Sir K. You might find it useful to study some of the ways humans interact and react. For example, what you resist, becomes stronger. When you fight something, you provoke an instant and opposite reaction from that which you are fighting against (something bin Laden was counting on in the US. He got it.) Same with people. For example, if someone posts something on the forum, and I feel stroppy and react strongly, I will probably get a flame, or very strong post back. If I react in a more gentle and friendly manner, it is very likely I will be responded to in the same way. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? It's the same with emotions. If we try to suppress/repress them, we may believe that we have succeeded in dampening them down, we've got rid of them, when what has actually happened is that they have been driven inward, and will eventually either make us ill or mad or depressed, or explode outwards into the world, usually in the form of intense rage.

Reacting violently - ok, maybe it feels good for a short time. But in the long term, as I am sure you are aware, every action has a reaction, and extreme reactions are the quick way to escalation of violence. The measures you speak of that have been taken by America and other countries in the Middle East, they didn't really work, did they? If they had done, then we would not be in the situation we are in today, with hatred and anger between races in the Middle East and the West, culminating in this latest tragedy where in fact no-one is the winner, nor will be, unless we can use it as the launching pad to a different way of thinking altogether, a more global way of thinking that sees all human beings as equal.

I don't want to start raging about bin Laden or the US here. There is guilt on both sides, as I think we are pretty much all aware. What I'm saying is that the attacks you are suggesting will not get us anywhere in the long run, and is likely to make matters much worse, i.e. escalation into a full blown war situation between the West and the Middle East. Fortunately, there are cooler heads than yours appears to be amongst our international leaders, although I am far from being an admirer of most of them, I must say...

------------------
http://www.asnsoup.com/silvercheetahfinal.jpg

Ascended Mistress of Illumination

[This message has been edited by Silver Cheetah (edited 09-26-2001).]

If you really want to know
I HATE the Japanese
for no particuliar reason then them having evaded China
I do not have this with the Germans invading the Netherlands

The main difference betweens us two is that i know my hate is irrational and i don;t act towards it.
If you want my opinion
Because i lost no-one in that tragedy i don;t carry hate and thus i have a more objective point of view
I can see where you are coming from but i also think you are being a bit irrational about it

about the japan stuff
I didn;t like the fact so many japanese had to die due to the atom bomb and which that there could have been a way to solve it non-violently whicg might have been possible was there given more time.


------------------
http://potgrond.netfirms.com/Eyes.jpg
I'm Watching you...

http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...miles/hero.gif

Why not? It gets the point across that everyone becomes discriminating when it hits close enough to home. What about the next attack? How will we prevent it? What can we do to send the message that those who attack us will get the same treatment? I can only imagine a more heated opinion from residents if Buckingham palace were levelled along with the royal family and a couple surrounding blocks.

Quote:

Originally posted by Rikard: and you acted exactly like they did didn;t you?

Nope! We didn't take over anything! Kuwait doesn't fly the american flag.


[This message has been edited by Sir Kenyth (edited 09-26-2001).]

I prefer to work with reality rather than start debating imaginary scenarios. It keeps everyone's feet on the ground. As for hitting close to home, I'm not going to go into the IRA in England situation yet AGAIN, because I'm bored with repeating myself. Suffice it to say Northern Ireland and Britain have lived with terrorism for donkey's years, and we haven't felt it necessary to bomb anyone yet. However, we do prosecute under the law. And yes, I have been close to bomb attacks, and yes, I do know people who have lost loved ones.



------------------
http://www.asnsoup.com/silvercheetahfinal.jpg

Ascended Mistress of Illumination

Cheetah, I respect that notion. I really do, and I wish it could be that way. I wish people would always follow by good example. That idea is just too idealistic to work. For someone to follow your example, they have to respect you. I get the distinct feeling they don't respect us. Not to mention, if every action has a reaction, they're due for a reaction, don't you think? Do you honestly think that they won't try something again if we stand still for this?

You've had a bombing that took 7000-8000 in one shot plus billions upon billions in damages? That doesn't even take into account stock market losses. I don't want to sound belittling, but this is no ordinary bombing!


[This message has been edited by Sir Kenyth (edited 09-26-2001).]

LOL. Yes, that is how the Gov't justifies the distinction. Crashing 3 airliners into peopled buildings is terrorism, but obliterating hundreds or thousands of buildings with innocent people in them with bombs and missles from the sky is not. I suppose the terrorists should get richer, so they could use the same high-tech means we have. That way, apparently they could do it without being labeled terrorists.

Well, looks like the thread is burning out. Thanks everyone, for the interesting and informative conversation. Even though it got a little heated there for a while. Take care and God Bless. The clock reads 6:00PM and I'm going home! http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...iles/smile.gif

Its not so much by good example, more utilising a 'law of nature' if you like.

In the case of the Taliban and bin Laden, the short term soft approach - given that of course something must be done, I am just not advocating that America should sit on its hands - would perhaps be to assist the Northern Alliance in its efforts to dislodge the Taliban and launch covert operations to find bin Laden.

Or you could do what the Taliban have asked, and provide the evidence against bin Laden. They have said they will hand him over if they get evidence, (not sure to who - probably not America, I would imagine??) so why doesn't America provide that evidence? I am rather puzzled about this, I must say.

Helping the Northern Alliance root out the Taliban would bring with it much less risk of provoking all out war in the Middle East, which could happen if the present situation escalates, as many would see America as ally, rather than helper. There are many in the Middle East that hate the Taliban, and if America went about it in the right way, you could win much support by getting shot of them. (I am all in favour of putting the Taliban on the biggest human rights trial ever. They treat their people like shit.)

No matter what (terrified) Middle Eastern regimes actually say re solidarity and support and so on, their people think differently (witness the riots in Pakistan when Pakistan made it known they would be assisting the US) and it is from those people, their minds full of grievances both real and imagined, that new terrorists will spring up to replace the old.

Helping out the Northern Alliance (which I am aware America is already doing) is a low key and sensible way of doing something about the problem, as opposed to full scale military engagement, which is not, to my mind. The only way you will stand a chance of eliminating this threat is to bomb the whole of the Middle East into dust and sand. Now, that's hardly an option, is it?



------------------
http://www.asnsoup.com/silvercheetahfinal.jpg

Ascended Mistress of Illumination