| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: OT A world called to action.... |
| From: |
radams36@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 05:21:04 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, "C. Minucius Hadrianus" <shinjikun@s...> wrote:
> Salvete,
>
> I think many people here on this list, and throughout the world at
large are
> making some very dangerous assumptions regarding our enemies and
the nature
> of the threat they represent. I have heard and read quite a bit
about
> "reconciliation", "rational responses" and the fact that "more
violence will
> not solve anything.". While these are purely natural attitudes to
see from a
> society that is based on liberal, democratic ideals and are
normally very
> commendable, I am very afraid that they are going to be sorely
inappropriate
> for dealing with the threat of radical and militant Islamic
fundamentalism.
> We are facing a threat of a kind not seen in the West in hundreds
of years -
> an enemy who attacks us, not for treasure, not for land, not for
economic
> pressures, but because of who and what we are. The same liberal,
democratic
> ideals that make many of us reluctant to wage war against our
enemies are
> utterly and irreconcilably ant ethical to the beliefs of Islamic
> Fundamentalism. (I want to be very clear here on one point - I am
NOT
> referring to 90% of the Islamic world, but only it's most
conservative and
> militant elements). Our very culture represents a grave threat to
these
> fundamentalists very beliefs and way of life. We have seen over the
past
> fifty years, that for whatever reasons, the culture of West has been
> spreading inexorably throughout the world. We mistakenly believed
that the
> rest of the world must be happy and grateful for our "gifts" of
democracy,
> technology, and ideals of social justice and equality. Well, we
were wrong -
> horribly wrong. There are cultures throughout the world, that do
not embrace
> democracy, religious freedom, equality of women, racial harmony,
freedom of
> expression, or any thing else that we have come to see as essential
elements
> of a "civilized society". They see Western Civilization as a
cancer, that
> infects and inevitably destroys the culture and beliefs that they
hold dear.
> Why do nations such as Iran ban satilite television? To slow the
spread on
> dangerous western ideas. The Taliban of Afghanistan have banned ALL
> television and radio. In Algeria, young couples engaging in the
very western
> act of "dating" are attacked and killed by fundamentalist militias.
Osama
> Ben Ladin's reason for his hatred of the United States is simply
because
> U.S. troops, at the behest of the Saudi Government, set foot on and
> desecrated by their mere presence, what he (and a LOT of other
people)
> regard as their holy soil. We are dealing with a wide spread,
dedicated and
> utterly implacable enemy, who hates us not for what we do, but
simply for
> who we are. Our very existence is an affront to the militant
fundamentalist
> ideal, and they believe their war to destroy us is holy and just.
In their
> eyes we are waging a cultural war against them, a war of ideas that
they are
> slowly loosing. They have become threatened and desperate. They
will never
> give up, never surrender, never seek peace of reconciliation, and
as the
> pressures of globalization make there attempts at cultural
isolation futile,
> their numbers will grow. The nature of our enemies denies us the
option of
> negotiated peace. This is not a war any of us wants to fight, but
it is a
> war we must fight, to it's sad, bitter and inevitable conclusion.
>
> Valete,
>
> C. Minucius Hadrianus
>
A very well thought out and intelligent post, Hadrianus. I believe
the first priority has to be to take whatever course of action will
be most effective in preventing and discouraging future terrorist
activities, and that may (and probably will) involve making difficult
choices. We cannot allow the civilized world to be tyrannized by a
fanatical minority like this. I continue to be amazed at the handful
of posts I see with sub-texts that seem to be implying that this
whole situation is due to U.S. Middle Eastern policy. I don't
necessarily personally approve of U.S. Middle Eastern policy. I
imagine many Americans don't. No policy pursued by the U.S. can
possibly explain, mitigate, or excuse these attacks against innocent
civilians whose biggest crime was going to work that day. Does U.S.
