Re: a man with a good understanding

[Jeff wrote:]
>It Doesn't Matter "What Made These People So
>Angry." What Matters is to Eliminate Them.

Precisely who is the "they/these people/them" being referred to? Osama
bin Laden? His close followers? All Muslims?

The idea that Muslim anger toward brutal U.S. actions is equivalent to
"What made Hitler so angry?" or "What made Ted Bundy so angry?" is
absurd. Jeff, will you not acknowledge that the U.S. has done some
terrible things, things that would make any caring person angry? For
example, the torture-teaching School of the Americas?

Again, I do not condone any terrorist action, and I explicitly support
the pursuit of anyone for whom credible evidence suggests terrorist
activities.

But tell me, Jeff: in your eyes, what is the worth of the life of an
Afghan refugee on the brink of starvation, compared to an innocent U.S.
citizen on the 105th floor of the World Trade Center tower? Are these
two lives not worth the same? I cannot believe that they are not.
Certainly I can't believe that Jesus would say they are not, no matter
what religion each professes.

Do you foresee any hope of peace between Islam and Christianity at any
time? If not, I am sorry but I must walk another path. If so, what do
you see as the road that will lead the world to peace and at the same
time see that justice for actual proven criminals is done?

While we are pursuing those responsible for the 09-11 bombings,
shouldn't we give serious consideration to getting the hell out of
Saudi Arabia, the site of the holiest cities of the Muslim religion?
Our presence there is a source of _huge_ resentment, and I for one can
understand it. Would you want Osama to occupy the most sacred locations
of the Christian religion, or would you consider that an invasion?

In any case, doesn't warlike talk of "eliminating them" lead us farther
from peace, and indeed, farther from justice?

JdL

[I wrote that Jeff wrote:]
>>It Doesn't Matter "What Made These People So
>>Angry." What Matters is to Eliminate Them.

[Jeff:]
>Actually the author of the article wrote and I quoted.

OK, but you agree, or did I misunderstand?

[JdL:]
>>Precisely who is the "they/these people/them" being referred
>>to?

>>Osama bin Laden?
>>His close followers?
>>All Muslims?

[Jeff:]
>I don't even know that those people _are_ angry, but I
>believe the author was analyzing a rather common
>refrain we all have been hearing that we must examine
>"what made these people so angry."

And I'm disagreeing with the author.

[JdL:]
>>The idea that Muslim anger toward brutal U.S. actions is
>>equivalent to "What made Hitler so angry?" or "What made Ted
>>Bundy so angry?" is absurd.

[Jeff:]
>I do not find that to be true John.

Then I suggest that you look again at the world through what might
reasonably be expected to be their view of U.S. actions.

>>Jeff, will you not acknowledge that the U.S. has done some
>>terrible things, things that would make any caring person
>>angry?

>It is true that the people of the US have done many
>terrible things. Businesses financing Hitler. People
>condoning Hitler. People justifying Hitler. Army
>officers infecting natives with smallpox.
>Ted Bundy did some evil things too.

Right, but Ted Bundy was a lone criminal, who was eventually captured
and punished. Who captures governments (the U.S. gov't in particular)?

>>For example, the torture-teaching School of the Americas?

>The things that have been brought up sound pretty
>rotten.

>>Again, I do not condone any terrorist action, and I
>>explicitly support the pursuit of anyone for whom credible
>>evidence suggests terrorist activities.

>OK.

>>But tell me, Jeff: in your eyes, what is the worth of the
>>life of an Afghan refugee on the brink of starvation,
>>compared to an innocent U.S. citizen on the 105th floor of
>>the World Trade Center tower?

>How is this relevant?

Precisely because, in the pursuit of bin Laden, we are putting millions
of Afghan civilians at risk of starvation, cutting them off from needed
U.N. relief convoys. The packets we drop from airplanes are apparently
almost worthless, because they fall either out of sight or in places
strewn with landmines where nobody dares go.

Do we have the right to pursue bin Laden at any cost to civilians?
Isn't that the crime we accuse him of committing?

>>Are these two lives not worth the same?

>Basically yes.

>>I cannot believe that they are not.

>I agree.

>>Certainly I can't believe that Jesus would
>>say they are not, no matter what religion each professes.

>Seems reasonable.

