools, and religious leaders, into such violent, killing machines. Like a programed robot, you know what they are bent on doing. How do you undo a lifetime of being taught to avenge the Crusades, and any other policy that they think is harmful to their religion?

I was amazed to hear Osama bin Laden complain that the western world, especially the United States wanted to do away with Islam. Really, we people here in the U.S. almost take a seculer view of religion. We don't really care how people other than ourselves view or practice religion. We are just glad that we are allowed to believe in any way we choose, but to have someone think that we are against their beliefs, we weren't and we aren't, we are, however, against the radical off shoots that want to kill anyone and everyone who don't believe in their sects type of beliefs. They, the Muslims kill oneanother just because they don't agree on certain things, all stemming for the time Mohamad's followers killed one another centuries ago. This is a tribal mentality, and a pity, and it is all the more harder for us to understand because we have left that part of our heritage far behind us, in our distant past. Clans, tribes, sects, ethnicity, race. It can all cause harm if we choose to let it, or it can be a powerful good force to work for change in a peaceful way

The terrorists are choosing their own path, and due to a lack of a practical vision they have chosen one which is detrimental to their own cause, one in which they seem to be getting some sort of perverted thrill from, an excitement. However it is as destructive to them as it is to the people they are killing.


So how, Andy, do you deal with such ingrained beliefs and entrenched bitterness? Kill the Muslim faith? I had always admired thier devotion, how they sustained it in these modern times. I just had no idea that splinter groups wanted to kill us all.

I would imagine that the majority of the people that you are working with, have suffered some terrible abuses in their lives. I wish such things would never happen to anyone. I wish that parents could see that it is so much easier to be nice to children, to see that they are so much fun, if you just know how to enjoy, how to see the humor in everyday life, in the little things, turn the cycle around and make things better, and therefore better for themselves. Everyone would be happier. I have tons of thoughts on this subject, but have said enough.

[Andy D]

No there is no haste in what I write and I respect your views yawuh.

But the view you take may not always be helpful, one persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. For example many people in the United States supported then IRA, both in terms of moral and political support, and more importantly with money that bought the guns and bombs that killed many innocent people. It is now accepted that US support for the IRA prolonged the 'conflict'.

In the 80's US Governments supported a whole range of 'terrorist' groups all over South America, most of these in conflict with elected or popular Governments.

I do not agree that " Terrorism is an immediate, funamental evil", to me it is much more complicated than this. Most terrorist groups start by having a cause, it could be the unification of Ireland, the separation of one part of Spain from another etc. This is often steeped in an historical sense of injustice and abuse of human rights etc. Over time this may become somewhat blurred and confused, and in some cases the terrorist becomes the criminal.

Of course they often retain some popular support and this gives them some justification for what they do. In my view it is impossible to see terrorism, without seeing it within a political and social context.

I share your sentiments about 'senseless' death, but if you take a careful look at history, you see that most senseless death is caused by Governments, and not by so called terrorists groups. The US Governments have a particular history in this respect, support for the Contras in South America, the support of various regimes in the Middle East and Asia etc are examples of this.

In my view terrorism is terrorism, and what the UK and US did in Iraq, what the UK did in Ireland, what the US did in just about every country in South America is as bad and as painful as what has happended in Spain. Perhaps what is needed is for people in the US and the UK and all the other outraged countries in the World, to take a long hard look at their goverments, themselves and what their elected representatives do in their name.

You can fight for democracy in your own country, just as much as you can fight for it in Iraq, Somalia, Mexico, Syria, North Korea............

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

Sure, we have all benefited from our government and from our corporations, and we have all suffered from their policies.

In the overall scheme of things, I do feel that the terrorists are in such a minority, they are like the few mosquitos that cause us discomfort, keep us awake at night, making us sick and killing some of us, but like mosquitos, they aren't all powerful in the scheme of things, they are an immediate annoyance, something we deal with, and something that we will survive. They could become more of an epidemic than they are right now, they could unleash some horrible terrors upon us, and they will try I am sure, and we hope they won't be successful.

One of my biggest fears is the loss of our constitutional rights, this is something Osama bin Laden laughed about himself, saying watch them disappear. What a pity it would be to have this happen because of a few sociopathic men and women.

Face it, our government has, and is, and will make mistakes, it is just the way it is, we have no way of preventing it, and as far as the corporations go, look at what they have done to California, look at the scandals on the books, not anti Americian on my part, anti crook, and anti cheat the American people. I am for this country, I love this country, and I hope I will always stand up for what is right, and complain about what is wrong. It is just that it seems that too many people with self agrandizement in their agenda are in both, politics and business. Some soul searching needs to be happening with both.

[Andy D]

Saundi.

Some people would have us think that GW and almost all post-war US Governments are 'zealots', they appear to have a vision that few outside the US share and seem prepared to do what ever it takes to push this vision on the rest of the World.

Is there really a different in the 'killing machines' you mention, and what the US did is Nicaragua, El Salvador, Vietnam, Houduras, Iraq, Iran, Phillippines, Cuba etc etc etc?

I am amazed to hear GW comments on the so called WMD, and the threat that Saddam posed, just as I was amazed by the comments Reagan used to make about Daniel Ortaga, and the threat that an elected Nicaraguan Government posed for World Peace.

In the end you may need to consider some of the reasons why terroists do what they do, and the climate that keeps on producing the fanatic as well as doing all you can to stop them doing what they do.

I wonder which you think is the hardest to do?

Regards

Andy D.

[yawuh]

Originally posted by Andy D
it is impossible to see terrorism, without seeing it within a political and social context.



Of course, the causes of it, the 'reasons' for it, etc. I was referring to the after-the-fact views of terrorist activities, which in the US tend to be spun whichever way the commentators political views lie. Which cheapens the significance and the personal impact of what actually happened. In other words, a lot of the crap I've read in the last couple days has more to do with party politics than the actual issue of humans senselessly killing others. But this is always the way, i guess?

By "an immediate evil" I did not mean to shortchange or ignore the origins of various terror organizations by any means - it would be very shortsighted of me to infer that these soulless zealots grew on trees outside of any particular social context. What I was getting at is that once that threshold is crossed - once you've taken down the skyscraper or the subway or the bus or the shopping mall, I am no longer interested in some coddling sort of negotiation/understanding. That chance is gone. There is only the immediate matter (here's where the word comes into play) of preventing more terrorist acts. Which in itself is very difficult, and can lead to other horrors, as we've seen.

I think we're on the same page here. I just had to respond to your earlier line about there being many truths...I think that in extreme situations like this, there had better be some sort of absolute truth or else we all should just lay down now. I'm not alluding to some higher power type truth - I'm an atheist - but more like a rational axiom from which we can proceed: the terrorists put no value on the future, nor on individual life. Now how do we deal with that?

Anyway,
CM

[yawuh]

Originally posted by Saundra Hummer
seems that too many people with self agrandizement in their agenda are in both, politics and business. Some soul searching needs to be happening with both.

Okey-doke. I'm just sensitive to this pejorative "corporate" word where it implies nothing but cheating, stealing, etc. Just as terrorists are a minority, so are the crooked businessmen, as the market tends not to reward bad behavior. And we have reaped the benefits of many, many business-people's ambitions. But that's a discussion that won't fit on these boards.

As for politicians, well, I ain't gonna disagree with you for a second.

Big-picture talk is fine with me, but I did get uppity with the mosquito reference, 'cause I saw it in microcosm. There were a couple hundred people who weren't allowed to swat.

-chris

[Saundra Hummer]

In this instant I am so @$$*&* c@ cynical it seems like a lost cause.

We here in the states hated the Iran -Contra Ollie North, Bush Casey, Reagan things that were happening, watching drugs flow into this country, ruining lives, killing people. What in the world are you to do? I just don't see an answer, perhaps it is this hoplessness that drive such zealots as the terrorists. I however think that there are better ways, They just don't want rid of us, they want to kill all of us Andy, they want to control all. Everyone and everything, and it is never going to happen, not possible. Their Utopia would be our hell. Not going to happen.

[Andy D]

saundra.

There are many ways you can prevent things, and ironically this is one of the things the terrorist tries to stop, that is participation in the democratic process. In the UK we have one of the lowest voter turn outs in Europe, people do not vote and see no hope in the democratic process.

So in the States, as in the UK, those that want to vote for environmental parties, socialist parties etc simply feel they have little hope and do not vote. What is needed is a change in the system and only the peope can do this. You and the many people on this list need to question what your representatives actually do, what questions thay ask and what they actually represent?

How much democracy do you think you really have?

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

Saundi.

You wrote:

"What in the world are you to do? I just don't see an answer, perhaps it is this hoplessness that drive such zealots as the terrorists".

What you do is question, challenge, switch your TV off and ignore the result between the Dallas Cowboys and the Washington Redskins ;) and question why your government has cut spending on welfare or public education etc.

Of course this is very difficult to do, the education system, the media would have you think in a different way, and so 60 minutes becomes the 'window' you have on the world and your particular society.

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

That was just this time on the couple of hundred, there are thousands dead and maimed becuse of their incessant need to control us, to rid themselves of us.

Life is sometimes what you make it, and they have made theirs into a cause which none of us will ever understand or tolerate.