Middle Eastern policy need to be revisited and reworked? Almost
certainly, as our Central American policies have also historically
been questionable. But in no way does that ameliorate the
responsibility of the extremists who committed these heinous acts.
Thanks for a very thoughtful post.
Vale,
Rufus Iulius Palaeologus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Return and Condolences |
| From: |
"J. Meuleman" <hendrik.meuleman@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 07:52:27 +0200 |
|
Salvete Quirites,
While being away at the Belgian coast for five days, I too have witnessed
the terror that struck the USA, and followed the events with a feeling of
shock, powerlessness and amazement. I extend my deepest condolences to
everyone who has lost or is still searching for friends and family members.
Valete bene,
S. Apollonius Draco
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: OT A world called to action.... |
| From: |
avikingthing@-------- |
| Date: |
Sun, 16 Sep 2001 16:16:37 EDT |
|
In a message dated 9/16/01 9:07:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
shinjikun@-------- writes:
<< The same liberal, democratic ideals that make many of us reluctant to wage
war against our enemies are utterly and irreconcilably ant ethical to the
beliefs of Islamic
Fundamentalism. >>
I agreed with you about most of what you posted except this line. And if you
could offer some clarification on this, I think many would be appreciative.
Thus:
Do you mean than democracy is a strictly a liberal idea? If that's the case,
then thank the gods our Greek ancestors and Roma's predecessors were a
liberal sort.
Perhaps you meant that being liberal make American Congresswomen and men
reluctant to impose Justice and and carry out any mandated punishments (which
I think is what you meant be wage war) regarding the current situtation ? If
that's the case, then I wonder how many liberals ever used an atomic bomb -
oh, that's right, only one, a liberal Democrat named Truman. So, that can't
be what you meant, then.
Perhaps you meant capital "D"-democratic when you said that their ideals make
them reluctant to wage war, but of course what that means is all Republicans
are war-mongers, but that isn't what you meant either, right?
I think that during this difficult time of America's life, it is of the
utmost importance for the voices of all peoples to be heard, and debate or
dialogue begun, so really my post is just to question whether, during this
great dialogue of all New Romans, we should begin to get into those really
nasty, over-used, meaningless catchphrases like liberal and conservative,
democrat and republican, us and them, at this juncture in America's life.
Let the dialogue continue...
Matthew
Matthew Hilliard-Pinkston
Durham, NC
|
| Subject: |
Re: [novaroma] Re: OT A world called to action.... |
| From: |
labienus@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 08:54:17 US/Central |
|
Salvete Rufe Iuli omnesque
> I continue to be amazed at the handful of posts I see with sub-texts
> that seem to be implying that this whole situation is due to U.S.
> Middle Eastern policy.
If you saw such a sub-text in my post explaining US policy, it was not
intended. This whole situation is due to a very many reasons, and US Middle
Eastern policy is only one of them.
> I don't necessarily personally approve of U.S. Middle Eastern policy.
> I imagine many Americans don't. No policy pursued by the U.S. can
> possibly explain, mitigate, or excuse these attacks against innocent
> civilians whose biggest crime was going to work that day.
Mitigate or excuse? No. Explain? Yes, at least to the degree that US policy
is a contributing factor.
> Does U.S. Middle Eastern policy need to be revisited and reworked?
> Almost certainly, as our Central American policies have also
> historically been questionable.
US policy in the Middle East hasn't been anything like the horror inflicted on
South and Central America. While it has meant supporting brutal dictators like
Saddam Hussein, it hasn't involved actively training butchers like Armando
Melara. As these things go, I generally consider the US' Middle Eastern policy
to be fairly reasonable considering the nature of the region's politics.
> But in no way does that ameliorate the responsibility of the extremists who
> committed these heinous acts.
Nothing I have said should make anyone believe that I feel that anything
ameliorates the responsibility of said extremists. I simply appear to
understand the underlying causes of the event and the underlying ideology of
the perpetrators more than many here. Understanding a thing does not
necessarily entail condoning it. Indeed, I am convinced that the more any
reasonable person understands terrorism--especially militant Islamic
fundamentalist terrorism--the more he or she will condemn it.