>>Do you foresee any hope of peace between Islam and
>>Christianity at any time?

>Um, are you saying that this is a Holy War being waged
>againsct innocent Muslims by Bad Christians? Or are
>you even saying this is a war being waged upon Muslims
>by Christians because Christians do not approve of
>Muslims? Or what are you implying here with your focus?

I am saying that whatever we do, it must be in the context of achieving
eventual peace, not defining a perpetual enemy whom we will "eliminate".
Our actions must have at least a chance of being perceived as just, not
mere vengeance perpetrated upon an entire people.

>>If not, I am sorry but I must walk
>>another path. If so, what do you see as the road that will
>>lead the world to peace and at the same time see that justice
>>for actual proven criminals is done?

>What are you saying? Are you suggesting that we should
>do nothing? Or that we should ask the Taliban politely
>to round themselves up and put themselves on trial?

No, I am explicitly saying we should pursue those who are responsible.
But _only_ those who are responsible, and without making war on entire
nations of civilians.

>If we can not ensure that no murderer ever kills again,
>should we then refuse to track down murderers?

If a murderer is hiding in a group of civilians, are we justified in
blasting them all? I say we are not.

>>While we are pursuing those responsible for the 09-11
>>bombings, shouldn't we give serious consideration to getting
>>the hell out of Saudi Arabia, the site of the holiest cities
>>of the Muslim religion?

>So you are saying that our were PRESENCE in SA
>justifies the murders? Following your reasoning then
>should Muslims who live or work near Buddhist temples
>and other holy sites be cited as justification for
>the murder of innocent Muslims in other countries? This
>is the logic you are using.

No, I am _not_ saying that our presence justifies murder, and I'm also
saying we should get out of SA. There is a big difference between
civilians and troops.

>Anyway, the Saudis invited us there as I recall because
>they wanted us to defend their cowardly asses against
>Saddam's army.

The specific group of Saudis who were put in power by the West earlier
in the 20th century invited us. They speak for themselves, not the
nation, and certainly not for the other Muslims of the world who are
charged with making a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their lives.

>Do you also advocate deporting Saudis and other Muslims
>who live and work near churches and temples in the
>West? I must say that this argument that the US is in
>SA (at their invitation) justifies mass murder of
>innocents to be seriously demented and indicative of a
>mentally ill reasoning process.

I have explicitly stated that nothing that the U.S. has done justifies
the murder of innocents. You seem determined to paint the U.S. as
either all black or all white; neither extreme is accurate.

>>Our presence there is a source of _huge_ resentment, and I
>>for one can understand it.

>Oh you understand it do you? That is interesting.
>Perhaps you can explain to us then why Muslims working
>at the WTC were justifiably murdered because of this
>resentment that you understand.

Sorry, not following you.

>Myself, I don't understand it.

You don't understand how the military occupation of a holy land by
troops of another religion would cause anyone any resentment? I find
that difficult to comprehend.

>>Would you want Osama to occupy the most sacred locations of
>>the Christian religion, or would you consider that an
>>invasion?

>So you are directly comparing American soldiers who are
>in SA at the invitation ef the SA government to a
>mass-murdering sociopath? Mental! 3-5-7! 3-5-7!

To many Muslims, U.S. actions have also resulted in mass murder.

>>In any case, doesn't warlike talk of "eliminating them" lead
>>us farther
>>from peace, and indeed, farther from justice?

>I support the elimination of Naziism.
>And I support the elimination of Whatever-ism is
>behind the murders of 9-11.

Again, who is "them"? Where, for example, is even some minimal evidence
of bin Laden's specific involvement in the WTC destruction? Isn't he
likely to be a straw man? Suppose we capture him today; what do we do
next?

Over the long haul, I believe that our chances for peace depend upon
doing two things:

. pursue actual criminals, whatever their religion.

. show Muslims around the world that we're not going to keep blowing
off their legitimate concerns. Part of that means not scapegoating
innocents as stand-ins for the guilty.

JdL

Hi Jeff and JdL and others. I wanted to insert that I think Jeff has more of
his finger on the pulse. John, you opined to Jeff:

> You don't understand how the military occupation of a holy land by
> troops of another religion would cause anyone any resentment? I find
> that difficult to comprehend.
>
>

You are not playing fair, in my opinion. Just as the Afghans dodge the force
aimed at them, you are mixing and blending different issues. This is a way
of justifying things to your own aesthetic. It should not be a surprise,
then, that you do this with music as well.

