Amazon links please

I added an Amazon link - it takes a moment to show. Not within my control.

So, you're basically pro-terrorist then?

I think I'll speak out for my freedom and my children by supporting those who want to actually stop the terrorists rather than give in to them, thanks.

Dave

Fixed yr amazon link - pl. see my note in yr post - only place the ASIN number in the field, not the entire URL.

Of course I'm not pro-terrorist, Dave.

Obviously, you have not read my words, for they tell you, point-blank, that I am not pro-terrorist.

Than you, Aaman. I'm rather new at this, I truly appreciate your help.

Jude

Dave-

One more comment. I am not suggesting that anyone should "give in" to terror.

On the contrary, I am suggesting we find a new way to fight back.

Much of it revolves around non-violent methodology. That you believe pre-empotive war against nation states is the only idea shows that you are afraid, perhaops rightly, but it also shows you are not willing to roll up your sleeves and help with the necessary solutions that will involve some of the hardest work we have ever been called upon, as a civil society, to do. Winning hearts and minds doesn't work when you occupy nations and cause another nation's society to be subject to increased terror (unnecessarily, as we've done in Iraq).

Jude, you show almost complete ignorance of the terrorist situation outside of your own neighborhood.

The terrorist threat is something everyone is concerned about, but the immediate danger is greatest to the people living in those countries where terrorists base their operations. The people whose hearts and minds you want to rin are the most frequent victims of terrorist aggresion in the world.

The best way to win their hearts and minds is not to give in to the terrorists and validate their methods, but to crush the terrorists, thereby freeing the people in closest proximity from the threat of terror. That's the way to win hearts and minds, not acting like helpless, frightened victims.

Dave

And yr technique worked in Palestine, etc., Dave?

Israel has made war on the Palestinian population as a whole rather than working with reasonable Palestinians to root out the terrorists. That may change in the near future, but it's not the right way to approach the problem and not what I was suggesting.

Dave

Dave,

Respectfully, I cannot agree that my advocating alternatives to pre-emptive wars with nation-states should be considered either "giving in" or being "afraid".

I wonder why you suggest I am "not aware of the terrorist situation outside my own neighborhood"? I assure you, if I was uninformed and uncaring, I would not devote the time to write a piece of this nature. I am all too well aware.

The "immediate danger" to the people of Iraq (by terrorists) is, in large part, BECAUSE of our current occupation. Do you not see the connection? I submit that the connection is glaringly direct.

No one is suggesting that terrorist actions should be "validated". You seem to believe the only way to win hearts and minds is to make war on foreign regimes and the societies/civil infrastructures of those respective nations.

I'm sorry - I barely see your logic at all.

Dave, when you said "Israel has made war on the Palestinian population as a whole rather than working with reasonable Palestinians to root out the terrorists..."

..I don't believe it's all that clear or true. The citizens of Israel have tried to live in peace, but their nation has never been at peace since the independent nation of Israel was established by their victory in the 1948 war. (You know the sordid history, I presume).

The Palestinian Arabs have been treated no better than Roma (gypsies) by any Arab nation since, and the people of Israel has been just as victimized as the Palestinians.

Israel has not "made war on all Palestinians", as you state. What they do, they claim to do for their own protection. But it isn't working, OBVIOUSLY. They have acted in their own self-defense, but their methods have never worked because the root problem - which is a political and diplomatic problem (the fair treatment of the Palestinians by all surrounding nation-states) - has never been appropriately tackled. How can it be tackled when the Arab states are promoting perennial hatred for the Jews? Hate, as I said in my column, perpetuates fear and terror.

There's much to be done in that region.
That said, the Iraq war was not well-begun, because it involved deceiving the American people with a tangled web of lies....and worse yet, it has not been a political success. It certainly doesn't show our nation as "leading the way" to finding a better solution to terror.