In the analogy, it is the fact that even though there may be thousands of them, there are millions and millions of us, and we will never believe or stand for what it is they are trying to accomplish. It will never happen. Not in several lifetimes. We won't allow it, we being the senseable ones. Their cause will never be the will of the majority, so therefore it is lost. We will see to it..

[Saundra Hummer]

Andy, I vote, and the only time I haven't is when I was in the hospital, and couldn't and that was for JFK, and I would have voted for him, and his party, so I was happy to see that he won without me,ha!

Really, I do vote, I do contact our government officials, and here on this site, I am able to voice my concerns and have a voice which although not many people read what I have to say about what it is I am thinking, at least it is a voice in the wilderness, as it were.

Of course these sites are screened, so who is seeing our thoughts, we will only be able to guess about.

I like my freedoms and I am very happy about them, other than property taxes on something you own, it is a fact that the govt. owns your home as if you don't pay them, your hard worked for home is gone. You have to license your car, your boat, your businesses, so there are strings, but we reap a lot of benefits from these charges and taxes. Just wish there were fairer ways for them to go about it.

Before Reagan we had a lot of great benefits in medicine, however he took away the grants and programs that benefited us the most, could be he even might have shortchanged funds that would have gone for studding his affliction. wouldn't that be ironic?

I have reaped benefits galore, and I have suffered because of the loss of some of them, but we do have feedoms that other countries can only dream about. You too Andy, look at the places you have been fortunate enough to visit, must make you appreciative, I know it sure does me. I just wish our governments had perfect policies when it comes to those in the world that are less fortunate, we always help, but with bandaids, and not soon enough. Like you say, people in our own countries need help too, well things seem to improve once in a while, so I guess there is hope after all.

[Andy D]

Saundi.

I know you as an intelligent, articulate and thoughtfull person and I am grateful that I have got to know you a little.

One of the great myths about 'western democracy' is that it is democratic, most people do not vote, few seem to have a grasp of the issues, beyond their localities and this creates all kinds of difficulties.

What we often have is one, two or three views, parties or opinions. This often excludes those people that have a different view, and so these people do not participate in the democratic process.

Well I guess you know what the consequences of this are?

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

Of course these sites are screened, so who is seeing our thoughts, we will only be able to guess about.

So who is seeing these sites?

For what it is worth I have no doubts that in the states, any subversive sites are being monitored, and I guess this site has some subversive views:smokin:

So Mike what are you up to?

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

Well you must remember that the Secret Service, (I believe this is who Mike said it was) contacted him about a musicians name that was going to be at the White House, so how would they know to contact Mike, must have been online at this site.

We have a neighbor who subscribed to a newpaper thinking it was about history, and it was a subversive paper, so I told him that he is now on the FBI's watch list, and an aquaitaince of his, a relative of his landlady and landlord was ito a "People"s Court" thing, a subversive group, anti tax, almost skin head in their beliefs, strange religious beliefs, and he was coming around a lot, and this was at the time of drug investigations in our neighbor hood, a farming community, out her in nowhere land, and we had pepole crawling aroung here, FBI, DEA, and god knows who else, untill I became pretty frightened by it all as Rich was working nights, and I had people up on my porch, running away after my dogs went after them, These were the prowlers, burglers who had nothing to do with the Government people, just a coincedence that it was happening at the same time. New, in deep in peat moss, flower plantings with huge footprints in them broke the crowns off my plants and killed them, tapped our phone, as they thought we were part of the crazy group, which we weren't as we couldn't stand oneanother. Found the tap. Then the next thing we knew it was gone. Anyway the fellow in the People's Court thing actually lost his 10 acres because he thought that the susposed court would protect him from paying taxes. What a mess. Felt so sorry for him, but we were all on a watch list because of this.

The reason for the DEA was twofold, one thing being is the fact that our neighbors son had been a drug dealer in Southern California, his top client was John Belushi, or so he used to brag. He and Robin Williams when he was on it. So they were after he, and a Columbian, and another local. We who were never into any of the drug scene, being scared out of our wits by it all. Dumb of the government to even suspect us of it. How stupid on their part. A waste of time and energy.

Well, how is this for changing the subject, but I am still complaning about that one, and get angry about it everytime I think of it. Furious, just furious. First time I have a voice about it, with the risk of sounding like a total crazy, I must admit. But if you were to ever have this happen to you, it really leaves you at a loss as to how to handle it. I finally did call the County Court, and talked to a friend of mine who is an assistant to a Judge there, and told her about it, and how I wanted it stopped, or I would sue, and it stopped, and nothing at all ever came of any of it, Nothing at all.

Now on to the schools, which I don't really know enough about. but this is how I see it.

The federal government doesn't pay in enough to schools to really help, the schools depend on local and state taxes. The federal government taxes so heavily that it is hard for local governments to fund schools properly. Sure they count on the what?, 6% or so the Federal Govt. gives in support but it is a drop in the bucket, and their laws make it even more expensive for schools to operate, and the newest leave no child behind craziness is causing havoc teachers and state officials say.

[Andy D]

Well I guess it does not and the people of Spain have shown this. Tonight they have elected a Socialist Government, in the face of a Government that took the country into the war with Iraq, which was very much against the views of the majority of the population.

We in the UK have a lot to learn from the Spanish

Regards

Andy D

[Phil Meloy]

Unfortunately here in the UK we don't seem to have a socialist alternative.

[Phil Meloy]

Originally posted by Saundra Hummer
I was amazed to hear Osama bin Laden complain that the western world, especially the United States wanted to do away with Islam. Really, we people here in the U.S. almost take a seculer view of religion. We don't really care how people other than ourselves view or practice religion.
I'm afraid I wasn't, given that I quite distinctly remember the current disaster of a US president ranting about "embarking on a Christian crusade" almost immediately upon coming into office. People like Osama Bin Laden couldn't have hoped for any better propaganda material. What you say Sandi may be true of the majority of Americans but don't think for a moment that it is necessarily the image that the US has projected to other cultures globally .

[Andy D]

Phil.

Yep no socialist alternative, no green alternative and so on, or at least there is but they are too small to register in the minds of the electorate. Thus we have limited democracy, one of the lowest voter turnouts in Europe and a lack of respect and trust in politicians.

The ironic thing is that we are trying to 'export' this kind of democracy all over the world, and we in the west wonder why it is that so many people are unhappy with this.

Regards

Andy D.

[Tim M. Honest]

If the attack was an al Qaeda operation, and if it influenced the election in Spain against the presumed-frontrunners (the incumbents)...then terrorism "worked."

It has to be very troubling to contemplate the insertion of al Qaeda into a role in European politics, no matter what your ideology is.

[Phil Meloy]

Tim - a certain amount of the anti-government vote in Spain stemmed from not only the anti-war lobby in Spain but also from the fact that the government was seen to be trying to deceive the electorate by attempting to play down any connection between the bombing and Spain's involvement in Iraq by originally claiming that ETA the Basque separatist movement was responsible for the attack. If the politicians had behaved with a bit more honesty in the first instance the reaction against them might not have been so severe.

[Saundra Hummer]

Hello Phil!

I agree with you totally, what this President is projecting is beyond comprehension with many of us. Some of us don't approve, and it becomes frightening to us when one realizes that he thinks this way. Even if he is only pandering to certain radical groups in the country, it it frightening that he would use this rhetoric to garner support with certain peoples. A new report says in a poll among teenagers, he is their favorite candidate, so I am wondering if they are mirroring their parents choices, and if so, will this come down to 4 more years.

The world has just become an overcrowded and too complicated place. Things move much more swiftly than in the past, One mispoken word is heard around the world in the blink of an eye. Everyone likes spontenaity, but when so much depends on how one man projects himself, he needs to think things out thoroughly before spouting off. That is if he is capable of doing this. He seems so proud of going by his "Gut" but his off the cuff remarks, his lack of knowledge of how other cultures believe, has hurt, and continues to cause problems. Crusades? To us it is a small part of early European and Islamic history,in the distant past, something that to us seemed to be so pointless as to have been totally irrational on the part of the Europeans participating in them, but to the Islamic world, for some reason, they think of them as yesterday, they tend to think or want to think that any and all non-Muslims with European roots wanted to do away with Islam. Not true. We don't understand this reasoning, but it is their way, and that should have been understood by everyone in the current administaration.

I need to qualify something I said earlier, I need to explain what it is I meant by a small part, I mean that we didn't look on it as something as large as it is to the Muslim world, as we spent little time on it in comparison to studying current history and the early part of our own national history, the Mayflower, the Pilgrims, Colonial times, our Revolution, the wars we were in, Ghandi, etc. most subjects weren't delved into very deeply. We were taught that the Cursades were folly, religous and monitary folly. Hard to believe the hatred, and the revenge seeking, for something that happened centuries ago. We just felt that the Crusades were undertaken by misguided men. with the need and desire to force their will upon others, also for the oportunity to loot, and profit by their phony reasons in some cases. and for the adventure and excitement of it all. So it seems nothing has changed, people still commit atrocities that are for other lost causes. People still try to profit with made up excuses to go to war, monitary, or political, and perhaps in a misguided belief that their reasons are the moral highground.

[Andy D]

Tim.