I am simply responding to those who put down the suggestion that we should
respond rationally and dispassionately to terrorism. To them, I offer the
following illustrative example. Roughly six months ago, my daughter was
attempting to remove the screw-top from a bottle. She pulled and pushed and
hit the cap with all her might, growing ever more angry and frustrated until
she threw it away amidst tears. The cap stayed on. Later, after she had
calmed down, she watched me remove the cap a few times and began experimenting
on her own in a calm and careful way. Now, she can remove any cap she desires
without much effort. The rational response is almost always superior to the
irrational response. The calm person almost always sees to the heart of a
problem more easily than the emotional person. Let us accept this, study our
problem, and remove it in the most effective manner possible.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: OT A world called to action.... |
| From: |
radams36@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:46:27 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, avikingthing@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 9/16/01 9:07:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> --------jikun@-------- write--------font>
>
> << The same liberal, democratic ideals that make many of us
reluctant to wage
> war against our enemies are utterly and irreconcilably ant ethical
to the
> beliefs of Islamic
> Fundamentalism. >>
>
> I agreed with you about most of what you posted except this line.
And if you
> could offer some clarification on this, I think many would be
appreciative.
> Thus:
>
> Do you mean than democracy is a strictly a liberal idea? If that's
the case,
> then thank the gods our Greek ancestors and Roma's predecessors
were a
> liberal sort.
>
> Perhaps you meant that being liberal make American Congresswomen
and men
> reluctant to impose Justice and and carry out any mandated
punishments (which
> I think is what you meant be wage war) regarding the current
situtation ? If
> that's the case, then I wonder how many liberals ever used an
atomic bomb -
> oh, that's right, only one, a liberal Democrat named Truman. So,
that can't
> be what you meant, then.
>
> Perhaps you meant capital "D"-democratic when you said that their
ideals make
> them reluctant to wage war, but of course what that means is all
Republicans
> are war-mongers, but that isn't what you meant either, right?
>
> I think that during this difficult time of America's life, it is of
the
> utmost importance for the voices of all peoples to be heard, and
debate or
> dialogue begun, so really my post is just to question whether,
during this
> great dialogue of all New Romans, we should begin to get into those
really
> nasty, over-used, meaningless catchphrases like liberal and
conservative,
> democrat and republican, us and them, at this juncture in America's
life.
>
> Let the dialogue continue...
>
>
> Matthew
>
>
> Matthew Hilliard-Pinkston
> Durham, NC
Good point, Matthew, the term 'liberal' has so many different
meanings to so many different people as to be almost meaningless
except as a relative term in a specific context. I read the previous
post as meaning 'liberal' in comparison to Islamic extremists, but
the message could easily be misunderstood. I have decided, BTW, to
adopt the term 'Extremist' instead of 'Fundamentalist' in deference
to comments made by NBA star Hakeem Olajuwon, to the effect
that 'Fundamentalism' implies an adherence to Islam's fundamental
precepts. I think 'Extremism' is more appropriate for terrorists, as
Olajuwon suggested.
I have been pleasantly surprised by the outpouring of international
support for the U.S. at this time - it has been moving and
heartwarming. The vast majority of Nova Romans have also been very
supportive, even though there is debate about the questions of why
this happened and how the U.S. should respond (healthy topics for
debate, IMHO). No matter the differences of opinion, I do appreciate
the support that Nova Roma's citizens have extended. It means a lot.
Valete,
Rufus Iulius Palaeologus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] With sadness |
| From: |
Publius Sentius Rutilianus Dexion <rapax@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:28:27 +0300 |
|
Avete ....