>>The "immediate danger" to the people of Iraq (by terrorists) is, in large part, BECAUSE of our current occupation. Do you not see the connection? I submit that the connection is glaringly direct.<<

No, you're just wrong. If we were not there, then the terrorists who we are fighting in Iraq would be running the country and cutting off heads with state sanction. True, they wouldn't be terrorists anymore, they'd just be another oppressive regime. The only thing standing between the Iraqi people and that outcome is the United States. Because we are there they remain terrorists, somewhat isolated from the general population, and capable of being fought and exterminated.

Your idea for making terrorists go away appears to be to give them jobs as dictators and secret policemen and torturers. That certainly isn't to anyone's benefit.

>>No one is suggesting that terrorist actions should be "validated". You seem to believe the only way to win hearts and minds is to make war on foreign regimes and the societies/civil infrastructures of those respective nations. <<

When the primary problem which people face is the threat of terrorism or the threat of their government being taken over by violent radicals, then the way to win their hearts and minds is to protect and assist them, not to leave them alone and ship them food packages which their oppressors can then sell on the black market to fill their Swiss bank accounts. Have you not seen how your approach has failed again and again.

Go read this article on how well our humanitarian aid works in Africa.

Dave

>>Israel has not "made war on all Palestinians", as you state.<<

Their method of dealing with the Palestinian problem is to make Palestinian areas into what are essentially prisons, to indescriminately bomb and shoot Palestinians, and to assume that they are terrorists unless they can prove otherwise. It's a shoot first, ask questions later policy, which does no one any good.

>> What they do, they claim to do for their own protection. But it isn't working, OBVIOUSLY. They have acted in their own self-defense, but their methods have never worked because the root problem<<

Their methods have never worked because they haven't treated the Palestinians with basic human decency and offered them an opportunity to control their own communities and live like people.

>> - which is a political and diplomatic problem (the fair treatment of the Palestinians by all surrounding nation-states) - has never been appropriately tackled. How can it be tackled when the Arab states are promoting perennial hatred for the Jews? Hate, as I said in my column, perpetuates fear and terror. <<

Yes, hate perpetuates fear and terror. Can't argue there. But in situations like Palestine you CAN separate the good people from the bad people and hate the terrorists while loving those who want to work to build a good life for their people.

Dave

"you CAN separate the good people from the bad people and hate the terrorists while loving those who want to work to build a good life for their people."

You see, you and I are not disagreeing that terrorism is wrong...and those who wish to make a decent and peaceful life are deserving of support.

HOW do you propose to separate the "wrong" from the "right"?

So far, I only see Manichaen ideas from you. Try giving me some ideas...something besides killing people as your sole solution.

What about the rule of law? How should it be applied to Paletinians, who are stateless, and have been stateless since 1948?

How do you propose we rectify our mistakes in Iraq?

No, you're just wrong. If we were not there, then the terrorists who we are fighting in Iraq would be running the country and cutting off heads with state sanction.

You don't seem to see that it's happening NOW - with us THERE. Whether we're THERE or not, we asked these people to "bring it on". We chose Iraq as the place where all the "bin Ladenists" could come and act out the "jihad" of their twisted dreams..not in our American streets, but in the streets of an equally innocent people. That was not a moral act.

We did that, Dave. History will tell it like it happened. So, what do we do NOW?

I think Bush should pay a political price for lying to Americans about what his administration knew. I'm not eevn saying it was criminal...but it was unethical - and it has destroyed their credibility...at home and around the world.

So many Republicans in Congress are still acting as if they have been "right" all along - while the historic facts of the matter of how we got into Iraq (and why) begins to solidify around them. They look like fools. When will they get on teh same page as most Americans (instead of being in another LIBRARY altogether? (borrowing the words of columnist Molly Ivins)

Where do we go from here, as we try to remain a united nation? (*which I hope for).

"Your idea for making terrorists go away appears to be to give them jobs as dictators and secret policemen and torturers. That certainly isn't to anyone's benefit."