Spain supported the US/UK attack on Iraq, despite almost no popular support from the Spanish people and no UN mandate, it was a very unpopular war and yet the Spanish Government ignored this. As Phil suggests the Aznar Goverment attempted to blame the bombings on ETA, even though this was unclear and days before a general election.

Now this is very typical of what my Governemnt has been up to, in relation to the War in Iraq. My take on this is that the people showed how democracy can work, the people could see the lies and spin put out by the elected governemnt. I can only hope and dream, that the electorate in the UK and the US can also see this :wink2:

Regards

Andy D.

[still life]

What has always puzzled me is why the deaths inflicted by the terrorism of any particular era are described as atrocities while the deaths inflicted by dropping bombs are merely "collateral damage".
It's as if the lives taken by bombs we drop are less important than the lives snuffed out by terrorists. My confusion is that a person killed for someone else's political agenda is no less dead because they were killed in the process of "liberating" a country.
The people killed in furtherance of a noble cause are no less dead than the ones who were ruthlessly killed by terrorists.
Surely, in this, the twenty-first century, we should have come to a point where this method of "negotiation" is obsolete. Instead, we have scientists and arms developers working themselves loop-legged, inventing new and even more terrible weapons. How long can we survive as a species, moving in that direction??

[It Should be You]

Originally posted by still life
What has always puzzled me is why the deaths inflicted by the terrorism of any particular era are described as atrocities while the deaths inflicted by dropping bombs are merely "collateral damage".
It's as if the lives taken by bombs we drop are less important than the lives snuffed out by terrorists. My confusion is that a person killed for someone else's political agenda is no less dead because they were killed in the process of "liberating" a country.
The people killed in furtherance of a noble cause are no less dead than the ones who were ruthlessly killed by terrorists.
Surely, in this, the twenty-first century, we should have come to a point where this method of "negotiation" is obsolete. Instead, we have scientists and arms developers working themselves loop-legged, inventing new and even more terrible weapons. How long can we survive as a species, moving in that direction??

Still Life, you and I are on the same page, absolutely! I have said the same kind of thing for years. Only you have said it much better than I could.

Before the AAJ crash Andy D and I had some good conversations going on about this very thing. I was quoting what Freud said about our baser instincts, and how we sometimes let them out--only with sublimated and fancier names like doing violence in the name of a great and noble cause. We didn't get very far with it, but I was talking about Why War? An Open Letter to Albert Einstein (1932).

I believe a great many people worldwide, "collateral" people, feel this way about war, right or wrong. I am hopeful for the people of Collateral Land, but it might take a long time coming...

[still life]

Originally posted by It Should be You
Still Life, you and I are on the same page, absolutely! I have said the same kind of thing for years. Only you have said it much better than I could.

Before the AAJ crash Andy D and I had some good conversations going on about this very thing. I was quoting what Freud said about our baser instincts, and how we sometimes let them out--only with sublimated and fancier names like doing violence in the name of a great and noble cause. We didn't get very far with it, but I was talking about Why War? An Open Letter to Albert Einstein (1932).

I believe a great many people worldwide, "collateral" people, feel this way about war, right or wrong. I am hopeful for the people of Collateral Land, but it might take a long time coming...

Thank you for reminding me that I'm not the only one who wonders about these things.
Or, as more precise and direct folks than I may say, exasperated, What The F#*k?????:rolleyes: :mad2:

[Saundra Hummer]

O.K!!!!

We are all pretty much in agreement! Kindred spirits here!

Now lets all go out and spit in the wind!

[Andy D]

There has always been a fine line between what individual people do or groups do and what the State does in our name. This is often lost on Governments and is one of the reason why terrorism, in all its form continues to be a problem.

Is there really any difference in what the UK Government did in Ireland and what the IRA did? Or the US did in South America, and just about any other part of the world, and what happened on Sept 11th?

Now this to some will be very difficult to accept, because as Bob Dylan once wrote some people feel they have " God On Their Side", but to me terrorism is terrorism. Trying telling the people of East Timour that what happened to them was not terrorism, or the people of Veitnam or the people in El Salvador for example.

I also feel that we can move beyond 'spitting in the wind', that any situation can be changed, partly beacuse I still believe in the human spirit and the immense possibilities of this. I also feel that the biggest threat to mankind is doing nothing, or allowing those people we elect to think they can do just about what they want, even though it is clear that millions do not agree with them.

The people of Spain, to me at least showed what can be done when you want to change things, and you become involved in the 'political, economic and social process.

Regards

Andy D.

[Tim M. Honest]

The forces who claim responsibility for the Madrid train bombings have sent a letter to a Spanish newspaper where they declare a truce with Spain, suggesting that they are "pleased" with the election results.

I submit that the terrorists now believe terrorism works.

This is unfortunate.

[Saundra Hummer]

A Truce!!!

They just killed and maimed how many Spaniard and they call a truce!! How damned considerate of them! Do they truly believe that the Spaniards will continure to grovel at their feet? I don't think so!

Where will the next bombs be? Will they be planting or threatening to plant bombs before every election in Spain? Most likely, and how can you live like that? Low down scum, just scum. Excuse my poetic prose here, but I just believe that sometimes there aren't words to really express your emotions, they are too raw at the moment.

So the Socialists have given them what they consider to be another victory? Maybe Spain is right in withdrawing their troops, but where does it end, this appeasement? This is what they consider it to be, even if the new Spanish government had planned on withdrawing them anyway, they believe it is their acts alone that elected a Socialist government, and will be bombing again to try to accomplish the same results, if not in Spain then here, England, Greece, or wherever their cruel fancy takes them.

Which one of us or how many of us are next? One small victory is enough to pump them up for quite a while, they will be gloating over this one for a long, long time.

[Andy D]

Sandi.

To some extant I can understand your anger your frustration and the passion you feel and there are many people who would share your sentiments.

However, there are many reasons why the "scum" you refer to feel justified in what they do. For some it is about the currrent Middle East situation, for others a warped view of what an Islamic World would look like and there are many more reasons. Now non of these justify, in any why what happended in Spain or what happened on Sept 11th or indeed any other act of terrorism.

But it may be helpful to consider some of the reasons why these people do what they do. Western countries, led by the UK and the US have been fighting a 'dirty war' in many countries all over the world for many years, that has resulted in the deaths of millions of people. The UK and the US have used terrorists methods to achieve their particular aims, and justified this in the name of strategic interests or threats to world peace.

I wonder for example how much passion the people in the west showed to the children of Iraq, as they died in their thousands as a dirct result of the sanctions that the US and the UK kept imposing on Iraq, despite the United Nations Children Fund and many other groups telling them what was really happening. I wonder how much anger and passion was shown to the people of Rwanda, as we stood around and let these people literally hack each other to death. The mess that we in the west have created, is at least part of the resaon why the terrorists do what they do.

These are just two recent examples of what happens when the passion that you and many other people show, is focused on the latest terrorist act. What happens is that terrorists are recruted, trained and then they go on to inflict the pain recently suffered by the Spanish people.

Of course these people need to be caught and justice served, but justice also needs to be served on Governments that use terrorism on other countries, on other people just because they do not like their political, social or economic system. If this justice was served then your country and mine we would face some very serious charges indeed.

Regards

Andy D.

[yawuh]

Originally posted by Andy D
how much passion the people in the west showed to the children of Iraq, as they died in their thousands as a dirct result of the sanctions that the US and the UK kept imposing on Iraq, despite the United Nations Children Fund and many other groups telling them what was really happening. I wonder how much anger and passion was shown to the people of Rwanda, as we stood around and let these people literally hack each other

I'm genuinely confused as to whether it's the US' role to a) stand around and mind its own geographical business, or b) lend assistance to every shambled country that can't get its act together. Damned if we do, or if we don't, which betrays a general hatred/envy that goes beyond specific examples. A country's starving children seems to me to be the responsibility of that country's leaders and power structure, which isn't to say that I don't *care*. I care as much as anyone in this thread as to the horrors being spoken of, but I'm not assigning blame to the same old capitalist demons everyone else seems to hate. The "mess" that the West has created baffles me, truly...when taken in sum with what good the West has brought...but even thinking such awful thoughts probably puts me in the minority around here. I don't mean to argue to change your beliefs, Andy, which I actually do respect. But just my 2 cents.

[Andy D]

The US and the UK maintained the sanctions on Iraq in the face of evidence that it was resulting in a lack of medicine, food etc that the children of Iraq needed. Iraq has/had enough money to feed it own people, with money from oil it had no problems in this respect. The US led embargo on Oil exports resulted in a shortage of food and medicine and this resulted in the death of thousands.

In the 80's the US led attack on the elected government of Nicaragua, decided to try and burn all the coffee plantations, one of the only things this country could export, and thus they tried to starve the people of the vital medicines and equipment they needed. Just a couple of small examples of the 'dirty war' that the US has been fighting for years.

Iraq did not have a food problem and infant mortality was not that high, until the sanctions came into operation. What some in the US Government seem to over look, is that many countries do not need the US to maintain their economies nor their society and cultures. Take another example Cuba, despite the illegal blockade of imports to Cuba, Cuba has one of the best health care systems in the world, and many people in the UK and looking at how this small can still provide the eye operations and the community health care etc, in the face on the US economic embargo.