I watched the devilish attack on civilized world by the
barbarians as I was
buying cigarettes from a shop in Istanbul...and there were people
watching with
me...we were all speechless and as the towers collapse there were tears
in my
eyes for all the innocent people who paid the price of an infinite hate
and ignorance.
Behind me an old lady was saying something like'No human can do
this.!..'And she
was right...
I'm living in a muslim but non-Arab country..and I know that
those terrorists
are not muslims!I know that the religion named Islam today is not the
religion of
the Mohammed!Nor the people we call as muslim are the true
muslims...Today in
Islam devil reigns not the God...and sadly,it is too late to change that!
If I sound too weird please forgive me...I prayed and still
praying for the souls of
those innocent people..and still can't watch the news!
My sincere condolences to all Americans and to all of the
world!I just hope that
we,as the human race, can find the strength to overcome this trial...
Valete bene....
Publius Sentius Rutilianus Dexion
Civis Novae Romae
* Sapiens dominabitur astris ! *
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: OT A world called to action.... |
| From: |
shinjikun@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 15:25:00 -0000 |
|
Salve,
I apologize for the conusion! My intent was not in being divisive,
and I was not using the term liberal to refer to a specific politcal
group or party. Western Civilization is as a whole, a liberal and
democratic society, which is a good thing. Liberal is defined in the
Cambridge English Dictonary as: "believing in or allowing more
personal freedom and a development towards a fairer sharing of wealth
and power within society." I think this accurately describes the
overall trends in every western nation today. I was attempting to
point out the irony, that the same values that have driven western
peoples towards embracing the ideals of peace, social justice, and
religious freedom, make us in many ways emotionaly unprepared to deal
with this new sort of threat. Often evil can be difficult for the
good to truly understand. It is not criticism, but simply a statement
of fact - and it's a hurdle, we as a people are going to have to
overcome. *sigh* I wish I was a better writer!
Vale,
C. Minucius Hadrianus
--- In novaroma@--------, avikingthing@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 9/16/01 9:07:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> --------jikun@-------- write--------font>
>
> << The same liberal, democratic ideals that make many of us
reluctant to wage
> war against our enemies are utterly and irreconcilably ant ethical
to the
> beliefs of Islamic
> Fundamentalism. >>
>
> I agreed with you about most of what you posted except this line.
And if you
> could offer some clarification on this, I think many would be
appreciative.
> Thus:
>
> Do you mean than democracy is a strictly a liberal idea? If that's
the case,
> then thank the gods our Greek ancestors and Roma's predecessors
were a
> liberal sort.
>
> Perhaps you meant that being liberal make American Congresswomen
and men
> reluctant to impose Justice and and carry out any mandated
punishments (which
> I think is what you meant be wage war) regarding the current
situtation ? If
> that's the case, then I wonder how many liberals ever used an
atomic bomb -
> oh, that's right, only one, a liberal Democrat named Truman. So,
that can't
> be what you meant, then.
>
> Perhaps you meant capital "D"-democratic when you said that their
ideals make
> them reluctant to wage war, but of course what that means is all
Republicans
> are war-mongers, but that isn't what you meant either, right?
>
> I think that during this difficult time of America's life, it is of
the
> utmost importance for the voices of all peoples to be heard, and
debate or
> dialogue begun, so really my post is just to question whether,
during this
> great dialogue of all New Romans, we should begin to get into those
really
> nasty, over-used, meaningless catchphrases like liberal and
conservative,
> democrat and republican, us and them, at this juncture in America's
life.
>
> Let the dialogue continue...
>
>
> Matthew
>
>
> Matthew Hilliard-Pinkston
> Durham, NC
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Test: Please Ignore |
| From: |
labienus@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:40:56 US/Central |
|
test
do not reply
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: OT A world called to action.... |
| From: |
labienus@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:33:31 -0000 |
|
Salvete Rufe Iuli omnesque
First, I apologize if this is a duplicate post. My webmail service
seems to be having difficulty sending posts to Yahoo today.
