Subject:
|
Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Sep 2001 09:00:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
879 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Shiri Dori writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > First, Lindsay, I don't want to gush, but I really just love reading your
> > stuff.
>
> Don't you, though? It's really cool. He has tons to say.
>
> > Your only problem is that you're too sporadic. :-) Do you teach like
> > this? Or does the nature of the college classroom require the lecture to be
> > generally dry? Most people seem to object to history on the basis that it's
> > boring. I think it's partly because it's presented as a series of generally
> > unconnected facts, and partly because there is often no relevent tie-in to the
> > here and now.
>
> (Not to go off to a tangent, but that's why I had so much fun in my American
> Studies class, a combination of English and U.S. History... they were two
> seperate classes but the teachers [tried to] correlate the material studied.
> A lot of times we, as students, made the connections without the teachers
> explicitly stating them. It was very cool. History is great when all the
> pieces suddenly click...)
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: • <snip snip snip>
> > > > > Nuclear terrorism won't come from above--it'll come from within,
> > > > > and just when we foolishly believe we're safe. But also don't
> > > > > *over*estimate the ruthlessness of terrorists--the sheer horror
> > > > > of the nuclear nightmare is anathema to most of them.
> > > >
> > > > Why is that? I would think they'd be giddy at the thought of nuking one of
> > > > our
> > > > cities.
> >
> > Why? Does the thought of nuking them make _you_ giddy? They're just people.
>
> Which is so hard to remember sometimes. But they are. I try to remember that
> but by god, it's very difficult for me to do when a bomb explodes ten feet
> from where my sister used to work, killing 14 people. (The Sbarro explosion
> in Jerusalem... she used to eat there. She was just fired two weeks before
> that from a place around the corner.)
>
> Not to be nasty or some'n, but Chris, it's really easy for you (and everyone
> else in the world too) to say all that, sitting in your couch watching the
> news. Harder for me to truly believe it, having to ride the bus, and my sis
> worrying about me going to the mall to meet some friends.
>
> By the same token, so as not to be a hypocrite, somewhere in my mind I know
> it's even harder for the man in Gaza hearing the news about Abu-Ali (umm, I
> think that's his name, I was tired when I read the news), who doesn't have
> enough food to feed his kids, etc.
Indeed. He does not have enough food to feed his kids, and your big worry is
how to get to the mall to meet you friends.
> But even though I *know* that I can't
> really *feel* it. Does that make sense?
>
> > > Not directly. But if a group should nuke a city, do you think
> > > *any* legitimate government--or even most other terrorist organ-
> > > izations--would have *anything* to do with them?
>
> I think they wouldn't.
>
> > Maybe not, but at least largely because to do so would be dangerous.
>
> I agree - I think many orgs would love to nuke a city but wouldn't admit
> responsibility if they did it, coz that'd be devastating for them.
>
> > I don't
> > doubt there are enough folks out there who'd like to spit some nukes, that
> > they could get a mutual admiration society together after the fact.
>
> hmm? please rephrase.
>
> <snip again>
>
> > > I definitely support retaliation--it is in
> > > all senses a war, except that detecting the enemy is a lot harder.)
> >
> > Couldn't war (just like domestic crime) be averted by working to make their lot
> > better?
>
> You mean "their lives a lot better"? Maybe, in theory. I would like to think
> so. But not neccessarily.
>
> In the Israel-Palestine sense, Israel tried to start making the Palestinians
> lives better, or at least to start fulfilling part of their wishes, with the
> Oslo agreement. They got a pretty cold slap in the face. And anyhow, many
> palestinians (maybe just the extremists, maybe not) want to kill us *all*,
> so how would making their life better help? They've stated this time and again.
... and how does the extra-judicial executions help? How did moving tanks
into Beit Jala help? Perhaps the best way to protect settlers is to move
them off land which does not belong to them? Perhaps, if Israel wants to
stop the murder of civilians they should get rid off Ariel Sharon?