The US Governments actions in Cuba are very typical, if you cannot destabilise the country by covert means, then you starve people by blocking anyone from doing any kind of business with it, and then when the people revolt you turn around and say
" Look we told you so, they are not democratic and we need to help the people"

I am curious as to what you think the West has brought?

Many of the the countries that are now the 'enemies' have at one time been 'friends', have been supported, trained and have been given special status by successive US Governments. While Saddam was fighting Iran, in a war that killed thousands over a long period of time, the US was providing significant intelligence, millions of $ and other forms of support. Now this is despite the evidence provided by Amnesty International and other human rights groups, that Saddam was responsible for gross human rights abuses, use of chemical weapons and so on.

What seems to confuse people is that the US seems to have no real consistant plan about who it supports and who it does not, it seems to be based on a limited view of what happens outside the US borders. It is based on a political system that does not allow for the freedom of speech, that is the basis of the constitution of the United States. It is based on its own self-interest and the survival of the people of the United States.

Yawuh I do respect the view that you put across, and there are many who would agree with you, and I am not suggesting that all the world's problems are the result of US economic and political policies. But the US has been a major contributer to many of the conflicts that rage around the world now, and just like the ordinary Germans have been encourage to come to terms with their part in what happended to the Jews, the ordinary people of the US need to begin to see what has, and what is continuing to be done in their name.

Regards

Andy D.

[yawuh]

Originally posted by Andy D

I am curious as to what you think the West has brought?

Nothing, and I feel sheepish for having suggested such. The people who flock to the US to study, work, and/or raise families are misguided. The supposed free speech and personal liberties they enjoy while here are all an illusion, especially when compared to the enormous freedoms granted to citizens of 3rd world tribalist states/religions. Western science has been errant in its favor of rationalism over mysticism, and any medical or technological products of Western capitalism are to be discarded, even and especially if they have worldwide beneficiaries. The US has never provided military or financial assistance to any country, deserving or not - only terrorist operations where the main goal is to kill innocents and burn coffee plants.

Sorry, I hate being a smart arse, but I don't know how to reply if you are seriously asking what the value of Western business/culture/philosophy is? And if the actions of the US have ever been beneficial to the world? Because the real answer is of course far too detailed and lengthy to bring to this imaginary table. I do agree that there are messes and missteps, but really, Andy, this is such a broad topic that I have to beg off - maybe shouldn't have spoken up in the first place, as I would personally be more effective arguing/discussing these things in person or in real letters.

Now that Spain has capitulated, at least in the eyes of the attackers, the US will almost certainly suffer something similar/worse by November, so you will get to see justice served, eh? Which is a way of answering the topic of this thread - yeah, I think terrorism does at times work. That's all I've got.

[Noj]

Sure, terrorism works--as a catalyst for more terror, murder, and misery for all involved.

[Saundra Hummer]

Hi Noj!

Out of the mouth of babes,

Sensible, and oh so true!

[Noj]

Hi Sandi!

Ugly topic, it all depends on how you define "work." I for one would not associate a word so closely related to productivity as "work" with a word of the strictly evil, destructive, backward-thinking quality of "terrorism."

[Saundra Hummer]

Hi Noj,

It is like history has proven.

Since the beginning of recorded time, violance has shaped thiings to a point, like the different Muslim sects killing each other over a murder that happened in the beginning times of their religion, their religion shaping their governments, ruling, but in the overall scheme of things, borders change little. Iran is Iran, regardless of how many armies have marched through it since Alexanders time.

Violence as a means for change usually doesn't work, if if is true change that you are wanting. True change comes about when a whole population can embrace a thought, a way of living, a way of doing good things, because the majority of people want what is best, what makes them happy, what makes them secure.

Terrorists and others thinking that violence will ensure a better life is folly, as it is for governments to think this way. Violence does build up extreme hatreds, and bitter thoughts, that brings more violence upon everyone involved, or so it seems to me.

Economic violence is another weapon that hurts people, not so much their leaders, and we in this country have been against this type of sanctions and descrimination, and have let our leaders know this. All of us aren't happy with the sufferieng this causes around the world. We have the oportunity to make changes, and hope with each national election that things will improve.

[Saundra Hummer]

Replying to myself here.

I guess there are times as hard as it is for me to admit, that terrorism works, maybe when the goal is lofty, and peoples get behind the ideas that are behind the terrorism. Having said this, do you believe that we in the U.S. are going to get behind what it is that the terrorists are trying to establish? Do you think that the Spaniards are going to be behind what it is the terrorists, or freedom fighters as some of you might call them, are trying to establish? It might work in a local setting, drive out an occupying army, like the English and the Jews, drive out foreign investors, drive out corrupting tourists, and then they will be where they wanted to be, an isolated nation, one whom no one feels they can deal with because of their shortcomings, and violent ways. They will be an island unto themselves. Much as Saudi Arabia is today, and look at what is happening there. There is a danger of falling from within.

[yawuh]

Originally posted by Saundra Hummer
do you believe that we in the U.S. are going to get behind what it is that the terrorists are trying to establish? Do you think that the Spaniards are going to be behind what it is the terrorists, or freedom fighters as some of you might call them, are trying to establish?

The US - never. It's philosophically impossible. I'd fight to my death against some Dark Ages fantasy. Can't speak for the Spaniards, but I would think they're not with the terrorists' goals, despite the appeasement. Poland is apparently going to back out of Iraq, at the moment's headline, which is another small intimidation victory for the terrorists...

[Bev Stapleton]

It's actually an oversimplification to suggest that people in the UK were opposed to the Iraq war and that Blair took us to war regardless.

There was certainly a large and very vocal anti-war element. But I know plenty of people who agreed with the action that was taken. My own position last March was to accept that Blair knew things we didn't and I trusted his judgement.

What has come out since has certainly made me doubt him. And yet...

I find it hard to see Blair or the current government as manipulative war-mongers. I think they are quite sincere in their intentions. But they became so overwhelmed by the momentum of events and the need to act decisively that they did what governments have done down the ages - look at the story of how the US got into Vietnam - they started cutting corners in the interest of what they perceived as the greater good (the very same argument the terrorists would use!).

I actually think politicians are quite confused at present. On the one hand some are suffering from Post-Vietnam Syndrome - what happens if you over-involve in a distant foreign situation that you see as a threat? But even stronger is Post-Munich Syndrome. The fear of going down in history as the new Neville Chamberlain.

I certainly think the actions of the UK government can be read in the latter light.

Conspiracy theory, however, makes much better press!

As for the Spanish election, I don't think it has anything specific to teach other electorates.

The election result was not a finely thought out, rational national statement on the Iraq war. It was an emotional reaction to a devastating event.

Before we decide if the Spanish can teach us lessons we'll need to see exactly how the new government handles the situation.

[Saundra Hummer]

It is after all an unpopular war, if any war can be called popular. These countries, Poland and Spain, can't really afford to spend their limited resources on war, as it debilitates economies and societies, they just can't afford to be there, can they? You had best have a very good reason for going to war, as it's costs are just too high, and I am also speaking in human terms.

I am with you, we have fought too hard in so many ways to have the life we enjoy here in our country. To sit back and let these brutal, self seeking zealots on their power trip dictate how we live???? I would arm myself to the teeth before I would let that happen and I think there a lot of other freedom loving peoples out there that feel the same way.

If this violence and bombings continue, we stand the chance of turning into an armed camp.

I know a fellow, a tall, mild mannered man, always plesant, always a friendly greeting for everyone. he used to go to a crazy bar we would go to, a cowboy and logging bar, talk about living dangerously, well, one night after a fight, one that was pretty bad, he was telling Rich and me, "They are never going to do that to me!" I asked him, how he planned on stopping it, and he showed us the little gun a Derringer type, a ladies gun. He said, I enjoy my health too much to let them beat the hell out of me. Saying he'd shoot them first. Dead serious. Well there are people around the world that feel this way, and we will turn ourselves into vigillent watchdogs, and it will make it much more difficult for these things to continue. Self preservation makes for strong feelings and actions. We're not there, but it could be a distinct possibility with a lot of people, as that is how people are talking and thinking.

[Bev Stapleton]

I don't know if terrorism (in the sense of anti-State terrorism) does or does not work. It's been with us for centuries - it's just that today it has access to technologies that make its impact far more devastating.

I think we'd all (well, mostly) agree that it should not work. That it should not be allowed to work. Governments cannot allow it to work and will always try to outwit it (well, when it's directed at them...I don't recall too many US government protests at terrorism directed at Castro's Cuba in the 60s!).

But does it work? Perhaps to really answer that question we need to detach ourselves from the emotional impact of its consequences.

I wonder if we'd be able to answer, "Well, actually, however much we might loath it, it does."

**********
Andy mentioned the issue of terrorism in Ireland here. I wonder how many people watched 'Michael Collins' and found themselves outraged by the actions of the hero?

It could be argued that the terrorism (or should that be freedom fighting?) of the 1918 to 1921 period did work in part to secure the semi-independence of the Irish Free State.

[Andy D]

Bev.

The UK Government did not have a mandate to go to war, the United Nations resolution, which we had signed up to, felt that there was no justification for the war.