> I continue to be amazed at the handful of posts I see with sub-texts
> that seem to be implying that this whole situation is due to U.S.
> Middle Eastern policy.
If you saw such a sub-text in my post explaining US policy, it was
not intended. This whole situation is due to a very many reasons,
and US Middle Eastern policy is only one of them.
> I don't necessarily personally approve of U.S. Middle Eastern
> policy. I imagine many Americans don't. No policy pursued by the
> U.S. can possibly explain, mitigate, or excuse these attacks
> against innocent civilians whose biggest crime was going to work
> that day.
Mitigate or excuse? No. Explain? Yes, at least to the degree that
US policy is a contributing factor.
> Does U.S. Middle Eastern policy need to be revisited and reworked?
> Almost certainly, as our Central American policies have also
> historically been questionable.
US policy in the Middle East hasn't been anything like the horrors
inflicted on South and Central America. While it has meant
supporting brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein, it hasn't involved
actively training butchers like Armando Melara. As these things go,
I generally consider the US' Middle Eastern policy to be fairly
reasonable considering the nature of the region's politics.
> But in no way does that ameliorate the responsibility of the
> extremists who committed these heinous acts.
Nothing I have said should make anyone believe that I feel that
anything ameliorates the responsibility of said extremists. I simply
appear to understand the underlying causes of the event and the
underlying ideology of the perpetrators more than many here.
Understanding a thing does not necessarily entail condoning it.
Indeed, I am convinced that the more any reasonable person
understands terrorism--especially militant Islamic fundamentalist
terrorism--the more he or she will condemn it.
I am simply responding to those who put down the suggestion that we
should respond rationally and dispassionately to terrorism. To them,
I offer the following illustrative example. Roughly six months ago,
my daughter was attempting to remove the screw-top from a bottle.
She pulled and pushed and hit the cap with all her might, growing
ever more angry and frustrated until she threw it away in tears. The
cap stayed on. Later, after she had calmed down, she watched me
remove the cap a few times and began experimenting on her own in a
calm and careful way. Now, she can remove any cap she desires
without much effort. The rational response is almost always superior
to the irrational response. The calm person almost always sees to
the heart of a problem more easily than the emotional person. Let us
accept this, study our problem, and remove it in the most effective
manner possible.
Valete
T Labienus Fortunatus
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] to the people that would let themselves be victims.... |
| From: |
"Kryn Miner" <kminer_rsg@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:53:53 -0400 |
|
WARNING, this is a bit hostile. and to all you you who have supported us in
NY and the US I appologize up front. Your support means the world to us.
It is people like you that keep us doing what we do. Knowing that you are
appreciated makes the job alot easier..
NOW:
Anyone who seeks a peaceful resolution before we route the terrorists out
who did this to us I say this; I would like to offer you a one way first
class ticket, on your airline of choice, to Afganistan. Iraq, Iran, Libya,
or any other place where Americans are considered EVIL.
I am sure your "lets all get along, barny the purple dinasour" attitude will
get you far there...
I do not know how many of you touting the "let this go, or violence is
wrong" attitude have ever had to deal with these people, (and I do not mean
muslim, I mean Religious Zelots, be they black white tan pink purple,
whatever color, make model, etc.) But I have spent a good many years
fighting these people and if I may I would like to let you in on a secret...
They are all NUTS!!!! and the only way to deal with them is a failure drill
from your MP-5 (that is two bullets to the chest and one to the head)..
because if you dont do it to them they will do it to you...
WAKE UP!!!!! There is no need for dialoge, cheerful banter, or retoric
about this, these people wanted you deat too, you just happened not to be on
one of the planes, or at WTC when it happened. Unless you are one of them
you are the enemy. I am not a bible kinda guy, but there is a bit in there
(I think it's matthew 8, 15 or something like that) that says blessed are
the meek for they shall inherit the earth, well, guess what you MEEK are not
going to have an earth to enherit.. Now there is one line I know well from
that passage, blessed are the peacemakers, for they (we)shall be known as
the sons of god...
although I am not at liberty to discuss some stuff here, my unit has already
gotten the nod, to spin up and prep for a trip somewhere... and we don't do
peace keeping missions. we hook and fry terrorists, and other bad people...
