Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Yorick · 09-23-2001, 04:38 PM

My response to George:

___________________________________________

George,

Thankyou for your response brother. Good health to you.

I appreciate your view but I fail to see how■your response■contradicts my reply. Serj's piece contained misinformation and was reliant on pure■speculation rather than fact. There are more than enough "balanced views" around. If it was indeed written the day after, (in which the "bravery of fireman" that you■mentioned was already apparent) it shows a willingness to use a national tragedy as a platform to express political views, manifested in opposition to American foreign policy.

Let's look at the situation unfolding in Pakistan. In an effort to bring Bin Laden to justice,■America has asked for Pakistani help. To repay that help sanctions are being lifted and loans are being made.

If the situation hypothetically occured that the pro-Osama dissidents protesting in Karachi (currently numbering about 15% of the population) were to sieze control of the nation and use their nuclear arsenal against America, would people like Serj proclaim that America's backing and assistance■of Pakistan created the situation?

My point was not that American foreign policy was without error, but that those that commit atrocities do so of their own volition. They choose to respond in the fashion they do. There is no justification for that kind of mass murder and■extreme vandalism. The plague of terrorism is an evil that must be denounced and rid from the world if peace is to be attained. This is not to say the solution is war or mass retaliatory destruction, but that an■internationally co-ordinated response preventing the practice must occur.■

Regarding your speculation on Serjs motives, I have a different impression - strengthened by the pieces apparent removal.■Before the disaster, it seemed views of■his kind were "hip" for US artists to hold. In light of the disaster the views have been retracted. Where is the strength of conviction?

Yes, I concur that■it's a cynical impression, but still, discussion of American foreign policy should be seperated■from the tragedy if Americans are to look honestly at it. It's hardly the climate for aggresive■self criticisms to be effectively absorbed. Apart from■my aforementioned■criticisms, the tone alone prevents true reception and thus mass change in attitudes.

Look at Bushes answer to "Why do they hate us?" in his speech in congress. There was no mention of Kyoto, or riding roughshod over world opinions, or the situations you mentioned. Rather, it focussed on ideas that would unify the nation and solidify it's resolve. As well as being expected it's also possibly what the nation needs. Unless there is a reasonable internal peace, how will the US respond■with minimal agression?

Also do we really understand why Bin Laden did this?■Both you and Serj■are applying western reactionary rationale to his actions. Surely to understand why his followers are willing to lay down their lives in such fashion, we must also understand the thinking relevant to extreme Wahabi Sunni Islam, to which he belongs. In all possiblity a Jihad, the scenario of Islam vs the West is his desire. If this is the case an excessive American response plays right into into his hands.

Regarding the "Christian response", in light of events such as this, one can realise the enormity of "turning the other cheek." Truly it is so difficult, so contrary to human nature, and yet so necessary for peace -■both between two individuals and between two nations.

I hold the hope that the Taliban will yet excercise their option in maintaining peace and agree to the American demands. Indeed peace -■as does conflict -■needs two parties desire of it to exist.

Peace■is something I pray for.

Thanks George

God bless you too,

Hugh

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

09-23-2001, 04:38 PM	#4
Yorick Very Mad Bird Join Date: January 7, 2001 Location: Breukelen (over the river from New Amsterdam) Age: 52 Posts: 9,246	My response to George: ___________________________________________ George, Thankyou for your response brother. Good health to you. I appreciate your view but I fail to see how■your response■contradicts my reply. Serj's piece contained misinformation and was reliant on pure■speculation rather than fact. There are more than enough "balanced views" around. If it was indeed written the day after, (in which the "bravery of fireman" that you■mentioned was already apparent) it shows a willingness to use a national tragedy as a platform to express political views, manifested in opposition to American foreign policy. Let's look at the situation unfolding in Pakistan. In an effort to bring Bin Laden to justice,■America has asked for Pakistani help. To repay that help sanctions are being lifted and loans are being made. If the situation hypothetically occured that the pro-Osama dissidents protesting in Karachi (currently numbering about 15% of the population) were to sieze control of the nation and use their nuclear arsenal against America, would people like Serj proclaim that America's backing and assistance■of Pakistan created the situation? My point was not that American foreign policy was without error, but that those that commit atrocities do so of their own volition. They choose to respond in the fashion they do. There is no justification for that kind of mass murder and■extreme vandalism. The plague of terrorism is an evil that must be denounced and rid from the world if peace is to be attained. This is not to say the solution is war or mass retaliatory destruction, but that an■internationally co-ordinated response preventing the practice must occur.■ Regarding your speculation on Serjs motives, I have a different impression - strengthened by the pieces apparent removal.■Before the disaster, it seemed views of■his kind were "hip" for US artists to hold. In light of the disaster the views have been retracted. Where is the strength of conviction? Yes, I concur that■it's a cynical impression, but still, discussion of American foreign policy should be seperated■from the tragedy if Americans are to look honestly at it. It's hardly the climate for aggresive■self criticisms to be effectively absorbed. Apart from■my aforementioned■criticisms, the tone alone prevents true reception and thus mass change in attitudes. Look at Bushes answer to "Why do they hate us?" in his speech in congress. There was no mention of Kyoto, or riding roughshod over world opinions, or the situations you mentioned. Rather, it focussed on ideas that would unify the nation and solidify it's resolve. As well as being expected it's also possibly what the nation needs. Unless there is a reasonable internal peace, how will the US respond■with minimal agression? Also do we really understand why Bin Laden did this?■Both you and Serj■are applying western reactionary rationale to his actions. Surely to understand why his followers are willing to lay down their lives in such fashion, we must also understand the thinking relevant to extreme Wahabi Sunni Islam, to which he belongs. In all possiblity a Jihad, the scenario of Islam vs the West is his desire. If this is the case an excessive American response plays right into into his hands. Regarding the "Christian response", in light of events such as this, one can realise the enormity of "turning the other cheek." Truly it is so difficult, so contrary to human nature, and yet so necessary for peace -■both between two individuals and between two nations. I hold the hope that the Taliban will yet excercise their option in maintaining peace and agree to the American demands. Indeed peace -■as does conflict -■needs two parties desire of it to exist. Peace■is something I pray for. Thanks George God bless you too, Hugh ------------------ I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on.... A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!