So what evidence do you have that tells you that the majority of the people in the UK, and not just those in England, supported the war?

I know many people that supported the war who are English, but few who are are from the other parts of the UK .Our government went to war on the basis of WMD and the threat that this posed. To this day there have been no WMD found, and even those that set out to find them feel that the war was unjust.

If the basis of the war, and we still have no evidence for this, was WMD why did we go to war?

I find it much easier than you do to see the Blair Government as "war-mongers", why did he support the war in Iraq, despite the UN not sanctioning this? Why did he allow the sale of fighter jets to Indonesia, despite the fact that these killed 1000's in East Timour?

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

Bev.

I do not make the destinction between 'anti-state terrorism' and any other kind of terrorism. State terrorism has been with us for a very long time, and the English have become experts at this. Look for example at what the English did in the West Indies or in South Africa, and you see examples of state terrorism.

States also have access to technologies, and this creates far more tension than do individual groups.

You mentioned Michael Collins, who to some is a hero and to others is a terrorist. The context in which Collins lived, was one of a dominant state imposing its values on people who had different social, economic and political values. England was dominant, ruled the world, based on the might of its army. Collins and the subsequent IRA challlenged this, as did Castro in Cuba, Ortega in Nicuragua etc.

Regards

Andy D.

[Bev Stapleton]

Originally posted by Andy D
You mentioned Michael Collins, who to some is a hero and to others is a terrorist. The context in which Collins lived, was one of a dominant state imposing its values on people who had different social, economic and political values. England was dominant, ruled the world, based on the might of its army. Collins and the subsequent IRA challlenged this, as did Castro in Cuba, Ortega in Nicuragua etc.

Regards

Andy D.

And as the terrorists causing mayhem at the moment believe they are doing. I'm sure Bin Laden sees himself as opposing the attempts by the USA to impose its values on the Muslim world.

The difference between Bin Laden and Collins is eighty odd years of romanticisation. Though I imagine the latter is well underway in the Arab world.

I also don't distinguish between state or anti-state terrorism. The word is used by both sides as black propaganda. I merely introduced the word 'state terrorism' because the discussion so far had focussed on anti-state terrorism. I'm sure everyone contributing here is well aware of the countless examples of state terrorism.

So what evidence do you have that tells you that the majority of the people in the UK, and not just those in England, supported the war?

None at all. I never said that. I merely disputed that there was a majority against the war. There was certainly a substantial anti-war movement in the build up. But I think it is a mistake to portray that as the generalised outlook of the UK public. The UK public was very uncertain and very confused. Though it suits pro-government propagandists to present the war as having widespread public support; as it suits the propaganda of romantic socialists to portray it as one great capitalist conspiracy, opposed by the heroic workers.

I'm not trying to justify the war. I'm one of the confused, not a banner waver for either side of the argument. I just feel that both sides in the argument heavily oversimplify the issues and try to demonise the opposition.

Painting a picture of the heroic Spanish people showing the rest of the world the way forward by voting out one government and in another just strikes me as one of those oversimplifications.

Makes a nice banner, can be shaped into some great slogans. But not much help in understanding what was really going on which I suspect was far more complex.

Did Blair etc realing mislead us into war? It's looking like they did. Did they act illegally - well in the foggy world of international law they're looking pretty guilty.

But what was their motivation? I don't know about Bush, but I don't believe Blair had any malicious intent. I think he really believed there was a threat and he had to act. It was Munich Syndrome. In his mind the greater good justified the means - i.e. the illegality. You don't need to read very much history to see that as the norm, not the exception.

Is it right? Morally it's indefensible. But states work by realpolitik, not morality.

I can envisage this all going to court. I can envisage Blair being brought down. And let's imagine that the outcome was that the British public 'learn' from the Spanish and elect a socialist government.

Within five minutes they too would be making decisions based on realpolitik. I can't think of a single socialist government of the 20thC, resulting from election or revolution, that did not compromise its principles in order to carry out the reality of everyday government.

[Andy D]

There is nothing simple about terrorism in which ever form it takes, and I never suggested that the Spanish people are showing the world a way forward, what they are doing in my view is proving that democracy is alive and well, which in my view is one answer to terrorism.

I make the destinction between the use of the term 'UK' and those parts of the UK that did not support the war. Now that parts of the UK have some home rule, there is more to the UK than what happens in London. Polls at the time indicated, for example that the majority of people in Scotland did not support the war.

There are a number of factual considerations that seem not to be in doubt: The UK Governemnt want to war on the basis that Saddam had WMD, these have not been found. There was the so called 30-minute threat, which turns out not to be a threat at all, or at least now it seems we are talking about more conventional weapons. The UK initially said it would only go to war with a UN mandate, the UN gave. no such mandate.

Now perhaps there is a danger that I am seeing things in a simple way, but if your government goes to war on the basis of the threat of WMD, and we have little real evidence of this, and we find no weapons what are we to think?

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

Interesting question what was TB motivation?

I guess we can only speculate: a place in history, a kind of moral crusade. a genuine attempt to rid the world of a dictator? Who knows?

You mentioned 'real politik' Bev

States may well work within this context but that does not mean that we should accept this. It was real politik that made the British Government sell the planes to Indonesia, that resulted in the deaths of 1000's in East Timour, it was real politik that encouraged the British Government to have a shoot to kill policy in Northern Ireland and inturn many innocent people, that helped prolong the troubles.

You see to me real politiks has consequences that are often long-lasting, and create heroes out of people who some consider a terrorist.

Regards

Andy D.

[Bev Stapleton]

I agree with all you say, Andy. I'm not trying to defend Blair. Given that I trusted him I feel duped myself.

If the electorate were to send him crashing to the ground; it the courts were to do the same, I'd not be out there defending him. It is absolutely right that the governments actions come under the closest inspection. And are challenged. And held accountable.

I just tire of some of the designer-left (and I'm not implicating you there, Andy) who simply want to turn this into a massive conspiracy theory.

A huge error? a massive misjudgement? probably. But some sort of machiavellian conspiracy. Nah, I've heard that one again and again over the years.

With Bush, I'm not so sure...but Blair always strikes me as a well-meaning but ultimately pragmatic individual. The designer-left like to paint him as a Tory in Labour Clothing. I just see him as someone who will always take the road of possibility over principle. I could rant for hours at my disappointments over the failure of the current government to do certain things in education. But I see that as his pragmatism. If he were to fund education in such a way that the inner city comps could really make a difference with their intake the cost in terms of increased taxation would simply lose him the middle class vote that got the unelectable Labour government elected.

The choices to me are not Conservatism or Socialism. They are Conservatism or New Labourite Social Democaracy. Much as I'd love a government with a more socialistic approach to education and health I can't see them as getting elected.

The whole Iraq and 'War on Terrorism' thing strikes me as another illustration of his attempt to act pragmatically - distancing himself from the rather head-in-the-clouds foreign policies of Labour in the 80s and presenting a hard nosed image of a party prepared to make hard choices. It seems he wrong-footed himself over Iraq in his attempt to do this.

I take your point that in Scotland, Wales etc opposition to the war might have been stronger. But the fact is that those region are currently part of the UK. And the UK is a representative democracy where we choose or MPs without imposing any mandate on their decisions beyond the control we have over them at the next election. We choose them to use their judgement. We're not the 17thC Dutch Republic where delegates to the States-General had to return back to the individual provinces to gain local approval for decisions.

If the UK public disapprove of the decision Blair made so strongly then we'll see the consequence next year or the year after. If the Welsh, Scots, Ulstermen feel ignored and misrepresented then the pressures for further devolution will mount.

[It Should be You]

Ha ha!

Still dividing the world between "the West" and "people who hate the West and will blow it up."

East west north and south people are tired of that shit and tired of being bombed then being called collateral damage.

Divide the world this way instead

There are two "nations" worldwide: evolved and unevolved

Nation 1: Peaceul people with a right to be left alone!
Ex. Victims of violence and their families that grieve. People that don't give a shit about their leaders' "causes" when they lead to death and "collateral damage." People that just want the killing to stop, no matter who you support politically.

Nation 2: Violent people!
Ex. US and Bin Laden both violent and on the same side, plus the bombers in Iraq, in other words violent people and their supporters. People who can kill others for their stupid political games.

I think this is MUCH closer to the reality of the situation than anything like identifying with being American, Iraqui, Irish, Israeli, Palestinian, etc.

Sorry, this is WAY off the topic of jazz!

[Saundra Hummer]

Everyone's making rational points here, and that's a good thing, as I am getting too emotional over these issues, just feel so lost.

It should be you, this is after all, the political thread, so your thoughts are apprecieated by those of us who have this type of interest, not being one dimensional is sometimes a good thing.

I think that all of us are right in what we are thinking, although it seems that these events can make for some radical thoughts. I know mine are, over a lot of what is happening. Trying to keep a cool head, when it seems that the world around you has gone stark raving mad is difficult to say the least.

[Andy D]

Taking a simple view of any situation is not always that helpful, trying to understand why it is that people are peaceful or hate is much harder to do.

Why is it for example that the Scandanavian nations seem to create less conflict, are involved in less 'wars' in the world? Why is it that peaceful people, for I do not think that people are 'born' terrorists or are born 'bad', feel that the only option they have is to strap several pounds of explosives to their chest, and walk into a coffee shop in Jersuslum?