I cant help but think on the line from samual jackson in pulp fiction... the
quote from the bible he says, and you know what... works for me!!
There will be a time when you people realize that peace is gained only
through superior firepower... like gun control is hitting your target..
So, go hide in a hole, if you like... but do so knowing that there will
always be men like Hadraininus and I to stand ready, walk the fence, and
protect you from evil... and yourselves..
Freedom isn't free...
humbly,
Casca
Cascus Tiberius Rufio Longinus
Praefectus Legionis & Tribuni Militum
Legio VI Victrix Pia Fidelis
Cornicularius Militarium Sodalitas
Pater, Gens Tiberia of Nova Roma
"Nos Sumus Romae milites, parati stamus ad potestatem et gloriam eius. Roma
est Lux."
"we are soldiers of Rome, for her might and glory we stand ready... She is
the Light"
www.geocities.com/legio_vi
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] A very interesting insight.... |
| From: |
"Adrian Gunn" <shinjikun@--------> |
| Date: |
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:45:56 -0000 |
|
Salvete,
This is a very interesting read - while I am all for using military
force in the pursuit of international terrorists, the following
commentary illustrates the dangers and pitfalls of such actions, and
why we need to be very careful and judicious in the applciation of
force (which I believe we will)...
Vale,
C. Minucius Hadrianus
Subject: Afghanistan
Please read this commentary from Tamim, a writer and columnist in San
Francisco, who comes from Afghanistan. This is something that should
be
sent to everyone we know.I've been hearing a lot of talk
about "bombing
Afghanistan back to the Stone Age." Ronn Owens, on KGO Talk Radio
today,
allowed that this would mean killing innocent people, people who had
nothing to do with this atrocity, but "we're at war, we have to
accept
collateral damage.
What else can we do?" Minutes later I heard some TV pundit discussing
whether we "have the belly to do what must be done."
And I thought about the issues being raised especially hard because I
am
from Afghanistan, and even though I've lived here for 35 years I've
never
lost track of what's going on there. So I want to tell anyone who
will
listen how it all looks from where I'm standing.
I speak as one who hates the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. There is no
doubt
in my mind that these people were responsible for the atrocity in New
York.
I agree that something must be done about those monsters.
But the Taliban and Ben Laden are not Afghanistan. They're not even
the
government of Afghanistan. The Taliban are a cult of ignorant
psychotics
who took over Afghanistan in 1997. Bin Laden is a political criminal
with a
plan. When you think Taliban, think Nazis. When you think Bin Laden,
think
Hitler. And when you think "the people of Afghanistan," think "the
Jews in
the concentration camps."
It's not only that the Afghan people had nothing to do with this
atrocity.
They were the first victims of the perpetrators. They would exult if
someone would come in there, take out the Taliban and clear out the
rats
nest of international thugs holed up in their country.
Some say, why don't the Afghans rise up and overthrow the Taliban?
The
answer is, they're starved, exhausted, hurt, incapacitated,
suffering. A
few years ago, the United Nations estimated that there are 500,000
disabled
orphans in Afghanistan--a country with no economy, no food.
There are millions of widows. And the Taliban has been burying these
widows
alive in mass graves. The soil is littered with land mines, the farms
were
all destroyed by the Soviets. These are a few of the reasons why the
Afghan
people have not overthrown the Taliban.
We come now to the question of bombing Afghanistan back to the Stone
Age.
Trouble is, that's been done. The Soviets took care of it already.
Make the Afghans suffer? They're already suffering. Level their
houses?