Scott A
>
> > Are Israel and Palestine in conflict _really_ because of the Holy Land, or is
> > it because there are two few of whatever resources to go around? Why not step
> > in with a method of better each group's lot without taking (much) from the
> > other?
>
> Umm, the middle people on the political spectrum and the politicians may not
> be in conflict over the holy land, but the extremists sure as hell are.
>
> > > > Its unfortunate for the Muslim world that their small percentage of extermist
> > > > groups give them a bad rap as a stereotype.
> >
> > That's true about everyone. You have, IIRC (though maybe it was someone else),
> > bristled about negative characterizations of Christians.
>
> I b'lieve that was Dave Eaton.
>
> > It's the same thing.
> > The extremists give the rest of you a bad name. On the other hand, I also
> > think that if you're not kind of radical it's because you're not paying
> > attention.
>
> Hmm. I'm assuming you mean "not *any* kind of radical"? I disagree. People
> can be in the middle of the spectrum because they believe in it... I think.
>
> > > > It also baffles me that the
> > > > extremist groups are so senseless and insane in their acts.
> > >
> > > I rarely hear of a group terrorist act that's senseless. They
> > > seem insane, but usually not. Horrific, yes. Indefensible,
> > > certainly.
> >
> > I disagree. Any people should use whatever methods they have at their disposal
> > to secure a fair measure of life. To do less is to accept slavery. If their
> > only recourse is terrorism, then their neighbors damn well need to help solve
> > their problems (or snuff them).
>
> <grin> which is better IYO?
>
> > > 2) Oil. The US government aids its corporations in arm-twisting of
> > > Arab nations for the only commodity they have that the West
> > > seems to value: Oil. Oil holds out the possibility of giving
> > > a real chance to Arab nations--the United Arab Emirates have
> > > shown what can be done with truly careful and wise use of oil
> > > income for desalinization plants, factories, schools, roads,
> > > rail, those magnificent airports, commercial nexuses, telecom
> > > hubs, and more. If the price of oil is allowed to rise, that's
> > > a much greater share of world wealth that comes in to fund the
> > > development. However, to maintain the present system of
> > > inequality, the West operates in unison against OPEC nations,
> > > seeking to drive wedges between them whenever possible. I'd
> > > be surprised if OPEC can ever blindside the US and its allies
> > > the way they did in the 1970s. Solidarity is just too deeply
> > > compromised. The thinkers among the militant disaffected see
> > > this and hold the United States responsible--our whining over
> > > having to pay $2 a gallon for gasoline (less than desalinized
> > > water, by the way), which is highly publicized, doesn't help
> > > to dispel this impression.
>
> Hmmmmmmm. Interesting bits of info here. I'd comment if I didn't have to
> catch a bus to go to a mall (honestly). I've been having a conflict of
> interst between seeing a certain amount of validity in what terrorists are
> doing and between raging over it... y'know what I mean? The mind sees it but
> by golly, it won't settle in with my rights and wrongs.
>
> > > 3) History. This isn't about Israel, it's about US lies and
> > > deceit. Time and time again, the United States spouts off
> > > one set of standards and goals for the developed world and
> > > another for the "Third world." This goes back to Versailles,
> > > really, when Wilson allowed the Arab world to be carved up
> > > among Europeans in the Mandate system, despite an Arab delegation
> > > appearing at Versailles (they were refused admittance to the
> > > talks over the future of their own lands) and their very public
> > > embrace of the Fourteen Points. Ever since then the US has
> > > been duplicitous, selfish, and plutocratic, caring not
> > > whether Muslims live or die, only that *USians* remain rich
> > > and free. You can see where this leads, right?
>
> Again, I'll think about this.
>
> gots to go,
> -Shiri
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
| (...) Don't you, though? It's really cool. He has tons to say. (...) (Not to go off to a tangent, but that's why I had so much fun in my American Studies class, a combination of English and U.S. History... they were two seperate classes but the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
50 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