Being Irish, being Palistinian, being a Jew etc has a very distinctive narrative and this is what needs to be validated, and in some cases the political, social and economic issues need to be addressed.

In my view for far too long the US and the UK have decided that one narrative, one story has been the dominant one and have actively support this.

Regards

Andy D.

[It Should be You]

Originally posted by Andy D
Taking a simple view of any situation is not always that helpful, trying to understand why it is that people are peaceful or hate is much harder to do.

Why is it for example that the Scandanavian nations seem to create less conflict, are involved in less 'wars' in the world? Why is it that peaceful people, for I do not think that people are 'born' terrorists or are born 'bad', feel that the only option they have is to strap several pounds of explosives to their chest, and walk into a coffee shop in Jersuslum?

Being Irish, being Palistinian, being a Jew etc has a very distinctive narrative and this is what needs to be validated, and in some cases the political, social and economic issues need to be addressed.

In my view for far too long the US and the UK have decided that one narrative, one story has been the dominant one and have actively support this.

Regards

Andy D.

Bless you! Yes, we need more narratives, and more understanding.

Here's one:
Leaders respect and do what their people want. That's radical..

Three of the world's major religions have a story about violence. Judaism, Christianity, and Isla,. The story of Cain and Abel. Remember? Please chime in with other religions' stories here.

God favored Abel's gift, Cain was jealous, then he killed Abel.

This is not simple. This is one of the deepest stories in the world. Why do we kill?

Why did Cain kill Abel? He could have maybe just held a grudge! Or addressed the problem another way.

Well, let's address Cain's problem. He felt he was treated unjustly. Who treated him unjuslty? God himself. Let's bomb God? Ridiculous! Let's bomb people? Ridiculous! We hold it up to ridicule. No matter who does it, no matter the reason...

Why do these terrorists and nations bomb and kill people? Let's address their concerns about injustice? Why does US govt bomb and kill people? Let's address their concerns about injustice?

No, let's just say Cain, you violent ones, you are wrong!!! And so are perpetrerators and condoners of violence. Wow, there are millions!

I am all for addressing injustice. But all the addressing injustice in the world will not end violence, in my opinon.

Violence is ingrained in us.and there is nothing simple about that.
We simply find an excuse to use it, right or wrong. I think God himself introduced a situation that someone could feel is injust. Don't blame God, just understand that injustice is in the world. Love Cain, but don't do what he did.

Thanks Andy!

P.S. Sorry. This post goes beyond the AAJ prohibition on discussing religion, so I apologize.

[Saundra Hummer]

We're not complaining, not when it is religion rearing it's head in the political world.

Man's brain is still primative, and that is a need.

Too bad really, as it is mans primative brain functions that make us what we are, and it lets us exist, without it we wouldn't survive. It is our primative brain that gives us the impetus to furnish ourselves with food, compete for jobs, provide shelter, drive our religious thoughts, or so they say, and on down the line, and it is our primative brains that take us into violent situations. Some have never learned to control their primative emotions, and they never will, violence will be with us forever, but on what scale? Will more and more uf us see it as an only way out? An only way to accomplish our goals, an only way to make someone pay a debt? An only way to get revenge? Revenge itself is a primative brain function. We would all be vegatables without the seed of our primative brain being active, but it needs to be channeled for good, something beneficially constructive, not the terror that governments and poor deluded fools partake in. Makes me want to shoot them all, ha!Ha! Now I am being facetious!

[Tenorman]

The Western World has interfered in other countries for most of the last several hundred years.

We drew nice neat geographical lines through most of Africa ignoring the ethnic origins of the people e.g. the Mandingo people of West Africa are spread through at least 4 countries. The troubles in Liberia started in 1979 with an ethnic conflict between the "indigenous" groups and the "Americo Liberians" who were the descendents of the freed slaves from way back in 1860 or so. 120 years to blow up - think about it. What the hell is going to happen in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2120 that can be attributable to today's charade of do-gooding

After the first and second world wars we drew nice neat lines through large chunks of Eastern Europe, again without reference to the nations involved.

A lot of the violence in those areas can be at least partially (if not wholly) attributed to those nice neat lines

When will the Western powers learn to stop interfering in other countries?

[Bev Stapleton]

I think those of us in the West can easily put our hands up and say, "We have behaved atrociously with the rest of the world over the centuries. The problems we face today are, at least in part, of our own creation." Asia, Africa, the Middle, East, Australasia, the Americas, Ireland. I have no doubt that if Europe had not set foot in any of those places there would have been other problems - but the shape of those problems in 2004 is strongly influenced by centuries of European and, more recently, US imperialism.

There is an imperative for us to do something to address the roots of those problems.

Having said that, the problems are there and when it comes to terrorism, a symptom of the problem, we have to deal with the symptom as well as the cause.

If I neglect the bathroom and it swarms with bacteria I can hardly say, "Well, it's all my fault for neglecting basic hygiene." Hopefully I'll zap the bacteria and introduce a new cleaning regime! Similarly if terrorism is really going to be 'defeated' then the existing terrorists will need to be challenged firmly, but at the same time some major rethinking will be needed with regard to how we treat the rest of the world and the inequalities there.

The problem with the latter is that it will cost. Not just Bush's vested interest groups or global capitalism but each one of us individually. Are we in the West prepared to pay in higher taxes, higher food and commodity prices in order that some form of redistribution takes place?

I somehow think that, faced with the huge implications of those costs, when most western voters go to their ballot boxes they'll be voting for the party just wanting to raise defence spending to 'fight' terrorism.

[Andy D]

Bev.

Maybe you and I can say that we 'did wrong', but I am not sure if Governments can do this, or indeed can afford to do. Imagine for example the impact of the UK Government saying 'sorry' for some of the things that happened in Northern Ireland. It will be interesting to see what the results of the 'bloody Sunday' enquiry are for example,and the inpact this has on the current negotiations.

I would agree that we need to deal with the causes of terrorism as well as the terrorists themselves. In my view both of these tasks are very difficult to do. You can have all the Police, all the army personal you like, but the terrorists will still cause terror,and dealing with the causes may require changes in the political and social infratructure of the countries concerned.

But if there was a chance of dealing with the issue of Palestine for example, you may reduce or limit the effectiveness of this narrative on the young people who grow up to be the people who strap explosives to their chest. Much of the current terrorist activities, is at least ideologically base on the situation in the Middle East, that is between those that support Israel and those who support the Palestinian casue.

Once you deal with issues like this you may reduce the number of people, who feel their only option is to become a terrorist. It seemed simple to go to war with Iraq, and yet it seems not so simple to deal with the issues in the Middle East, Northern Ireland, Kashmir etc etc.

Regards

Andy D.

[Bev Stapleton]

Andy,

I've long felt that if Britain could just put its hands up and say 'sorry, we behaved atrociously in Ireland' then a first step would be taken to unravelling so much of the trouble there.

But as we all know from our personal relationships (cue Elton here!) saying sorry is a tough thing to do. I see this when I get into confrontations with kids in school. Once you've both lost your cool both sides become determined not to lose face.

Often the solution comes when one side or the other acknowledges a degree of blame. I tend to find it a useful strategy for defusing such situations - to say I did something wrong. More often than not this brings the kid off the ceiling!

There seem to be so many pressures in politics stopping politicians from saying, "Well, actually, be buggered it up there!"

[Tenorman]

I was using the examples I cited to show what happens when you intefere in a culture that you do not understand

In a lot of cases, people in previous centuries were acting in what they considered to be the best interests of the citizens of those countries. They were done honestly and should be judged by the moral standards of the time

The point that I was trying to make was that our Governments are failing to learn from history.

[Andy D]

Bev.

Yep I agree if only!

If the US Government could bring itself to say 'sorry' for what contributions it has made to the present conflicts in South America or in Africa, if the UK Government could say the same about Ireland, Africa or the many other parts of the world that it has created conflict in, then we would be further along the line of finding solutions to some of the issues.

I guess this may not happen, there is far too much greed and self-interest for this to happen. As we in the west enjoy the benefits of air-conditioned houses, rounds of golf and an obsession with the 'cult of personality', the rest of the world is burning and one day, the consequences of this will effect you and me.

Regards

Andy D.

[Bev Stapleton]

Originally posted by Tenorman
In a lot of cases, people in previous centuries were acting in what they considered to be the best interests of the citizens of those countries. They were done honestly and should be judged by the moral standards of the time.

Very true.

I actually feel Blair was doing much the same.

I'm not so sure about Bush!

[Saundra Hummer]

I sympthize with Tony Blair, I really do. I believe he truly means well, and he was just bamfoozled by the crew that George Bush had around him for years, George Sr., and now the son.

They looked back at their failures and are now trying to implement old failed policies to prove they are right, and that they can do it. They have had time to reflect over how they went wrong, not what they did that was wrong, and therein lies the problem. They don't get the idea that what they are doing is haming our countriy, much less countries around the world, not that they care, as I don't believe they do. You don't see any lofty goals coming out of their policies.

