Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
> Glenn, Kevin not to criticise you, but your opinion is reactionary and > unwarranted clearly you have no grasp of international politics or social > studies. Tho it's understandable due to the situation. Daniel, I graduated with honors from Louisiana State University with a major in Political Science and dual concentrations in both U.S. (domestic) Politics and International Relations. At what point would you consider my opinion schooled enough to be of some value? > I should suggest to talk to any arab or afghan, pakistani > neighbour and find > abit more about their point of views. Also take a course in Arab studies. > Only will understanding and it's quest will prevail over ignorance and > violence. Too bad you couldn't drop that last sentence in an email to Osama a few weeks ago, huh? Might have saved a few thousand innocent lives. The issue that I have with most of these posts that argue, essentially, that there's two sides that need to be heard, and the other side hasn't been heard, and so therefore they had to resort to this kind of action and the U.S., in some weird sort of way, deserves this because they didn't listen earlier when they had the chance, is as follows: Terrorists are extremists and the people who support them and their causes represent a *very small* minority of people on the planet. In the case of Osama bin Laden, he has declared a holy war on the United States and all of its people. He wishes to - and I am NOT overstating this - *exterminate* the American people. Really! Is there ANYONE on this list that supports this agenda? Is this what you would have us "understand"? I would suggest that terrorists do not represent the concerns of the mainstream populace anywhere on the planet - and even in Islamic countries since the Koran itself forbids the kind of activities that terrorists engage in. Terrorists are the disenfranchised, *because* they cannot mobilize significant support for their extreme causes even within their own countries. But, at some point, we have to ask ourselves: Where do we draw the line between who is heard on the global stage and who is not? If we are to listen to the agenda of one group, shouldn't we also listen to the agendas of groups of similar size and type of need? That would be fair, but surely you can see that there could be millions of such possible groups, if the groups were small enough. And all of them would be putting their self-serving - and frequently conflicting - agendas forward anyway. What will determine whose grievances get acted on? Do we listen only to those groups who are willing to kill people to put forward their grievances? If only the latter gets our attention, then aren't we, by listening to them and acting on their concerns, only encouraging other groups to conduct the same kind of activity, since this is the precise kind of activity that appears to generate results? Honestly, is there anyone on this list who cannot see the anarchy that would result if, in a world of two billion plus people, all it took to effect global political/societal/economic change was the willingness and ability of a small group of perhaps 10-15,000 people to put forth their agenda in particularly violent ways? Fortunately, there is an answer to this potential nightmare. Going back to the beginnings of civilization, we can see that man soon learned that, if as a species we were to prosper and grow, we needed to organize ourselves together under the rule of law. It is this rule of law that has provided the underpinnings of society down through history to today. It is the foundation on which the civilized world rests and the fact that we have such advanced civilizations testifies to the viability of the rule of law. I am sure I don't have to provide further support for why a world ruled by laws is preferable to a world ruled by anarchy. I am not saying that America has never mistyped in it's relations with other countries or never done anything that it shouldn't have. I acknowledge, and I think most Americans would acknowledge, that mistakes have been made and sometimes these mistakes have harmed others in other countries. OTOH, however, there are many good things America has done too, and surely I don't have to provide examples of all the different kinds of aid and support America has provided to foreign countries in times of need - and sometimes even when these same countries were former enemies. On the whole, I think we're accountable for saving more lives than we are responsible for taking. And I would even agree that, where the issues raised by organizations across the planet leave room for negotiation and represent the wishes of some significant portion of countries or peoples, or even a single country, we need to find better ways of hearing and acting on these concerns so that folks don't feel the need for such extreme action. We live in an increasingly global community. There's no adequate way to really address the needs of small groups of people in a global way if those wishes do not represent the desires of a very large number of people. That's a fact, but this is both logical and prudent too, right? Nations who live in this world we live in - where the plans to create an atom bomb are freely available in nearly any library, for example - have an obligation to the rest of the world community to, *as much as they reasonably can*, be a responsible member of that community. The costs of not doing so, in today's world, are simply too great. I realize there are a lot of different ways that the line can be drawn while attempting to preserve liberty. But suffice to say that providing a home and various kinds of support for known terrorists crosses the line in being a responsible member of that community. In the final analysis, being *responsible as a nation* (since they have the ability to control policies within their borders) is the only rational activity that offers any hope of enabling us to live in a safe world. No one claims that it is possible to end all violence, but large scale violence can in many cases be curbed. Osama's agenda of extermination, and the inflammatory way he grabbed our attention, doesn't leave much room for negotiation. Frankly, I am shocked, and saddened, that ANY of you COULD condone his behavior to ANY degree. He, and his kind, represent a threat to the entire civilized world and the governmental institutions which allow our global community to exist and function under the rule of law. He is a threat to your life and mine. To allow him to perpetuate these kinds of activities only ensures that more innocents will die. Of this we can be certain. I also must acknowledge that some innocents elsewhere in the world will likely die as a result of the forthcoming hostilities, but you all should remember that these hostilities are only now being contemplated in *reaction to* Osama's actions. In this way, these deaths, try as we might to prevent them, really result from Osama's actions, not American actions. Furthermore, I would suggest that, to the extent that these deaths result from attitudes, unfortunately held by some of you, that encourage, or at least tolerate this kind of terrorist behavior under the guise of giving an airing to such extremist views, you will have blood on your hands too. I deeply regret that more innocent people will die, as I know most do. But clearly Osama himself, and the people who work with him and support him, have not shown themselves fit to sit at the table of the global community. There is simply no rationale under which that privilege can be granted. His ideas and actions are so abhorrent that no world leader will openly articulate or support them. So something must be done. Make no mistake, good folks, Osama is no Gandhi. His actions speak for themselves, and his day of atonement is coming. And when it does, it will be a day of celebration not only in America, but in all nations and among all peoples who value life, liberty and the rule of law. Kevin