Dave, with all due respect, you pulled that out of your own imagination.

Where did you see me saying that? I'll tell you where: Nowhere.

>>Where did you see me saying that? I'll tell you where: Nowhere.<<

It's the inevitable conclusion of everything you're saying. You can't escape it.

You still just don't get it. This is a war on terror, not some sort of happy utopian political experiment. It's bloody and dangerous and full of dirty tricks on both sides, and if you don't have the stomach for it you're going to end up looking like an appeaser or a traitor or a fool.

Dave

"So many Republicans in Congress are still acting as if they have been "right" all along - while the historic facts of the matter of how we got into Iraq (and why) begins to solidify around them. They look like fools."

Yet the GOP keeps winning elections. Go figure...

I wonder who you believe you are, Dave, to tell me I have "no stomach" for fighting terror when I'm recommending that every citizen get involved in the fight, because like it or not, they're already in it. You like to sweep away the reality of what I'm saying with meaningless generalizations about how you imagine I may think, which is typical of anyone who has lost the abilitry to see their fellow citizen as an individual. I can see that you are looking at the author of this post, myself, and putting all your pre-set stereotypical ideas about who I may be into your every presumption. Did I say we are pursuing something I categorize as "utopian?" No. The "stomach"? My own brother came within an inch of his very life on 9/11 in the Financial district in NYC. He saw, with his own eyes, the planes hit the towers. He heard,, with his own ears, those towers falling with a gut-wrenching creaking metallic sound. We should all have "the stomach" for it, or expect to see more of it in the furture.

All that said, the Iraq war was the wrong place, wrong time, wrong plan, and it was begun with a tangled web of lies of which teh underbelly is just beginning to be exposed.

I'm sorry you never answered my question - WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Rumsfeld says the insurency wil likely last a long time ..maybe twelve years.

>>I wonder who you believe you are, Dave,<<

I'm just a person like any other who hates to see our nation faced by enemies yet falling into partisan fighting for political gain instead of uniting to fight the real enemy.

>> to tell me I have "no stomach" for fighting terror when I'm recommending that every citizen get involved in the fight, because like it or not, they're already in it. <<

As far as I can tell you think the fight we need to unite for is against our own government rather than the terrorists. I take exception to that.

Dave

Sort of like Zebra mentality....

The Lions crouch in wait... the Zebras graze innocently close to the female cats.

The Lions wait... tense, every muscle waiting for exactly the correct moment.

The Lions explode from the bush, chasing, turning, running. The Zebras respond by mass panic, running dodging, weaving through the long grass...

The Lions dig into the earth, and spring on the victim Zebra, who is overwhelmed by tooth and claw... The Zebra herd feeds the pride... moves just beyond the threat and continues to graze, until the next feed.

Is that what you mean Jude... that we reduce our instincts to herd mentality? To allow the lion to feed on us? For us to propagate and continue to breed replacment fodder for the fanatical murderer?

That's an odd way to live. I'm not a Zebra, I don't desire to conduct my life that way.

Maybe it's like stepping into an automobile and feeling at the mercy of the other drivers.... after 35 years or so of driving, you're still around and beaten the odds. Are we here to beat some sort of odds? What are the odds of dying in a terroist attack? I don't imagine they're very large, after all there are way more people than terrorists (notice I didn't say terrorists are people too). Hmmm, the terrorists could never defeat us through attrition, so why bother... let the terrorist feed upon the herd, let them indiscrimately pick off an innocent here or a child there, or someones love of their life, or the creator of the cure for aids... or what ever.... it doesn't matter, we're just one big herd of Zebras...

There used to be a great herd of Bison in America. Herds may be more fragile than you imagine.

I appreciate these thoughts, and I think it's true that our government can't simply sit back and do nothing - and I'd like to remind you that I did not suggest we do nothing. As a matter of fact, I am calling on people to get out of the herd and become more responsible for themselves by becoming an active part of their own democracy.