One issue is the U.S. troops on holy land. The leadership of a mass of land
asks for defense by an outside Muslim country. Sure, I would like to have
the U.S. leave there because they, themselves are two-and three-face. One
could go back further in history and negate and particular country or
culture. The really beautiful cultures that resonated art in early eras are
most likely gone. They were wiped off the earth because they had no armies
to defend them (e.g., Crete).

Another issue is to spend unnecessary focus on understanding why these
"villains" did this dastardly massacre. When Ghengis Khan's Mongol army
destroyed your town, would you stop one of the horse riders for an interview?
Would you ask for information on his parents? Try to talk the individual
rider out of it? (just being rhetorical) Didn't Hitler tap a vein of
Christian hatred for Jews? Wasn't Hitler "justified" in his aims by the bad
treatment he received by his very own culture, and by the poor treatment that
Germans received following WW I?

In Amsterdam last week, I met a Scot coffeehouse owner in a neutral place.
He reminded us of Lockerbie and how after 5 years the perpetrators were
captured. After listening respectfully to his words, I calculated quickly
what the differences in the situations were, and responded and gently as I
could muster. After all, Amsterdam is deeply fearful that there could be
damage to their paradise, a true haven in the world.

The response is largely based on an army of Afghan Arabs that have declared
war on the USA, and long before 9/11. While one might become fixated on one
individual (e.g., Bin Laden), one might open up to al-Zawhari of Egyptian
Jihad, also in Afghanistan. Or you might consider the murders in Pakistan
against Shia and Christians as a threat? Or perhaps, you might be swayed by
the European al-Queda cells captured in Europe on 9/10?

Now the Anthrax seems to be a clinical trial by people who know more than
they are letting on. This is so serious, because either the agent will be
used so people will panic to nonstop antibiotic taking...or worse, smallpox,
et al. Why now? Neo-Nazis interested in supporting bin-Landen because they
share the separation of peoples? But better to have smoked them out now than
have the surprise hit later.

We're in a war and it was possible only because Afghanistan exists as a
paradise or "haven" for hatred of even the good things that the West
represents. They see things through a distorted prism of Islam. And for
what they have done to women, they should be brought down. None of this is
in Islam by all accounts. The Taliban treat women as a subjugated ethnic
group. Real healthy, huh?

Sorry we're in a war. It hurts inward and continuously destroys other
innocents. It is only the numbers that will make a difference. I have to
believe that no army has ever tried so hard to avoid innocents as this one.
Trust the UN to this? Srebrinicia, no!
Anyone else....Nato? No. Other Islamic nations or courts? No. Do
nothing?

Johnny

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Johnny wrote:]
>Hi Jeff and JdL and others. I wanted to insert that I think Jeff has
>more of his finger on the pulse. John, you opined to Jeff:

[JdL:]
>>You don't understand how the military occupation of a holy land by
>>troops of another religion would cause anyone any resentment? I find
>>that difficult to comprehend.

[Johnny:]
>You are not playing fair, in my opinion. Just as the Afghans dodge the
>force aimed at them, you are mixing and blending different issues.
>This is a way of justifying things to your own aesthetic. It should
>not be a surprise, then, that you do this with music as well.

Well, Johnny, several things about that paragraph intrigue me. Let's
begin with the inexplicable segue from politics to music. Yes, I
"justify things to my own aesthetic." To my mind, any other way of
approaching music turns it into an empty intellectual game. I work with
music because the beauty of it speaks to me on a very deep level, and I
make my own sense of beauty my one guiding star. Is that sense resonant
with yours? Maybe not, apparently not. Is that sense powerful enough
to survive the test of time? I am content to let time provide the
answer to that question, and I humbly suggest that you do the same,
rather than fretting over it.

Now to the substance of your paragraph on the matter at hand. It
astonishes me that anyone could take issue with my statement. Since
I am not a Jew, nor a practicing Christian, I am at a bit of a loss for
particularly holy shrines of those religions, but imagine your own
holiest shrine, and imagine it occupied by armed troops belonging to
some other country, and to some other religion, and tell me how you
feel.