Face it, they are, and were, convincing, as the majority of Americans believe what it is they are saying and doing. They, the American public believe that the Bush administration is helping our country, but it's like I keep saying, they believe what they want to believe, and too many people here in this country are going for it, hook, line, and sinker. They, the administration are convincing people as we sleep, they are pro's at it.

We are in much more dangerous times than ever before. Policies aren't in place to deal with these issues properly, The Terrorists & Iraq opened the gates of hell, and the demons are running about.

What to do? Heaven only knows.

Think about this. Off the track, but just an example of how the people in this country go for everything that this administration says and does. When the administration got their tax break, they didn't just get a tax break, a tax refund for the previous year, they gave a refund for the "Read my lips taxes" for the previous ten years, a check for all of the taxes they had paid during those five years.

Did any of us hear howels of complaints from the American public? I sure didn't. Just an example of how this administration with too many peoples and politicians blessings are fleeciing the American public, and taking our country into perilous times.

We are in for a bumpy ride.

[still life]

Calling what is in our future, when it comes to global cultural harmony "a bumpy ride" is rather like calling the Second World War, "that unpleasantness between 1939 and 1945".

Aside from the events of Sept 11, which, terrible as it was, was limited to the WTC and the Pentagon, we have not experienced the kind of ongoing horror which many countries see, almost on a daily basis. We are not used to being afraid for our lives. We thought we were immune, because our own "weapons of mass destruction" served, we thought, as a deterrant. But, the former UN weapons inspecter said, today, on CBC Newsworld, that he finds it puzzling that the possession of every possible weapon by the U.S. is accepted, but other country's wanting to have the same means of deterrant for their own countries is considered at the very least, impudent. As long as other countries have only conventional weapons, they are not a threat. When they are equally armed with equally terrible weapons, how dare they?? That is interpreted as arrogance by many countries.

War may not be declared on us, but terrorism was always a possibility and now it's happening.

[Andy D]

I wish more people in the US would ask the same type of questions as you do Still Life. Part of the on-going problem is the attitude of some western countries, to weapons conventional or otherwise. It is ok for the US and the UK to have them, even worse we sell them to dictators and abusers of human rights all over the world. But when some of the countries that do not have them, try and get them we do our best to try and stop this.

Having the latest technology, the biggest stock pile of weapons will not stop terrorists, and you are right what the US is experiencing now, is what many countries have experienced for years.

We have seen to day the killing of the Hasmas leader, in what is the latest in a 'shoot to kill' policy adopted the current government in Israel. This is an example of state terror, just as unacceptable as the killing of people by suicide bombers, in the end terror just creates more terror with the deaths of innocent people.

Now Hamas and just about every other Palastinian 'terror' group has threatened to attack America for supporting Israel, there needs to be an acceptance on the part of the American people that the US is part of the problem, but it can also be part of the solution.

Regards

Andy D.

[still life]

What I find astounding, with regard to the assassination of the Hamas founder is the apparent ignorance of the situation stated by the representatives of the Bush Administration.
This kind of major offensive does not happen in a vacuum. The U.S. is providing military and other support to Israel and I am amazed the they think that just saying that nobody called them, or contacted them in any way to say this was planned is expected to be believed.
Using the excuse that they didn't know, weren't given accurate intelligence, and on and on and on is going to wear thin soon.
They may not have been informed of this particular operation, but the "keep calm" counsel of Ms. Rice in light of this assassination seems to me to be offering a bandaide to someone who has just had their arm blown off.
The rationale of this administration seems to be that a handful of leaders are responsible for the terrorist network. Unfortunately, for every leader who is captured or killed, a hundred more will spring up from the ranks.

"We didn't know"? Please.
At this rate, the whole world is going to be pissed at the U.S. and having tons of weapons and a huge invading force won't matter a hill of beans. They'll pick us off a dozen at a time, and the fear will kill our economy and culture with it, which I think is the real target. They see that as decadence and arrogance and as such, their real enemy.

[Phil Meloy]

Two and a half years ago after the Twin Towers attack the United States had the sympathy of the majority of the world. Somehow George Bush by his actions since then has managed to virtually completely reverse that situation.

[still life]

Sadly, I believe you are right. Who would ever have thought that would happen?? I felt the chill when Mr Bush and his administration took office, and it never went away. I dismissed those gut feelings, as being irrational, but they turned out to be prophetic.
We live in very dangerous times and a good part of the danger has emerged in the last three and half years. To blame all of that on this administration is too simplistic, but you can't stir up old hatreds without consequences.
Will Bush and his administration realize that, before it's really too late to pull us from the abyss??
I don't think that they have the capacity to see the ramifications of their actions. Mr Bush is so intent on playing at being the Leader Of The Free World that he doesn't seem to understand that people are dying in this mess.
I think that even a new administration being installed, if that's what happens in November, will spend a good part of their tenure in office, undoing the harm that's been done. It's now only coming up April. Many more people will be dead between now and then, who needn't have been.

[Andy D]

Just when you think the situation cannot get any worse, we have what happened today with the assasination of the Hamas leader. It is bad enough that the Israelis felt that this was justified, or that it would help the general situation in any way. What was equally 'bad' was that the Americans have not condemed this, or that we are being told that the US Government had no idea this was happening.

Even Tony Blair has condemed this act as unjustified and unlawful, but hey since when has this mattered in the 'kingdom of the blind'? In the end state terrorism has created more suicide bombers, and the US administration seem incapable of seeing the damage they cause, by continuig to support one side in this conflict.

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

Well now today we have seen something, we have seen the leader of one of the most 'terrorist states' ( Libya and Gadaffi) embrace the democratic principles of the 'Free West' ( Blair and the UK).

And so we can see that people can change, ok maybe this is for personal and selfish reasons, but hey this is an example of what is possible. But wait a second what other possibilities are there, as Blair struts the world stage?

Well there is an economic one, as we (the UK) have just signed a huge deal to drill for Gas of the coast of Libya, and of course the US has done very well out of the occupation of Iraq, just about props up gaps in the economy. And yes Tony and the boys can say 'This is what happens when you agree with our view of the world, we reward you with protection and support'.

Never mind the appauling human rights record, the oppressive regime, the lack of democracy and so on and so on.

Hey this is real politik right?

Regrads

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

Believe it or not the assasinations by Israel have been aimed at the more moderate of Hamas leaders. ones that were working to set up a legitimate government, one that would be accepted by all, or this is according to an interview I saw the other night on the Charlie Rose program on PBS.

Israel doesn't want moderates he contends, (as that way they won't have the excuse of ridding themselves of the Palestinians in total,my interjection here) the wars might actually stop between them, so the past two leaders they have killed, according to him, were Hamas's more moderate leaders. He is saying they want to continue to drive out the Palestinians, or to keep them confined and under their thumb like they are now.

Can you begin to imagine being confined to such a small area as is their lot? Being under the watchful eye of heavily armed soldiers every single day? It is suffocating, degrading. Of course Israel has to protect themselves, as we all realize, but they aren't doing everything within their means to overcome the tragedy of Israelie-Palestenian life. They are so intertwined it is as if they have created their own Gordian Knot, and they don't know how to untie themselve from it. Will it take a sword to do it?

[Andy D]

A 'Gordian Knot' it is and it is difficult to untangle this.

There are few 'absolutes' in this conflict, even though each side thinks that there is. Many feel that the Palestinians have a 'just cause', I am one of those, but there is no justification for what Hamas or any other Palestinian terror group do, in relation to the suicide bombers, to fight or justify the cause. At the same time there is a large amount of evidence that Israel, is one of the most oppressive and abusive or Governments. It uses torture, uses illegal weapons ( like nail bombs) and has a complete disregard for international law.

But as long as the US supports Israel, in the very many ways that is does, the conflict will be prolonged and the US will be indirectly responsible many of the deaths that will happen.

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

Did all of you see that poor child, the boy with the bomb attached to himself?

The Israelies gave him scissors and he cut the bomb straps away from himself.

Did you know he is said to be 16 years old, but with the capacities of a 12 year old and under?

How could they?

This is obscene, and if ever there were sins, this one is one of the worst.

We are dealing with people who will sacrifice the most vulnerable among them to further their cause, and we, the ones who care, are susposed to figure out a way to change these thoughts?

There are new ones being born everyday. Look at the births in Palestine, and look who they are naming these new innocents after.

Will it ever end?

Pandora's box indeed!

[3pointdeli]

they are fighting over SAND.

pathetic idiots the lot of them.

[Andy D]

There are individual tragedies in any conflict and this is one of them. One of the stories is that he wanted to be like his heroes, because he had no freinds.

When I was in Northern Ireland last, I saw in the streets of North Belfast, pictures of the 'hunger strikers' all over one side of Belfast, and on the other pictures and paintings of the Protestant Paramilitaries. The connection between Palastine and Northern Ireland, is that the 'heroes' that the young people grow up with are the terrorists.

What is worse Sandi, the Palastinian terrorist group who use a 16 year old to kill jews, or the Israeli army officer who plants nail bombs in Palistinian schools/streets, in order to terrorize the Palastinian community, or who knocks on the doors of a suspect terrorist and kills his children, his wife as they find he is not at home?

What you and I learn about this conflict is limited, we have the headlines, which are always biased and if you look at those groups like human right watch or Amnesty International you may see a very different picture.