What value should we put on a democratic society made up of true zebras? Not a very high value. So, you see, I agree with you.

So, where is it that we seem to miss the eye-to-eye meeting?

There is a great bond between the zebras in their herd. There is a strong hierarchy - a pecking order, if you will. The leaders are obeyed implicitly, otherwise there is disorder and weakness in their group.

The zebras TRUST the leader of the pack to keep them safe from the lions. In the end, a certain percentage of them will be inevitably eaten - regardless. Because they are, in the end, zebras, and shall never "change their stripes".

We are not zebras - the Founding Fathers reminded us that we are individuals and that God endowed us with certain inalienable rights. Our country was founded on a particular pecking order with the white protestant male property owners at the head of the herd. Because of all the Founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence and Bil of Rights, the rule of American law has led the United States to a more socially just pecking order. Perhaps some people think that the Founding Fathers could not have EVER imagined a black female as Secretary of State - yet, here we are.

Like humans, when one zebra starts running, they all run. Too many herd-humans ran to support the Iraq war, about which "the leaders of the pack" deliberately misled them. The Iraq war was for their own good, the leaders had told "the zebras." It's only because the zebra herd trusted that the leaders could keep them safe by attacking a nation that posed no imminent threat to their her that they consented to the attack. It turned out to be wrong - and material misleadings have been exposed.

Even a zebra is equipped, by God, with the common sense to not jump over the cliff, as a lemming would. From the time of the oarsmen of Battle of Salamis 480 BC, the amazing human spirit has proven to be worthy of a democracy that no zebra could EVER attain.

Using your analogy, a "zebra leader" shot a perfectly innocent herd-member five times, through the skull, on the London tube this week, assuming that he was a lion.

Don't think that the other "zebras" failed to notice.

TYPO on sentence above cause me to offer a corrected version of the post:



I appreciate these thoughts, and I think it's true that our government can't simply sit back and do nothing - and I'd like to remind you that I did not suggest we do nothing. As a matter of fact, I am calling on people to get out of the herd and become more responsible for themselves by becoming an active part of their own democracy.

What value should we put on a democratic society made up of true zebras? Not a very high value. So, you see, I agree with you.

So, where is it that we seem to miss the eye-to-eye meeting?

There is a great bond between the zebras in their herd. There is a strong hierarchy - a pecking order, if you will. The leaders are obeyed implicitly, otherwise there is disorder and weakness in their group.

The zebras TRUST the leader of the pack to keep them safe from the lions. In the end, a certain percentage of them will be inevitably eaten - regardless. Because they are, in the end, zebras, and shall never "change their stripes".

We are not zebras - the Founding Fathers reminded us that we are individuals and that God endowed us with certain inalienable rights. Our country was founded on a particular pecking order with the white protestant male property owners at the head of the herd. Because of all the Founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence and Bil of Rights, the rule of American law has led the United States to a more socially just pecking order. Perhaps some people think that the Founding Fathers could not have EVER imagined a black female as Secretary of State - yet, here we are.

Like humans, when one zebra starts running, they all run. Too many herd-humans ran to support the Iraq war, about which "the leaders of the pack" deliberately misled them. The Iraq war was for their own good, the leaders had told "the zebras." It's only because the zebra herd trusted that the leaders could keep them safe by attacking a nation (which was later proven to have poseed no imminent threat to them) that they consented to the attack. The leaders turned out to be wrong - and their material misleadings have been exposed.

Even a zebra is equipped, by God, with the common sense to not jump over the cliff, as a lemming would. From the time of the oarsmen of Battle of Salamis 480 BC, the amazing human spirit has proven to be worthy of a democracy that no zebra could EVER attain.

Using your analogy, a "zebra leader" shot a perfectly innocent herd-member five times, through the skull, on the London tube this week, assuming that he was a lion.

Don't think that the other "zebras" failed to notice.