Done.
|
| Subject: |
[novaroma] Re: OT A world called to action.... |
| From: |
radams36@-------- |
| Date: |
Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:30:03 -0000 |
|
--- In novaroma@--------, labienus@t... wrote:
> Salvete Rufe Iuli omnesque
>
> > I continue to be amazed at the handful of posts I see with sub-
texts
> > that seem to be implying that this whole situation is due to U.S.
> > Middle Eastern policy.
>
> If you saw such a sub-text in my post explaining US policy, it was
not
> intended. This whole situation is due to a very many reasons, and
US Middle
> Eastern policy is only one of them.
Your last post was well-reasoned and insightful, Fortunatus, I did
not read that sub-text into your post - in fact, I've only seen it in
a few.
>
> > I don't necessarily personally approve of U.S. Middle Eastern
policy.
> > I imagine many Americans don't. No policy pursued by the U.S. can
> > possibly explain, mitigate, or excuse these attacks against
innocent
> > civilians whose biggest crime was going to work that day.
>
> Mitigate or excuse? No. Explain? Yes, at least to the degree
that US policy
> is a contributing factor.
To clarify, my point is not that it doesn't explain hatred of the
U.S., but that it doesn't explain murdering innocent civilians.
>
> > Does U.S. Middle Eastern policy need to be revisited and reworked?
> > Almost certainly, as our Central American policies have also
> > historically been questionable.
>
> US policy in the Middle East hasn't been anything like the horror
inflicted on
> South and Central America. While it has meant supporting brutal
dictators like
> Saddam Hussein, it hasn't involved actively training butchers like
Armando
> Melara. As these things go, I generally consider the US' Middle
Eastern policy
> to be fairly reasonable considering the nature of the region's
politics.
>
I just continue, naively, I'm sure, to wish that the U.S. would begin
making a policy of supporting individuals or organizations by virtue
of their ethical stance, not our selfish interests. The dictatorships
we support and have supported are, to me, a severe embarassment at
best.
> > But in no way does that ameliorate the responsibility of the
extremists who
> > committed these heinous acts.
>
> Nothing I have said should make anyone believe that I feel that
anything
> ameliorates the responsibility of said extremists. I simply appear
to
> understand the underlying causes of the event and the underlying
ideology of
> the perpetrators more than many here. Understanding a thing does
not
> necessarily entail condoning it. Indeed, I am convinced that the
more any
> reasonable person understands terrorism--especially militant
Islamic
> fundamentalist terrorism--the more he or she will condemn it.
Well said - and well appreciated. I did not have the impression you
personally were condoning or minimizing anything. Your insights have
been useful and thoughtful.
>
> I am simply responding to those who put down the suggestion that we
should
> respond rationally and dispassionately to terrorism. To them, I
offer the
> following illustrative example.
I believe it will be hard to act dispassionately, but I don't think
that fact squarely rules out rational thought and response. Our
passion and anger may still be there, we just can't use them as our
deciding factors. I don't think the emotion has to be eliminated or
suppressed, just that it needs to be put in its proper place - in
that respect, I suspect we are close together if not in complete
concord.
Roughly six months ago, my daughter was
> attempting to remove the screw-top from a bottle. She pulled and
pushed and
> hit the cap with all her might, growing ever more angry and
frustrated until
> she threw it away amidst tears. The cap stayed on. Later, after
she had
> calmed down, she watched me remove the cap a few times and began
experimenting
> on her own in a calm and careful way. Now, she can remove any cap
she desires
> without much effort.
Hope that doesn't include Gin or Vodka bottles!
The rational response is almost always superior to the
> irrational response. The calm person almost always sees to the
heart of a
> problem more easily than the emotional person. Let us accept this,
study our
> problem, and remove it in the most effective manner possible.
>
> Valete
> T Labienus Fortunatus
Thanks for a considerate and interesting reply, Fortunatus, it is
appreciated.
Vale,
Rufus Iulius Palaeologus
|