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

Well I do not feel they are fighting over 'SAND'.

Why they are fighting is complicated, they are fighiting over an identity an ideology and a narrative, that has often been ignored and abused over many many years.

Most of the present conflict is much more modern, yet has its roots is a much longer history. The Palestinians once had a home and then they did not. Of course it is all rapped up in the guilt about what happened to the Jews during the 2nd World War, a lack of a political 'will' on the part of the British Government and many other reasons.

The 'SAND' that you refer to is a metaphor for a great deal of misunderstanding on the part of many in the west.

Regards

Andy D.

[3pointdeli]

tough, they need to get over it. the sand is no metaphor, it's a real thing that you can touch with your hands, and they value it more than their families and friends.

there is no excuse for their behaviour.

[Andy D]

Yep as good as American foreign policy seems to get.

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

Andy, both sides are wrong, wrong, wrong. We can't divorce that fact by saying it 3 times as in the Arab world, from this quagmire, from either side of their failed policies.

Why can't all intelligent peoples of the world, and it's leaders sit back, take a look at history, and it's politicians recent paths and see what it is that has failed, and what it is that is needed? Not too hard to do, it really isn't, as even we out here in the real world, who have never been in government, or have we been in the milirary hiarchy, however we can see that there are better ways, more humane ways, muchless more honest ways. Greed, and lust for power can no longer be an accepted practice in the shaping of the world. Yeah!!! Right!!!!

[Andy D]

What you can touch has a history, it has an identity and it has a meaning for people.

It may have a shared history, it many have a distinct history but to assume that SAND is just SAND, is why the US is so disliked in this and many other parts of the world.

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

Sandi.

Read my posts I think you wll find that I have suggested that both side are right and wrong, and that there are no absolute truths.

What are the fact that you refer to?

Regards

Andy D.

[3pointdeli]

this conflict is like an argument with a two year old. there is no winning. someone has to swallow their pride and walk away.

if they believe the land is sacred than maybe they'll get extra rewards in the afterlife for sacrificing their right to the "holy land" in the name of peace.

how come i understand jesus more than people who actually claim to be religious?

pathetic!

[Saundra Hummer]

Hi Andy,

I have read them and I agree, wrong, wrong, wrong.

In the Arab world if you say "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you." three times you are divorced, or that is how it used to be, I guess the three times gives you time to reflect and to decide before the final and last time you say it, if you want to go through with it or not. Susposed to let cooler emotions take over..

Just wish cooler heads could prevail on the world sitiuation. Not about to happen for quite sometime I am afraid, as the old ideas and ways of handling things are so entrenched, there is no stopping them. Doesn't anyone out there see the light?

I thought that once the people in power weren't the old WWII men, that thei old WWII attitudes would gradually give way to a more peaceful way of conducting world business, boy was I ever wrong.

We saw what the Versailles Treaty did with WWI, how it set everything up for WWII, well this is what is happening now, peoples can't live an oppressed life, and there are many forms of oppression, and not become violent, it is just bound to happen, history tells us so.

[Andy D]

The 'SAND' you refer to 3pointdeli has human consequences, the news is framed in a way that we tend to see only one version of the 'SAND' story.

You and I may think it is just 'SAND', but that, in my view, shows a very limited and ignorant view of what this means to so many people. Would you say that those who fight for 'the streets of Northern Ireland' , and those who feel so strongly about these streets, should just 'get over it'?

For some of the people in Belfast, in Bagdad etc should just get over it?

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

I am curious 3pointdeli if and how you think the language you are using takes this discussion further along the road?

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

3point!

I come from a very religious family, so many Baptist ministers you wouldn't believe itl

We were taught so many good things about how to be a better person, some I learned and some I didn't, but one thing we were always taught was the principle of giving, and sharing.

If I were given something, say a favorite treat, I was to share it with whomever was around, and that was an important lesson. Just because someone has given you something, it isn't always right to take it all. That was considered a minor sin with them. Greed was looked upon as something terrible, and even today, I see it as such. Of course, I'm not giving my favorite clothing or books away, or my jewelry, but I do share a lot, and I think that sometimes people look upon that as strange, even like I'm buying friends, but that is how I was brought up to believe and behave.

Their god gave them the land, did that mean that no one else has a right to be there, to live and be happy? To own olive orchards, move about feely, be a normal free human being. I don't think so. A giving heart is something that is needed.

[Noj]

My parents and I were discussing the utter absurdity of holy war just last night. If there is an all-encompassing God, wouldn't all his creations be sacred--including all land and all people? All would be a part of God's design, and all would require the same level of respect, and every waking moment of any person's life should be spent in humble reverence of God's creation--with no room for the hate that creates terrorists or murderers of any kind.

I'm with 3pointdeli on this one. I think war is a childish, stupid, evil practice unbecoming of anyone who would claim to be Christian.

[3pointdeli]

fighting in the name of religion is pathetic and useless.

caring more about land than people is infantile.

maye i'm just venting, but if the folks in these types of conflicts would think clearly about what they're doing, just for a moment, the universe would probably implode from their embarrassment.

if my language disturbs you, or offends you, please ignore me. i'm only stating my opinion.

[Andy D]

Sandi.

You will know that I would consider myself to be a socialist, and I have no shame in saying this, and you will know that I am also a psychologist, and my work involves me in trying to see both sides of a 'problem'.

'Does Terrorism Work'? this was my question in responce to what happended in Spain.

In the end I have no answers, I sometimes wish I did it would make my clinical work so much easier. So I am left with the view that each of use have a different view, a different story and that we have a need to tell someone this story. No matter how much I personally disagree with this story, this narrative I feel it is important in helping me understand how I can be helpful?

Regards

Andy D.

[Andy D]

3pointdeli.

Your language is just as relevant as is mine and if we ever met, I would be interested in how you come to think the way you do. I do not have any 'God given' right to say that my view is the best one, or that I have any more morality than you or anyone else.

Caring more about sand than people, may well be 'infantile', but sometimes people live their lives in this way. And as I sit in front on my laptop, listening to jazz music, it is easy to think that the people involved in these conflicts are infantile, and that fighting for 'SAND' childish.

Regards

Andy D.

[still life]

If Iraq had nothing but camels and sand, how oppressed the people who live there are would never have warrented a second of consideration.
This is not about sand. This is about OIL and POWER and MONEY.
As I say, if there were only camels and sand, not one bomb would have been dropped on Iraq.

[Saundra Hummer]

Not just "sand" guys but a way of life that both sides hold dear.

I remember the Arab family having their ancient olive trees torn out, their hundreds of year old olive press dismantled and strewn about, a way of life for generations after generations, gone to make room for a settlement. Won that right in a war, but was it fair? Of course not. fair doesn't come into play, the tears that were shed for their home and little plot of sand were bitter I am sure. Heartbroken, and bitter. I would be, and I would be turned into a freedom fighter by such an act, if it were commited against me, or mine.

Idealogies, that is what is in play at this time, and love for their country, on both sides. Of course wanting to own their little plot is paramount in some of their views. We have the American dream that we all understand so well, and it flourishes in other countries as well, just has a different name.

I'm a capitalist, and one who would like for our government to be infused with Socialist programs. We can afford it. I don't believe in a pure form of Capitalism, or Socialism, (socialism, isn't that what heaven is susposed to have?) I believe that we need both, in a government, and it needs to be well balanced.

[Andy D]

And thus 'SAND' and water become much more important, more strategic and more political than perhaps they should be.

Not for the first time Still Life, you have articulated very well the point I was trying to make. 'SAND' can be seen as a metaphor for most of the conflicts in the Middle East.

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

My point was about the Palastinians and the Jews.

The larger picture in all of the Arab countries and Iran, is oil, and more oil

When it all runs out, it will be water, and more water.

When we foul all of it up, then what?

And for the question that you originally posted Andy, from a historical perspective, things have changed little as far as ancient borders are concerned. History tells us, according to a story I read several years ago, that countries stay the same, borders have changed very little with the advent of war, and I would think that could include terrorism.

Spain isn't about to totally capitulate to terrorism nor are we, nor is Israel, or Palestine. They say the Palestinians are here to stay, and so are the Jews. Is the violence?

Terrorism might have it's moments of success, but in the long run, it will lose out. I believe that the majority of us will make their goals ineffective, and useless. Destructive, sure, but so are natural events such as an earthquake or a flood, but we survive those and persevere. It is just that when it is directed at us by another human being that it becomes almost more than we think we can bear, but we can and we will. so their cause in the long run is a lost one.

[Andy D]

There are already conflicts about water, which is an added conflict in the region. Syria and Israel are currently trying to decided who has 'water rights' in their shared region, and as the world gets warmer, this will potentially have consequences for many of us.

In the Middle East, water is far more important than oil, it is just that we in the west that think differently. The Palastinians have as much right to share this planet as do the Israelis, it is the rest of the world that seems to decide, who has a greater right and this is part of the reason why we have the conflict that we do.

Regards

Andy D.

[Saundra Hummer]

o.k. Andy, we have been missing out, we have a jazz man, a drummer posting here, answering questions about the relevence of jazz and political leanings, I know you will want to be there. He is on line right now, and it is too late or too early in England so you are missing out on a live exchange. Ted Sirota. sounds interesting.