>One issue is the U.S. troops on holy land. The leadership of a mass of
>land asks for defense by an outside Muslim country. Sure, I would like
>to have the U.S. leave there because they, themselves are two-and
>three-face. One could go back further in history and negate and
>particular country or culture. The really beautiful cultures that
>resonated art in early eras are most likely gone. They were wiped off
>the earth because they had no armies to defend them (e.g., Crete).

Nowhere do I hear you sympathize with the people whose religion we are
tromping on. Why is that?

>Another issue is to spend unnecessary focus on understanding why these
>"villains" did this dastardly massacre. When Ghengis Khan's Mongol
>army destroyed your town, would you stop one of the horse riders for an
>interview? Would you ask for information on his parents? Try to talk
>the individual rider out of it? (just being rhetorical) Didn't Hitler
>tap a vein of Christian hatred for Jews? Wasn't Hitler "justified" in
>his aims by the bad treatment he received by his very own culture, and
>by the poor treatment that Germans received following WW I?

No one is justified in killing innocents. I'm less interested in
understanding the anger of criminals (who must in any case stand trial
for their crimes) than I am in understanding the anger of millions of
others who are not _yet_ criminals. Whether you sympathize with them or
not, can you not understand the practicality of this wish?

>In Amsterdam last week, I met a Scot coffeehouse owner in a neutral
>place. He reminded us of Lockerbie and how after 5 years the
>perpetrators were captured. After listening respectfully to his words,
>I calculated quickly what the differences in the situations were, and
>responded and gently as I could muster. After all, Amsterdam is deeply
>fearful that there could be damage to their paradise, a true haven in
>the world.

Sorry, not understanding the relevance of this paragraph.

>The response is largely based on an army of Afghan Arabs that have
>declared war on the USA, and long before 9/11. While one might become
>fixated on one individual (e.g., Bin Laden), one might open up to
>al-Zawhari of Egyptian Jihad, also in Afghanistan. Or you might
>consider the murders in Pakistan against Shia and Christians as a
>threat? Or perhaps, you might be swayed by the European al-Queda cells
>captured in Europe on 9/10?

As I have said many times, I support the pursuit of criminals,
especially when actual evidence of their guilt is presented openly to
the world.

>Now the Anthrax seems to be a clinical trial by people who know more
>than they are letting on. This is so serious, because either the agent
>will be used so people will panic to nonstop antibiotic taking...or
>worse, smallpox, et al. Why now? Neo-Nazis interested in supporting
>bin-Landen because they share the separation of peoples? But better to
>have smoked them out now than have the surprise hit later.

Again, not sure of the connection between this and the subject at hand.

>We're in a war and it was possible only because Afghanistan exists as a
>paradise or "haven" for hatred of even the good things that the West
>represents. They see things through a distorted prism of Islam. And
>for what they have done to women, they should be brought down. None of
>this is in Islam by all accounts. The Taliban treat women as a
>subjugated ethnic group. Real healthy, huh?

The Taliban are a bunch of a*******, but our bombing is hurting women
as much as Taliban, do you not agree?

>Sorry we're in a war. It hurts inward and continuously destroys other
>innocents. It is only the numbers that will make a difference. I have
>to believe that no army has ever tried so hard to avoid innocents as
>this one.

Actually, I agree. But that does not absolve us from evaluating the
effect that our actions still have on innocents.

>Trust the UN to this? Srebrinicia, no!
>Anyone else....Nato? No. Other Islamic nations or courts? No. Do
>nothing?

Is it more important to do "something", anything, rather than be
perceived as doing nothing? I suggest that this is the U.S.'s big
mistake. Bush felt he had to bomb someone, so he chose the Taliban,
who are admittedly a bunch of thugs deserving of serious come-uppance,
and bin Laden, another guy who by his own words wishes us all harm, but
who may or may not be involved in the 09-11 bombings.

Please tell me, Johnny, whether you think Isreal has done a good job of
securing peace for the children of that nation. If you think they have,
skip the next question: are we or are we not starting to pursue tactics
much like Israel (bomb the holy poop out of anyone who might harbor
someone we don't like), with very likely the exact same effect? I, for
one, want something better for my son and his children.

JdL