"You seem to think that "U.S. interference" somehow justifies mass murder
and mass destruction."
Wow!!! I certainly DO NOT think that! Nothing justifies violence. My
opinion: If you look closely, there is always a better way of having power
than violence.
Consider how the U.S. got to be an independent country. Some people who lived
in the U.S., then a British colony, wanted independence. They fought a war.
I don't think fighting a war is a good idea. However, the U.S. is not going to
stop war by being violent!
I can see the story now: The U.S. has decided that it is not okay to fight for
representation in your own government. To be logical, the U.S. is re-joining
the British Empire. (I'm sure the British would think this was humorous. I'm
not sure they would take us back.)
It does not matter what you or I think. Some Arabs think they have a
reasonable view, and they are willing to be violent to further this view.
Remember, they are not saying they want representation in the government of
the United States. They are saying they want representation in the government
of Saudi Arabia. That's what this fight is about.
You can be sure that if a terrorist ever calls me up and ask me for my
opinion, I will tell him violence is STUPID. But I have no contact with any
violent people.
"Perhaps the U. S. has meddled in other countries' affairs, perhaps
arrogantly, but never to my knowledge without invitation."
The U.S. government pays billions of taxpayer dollars to get that invitation, and
there are dictatorships that are willing to take the money.
"First, your entire post appears to be a cut and paste from the linked
article."
Yes, but I wrote the article. The article just pulls together separate
sources.
"Which Arabs? Which citizens of Saudi Arabia?
Arab friends of mine have told me that the government of Saudi Arabia is
opposed by people who want representation. I've also seen this on television
documentaries. Please realize that there are many sources I haven't included.
The article I wrote could use more supporting information. The article is only
a Slashdot post. I didn't want to take up a lot of space, so I uploaded the
article to a personal web page, and provided a link.
"The US military has only been there in force since Desert Storm. The
Saudis may not much care for their presence or their government but they also
have no desire to be ruled by another Taliban."
Yes, but some Arabs don't like a continued military presence. You are mistaken
about the U.S. government being there only for the Gulf War. The U.S. has a
long history of involvement with the house of al Saud. Some of those who are
not part of the ruling family say the government of al Saud is corrupt. I am
not trying to give a personal opinion. This is an opinion of some Arabs.
"If anything, the original author is simply re-iterating the words of bin
Laden himself."
That's the point! I am referencing bin Laden and others. It doesn't matter
whether you or I consider that bin Laden has acceptable political aspirations!
He says he will bring the war to the U.S. if the U.S. government continues
interfering. Do you doubt that?
Osama bin Laden, a Saudi citizen, says he has a right to representation in the
government of his country. The point: Does the U.S. have a right to say he
doesn't? Second point: Are you willing to die for this cause? Are you willing
to be unsafe for the rest of your life over this cause?
Why does the U.S. have to be involved in this dispute? Many bad things happen
in the world. If the U.S. wants to help the world, why does it have to be with
fighting?
Twenty percent of the people in the world don't have enough to eat. Why
doesn't the U.S. help them? My opinion is that there are people in the U.S.
who want to engage in battle. They just want to fight. They want to get
involved in any battle available. And there's lots of money in secretly
embezzling U.S. government funds.
There is a cycle: 1) The U.S. government influences other governments in
hidden ways, including arranging the killing of foreign leaders. 2) Some
members of the countries with whom the U.S. has interfered want to retaliate
violently to the violence of the U.S. 3) The U.S. government uses the violent
retaliation as a justification for more hidden and public violent activity.
One problem with secretly violent agencies is that there is a conflict of
interest. If there is more violence, they get more money and prestige. So they
have reasons to encourage violence. I am not claiming that they do so
consciously. However, there is certainly unconscious pressure to increase
violence and de-stabilize governments.
I think the record shows that the secret agencies of the U.S. government don't
really work for the people of the U.S. They make trouble, they don't stop it.
"The United States government has so far shown a great deal of
restraint..."
I don't agree with this. There have been many, many calls for action. Bomb
someone! I think the U.S. government would have bombed already, but no one
knows who to bomb.
I think for most people in the U.S., bombing other countries is like an adult
video game. They don't have any feeling for the pain that bombing causes.
Citizens of Saudi Arabia want to be able to try to change the political
structure of their country. They want to do this without U.S. interference.
This is not an unreasonable request. Certainly if the Saudi government tried
to involve itself in a political dispute in the U.S., the U.S. would put
forward whatever resistance was necessary to stop the interference.
For years there have been Arabs who have said that if the U.S. continued
interfering, there would be attempts to bring the conflict to the U.S. After
years of warning, that's what happened.
It seems self-destructive that there is never any serious consideration of
their complaints. People in the U.S. expect to have self-determination. Should
the U.S. deny that to other countries?
"No, Clinton brought the budget DEFICITS under control. We've only been turning a surplus for a couple years, not nearly enough time to erase the mountains of debt created over the last thirty years."
Clinton did reduce the debt, but you are right in what you said above.
"What would you propose the US do now, since you are so worldly and informed?"
I don't know how to solve all the problems. But I definitely want the U.S. to look for a better way of relating to the world than killing.
I feel that I have some useful ideas, and I feel that I could lead a useful investigation into finding answers.
"What complaints? There were no complaints, no demands made, no responsibility taken, even by bin Laden."
There were years of warning about U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabia and Israel. Some of these warnings came from bin Laden, who publicly threatened terrorism.
"The USA, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, is a debtor nation to the tune of a few trillion dollars."
The Clinton Administration got the U.S. mostly out of debt. The beginning of the huge debt occurred in the Reagan Administration, and coincided with homeless people becoming much more common in U.S. cities.
Most people in the U.S. have very little understanding of the destructiveness of the U.S. government. For most people in the U.S., the activities of their government are like an adult video game. The don't relate to it any more deeply than that. Most people in the U.S. cannot find on a map the 14 countries the U.S. government bombed in the last 30 years. Most know almost nothing about the cultures of the people who live in those countries.
Guess the source of the following quote. Who talked about the U.S.
being "the greatest threat to the peace of the world"?
Yes, Osama bin Laden said something like this. However, he is not the
source. U.S. senator from Oregon Wayne Morse said
this in 1964. He was arguing against the U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
Why does a Saudi Arabian like bin Laden care about the activities of
the U.S.? In interviews, he has said that he is against the U.S. support
for what he considers to be a corrupt Saudi Arabian government. I certainly
would be unlikely to give credibility to anything bin Laden said. However,
Saudi Arabian friends have privately made similar criticisms. That's what
made me take notice.
Mostly, however, I have little independent knowledge of news events.
Like everyone, I depend on news sources. I thought that the September 13, 2001 PBS TV show
about these issues was interesting. Here is a quote from a transcript of
the show "Hunting
bin Laden":
"NARRATOR: Muslim fundamentalists say that America's alliance with King
Fahd is akin to America's disastrous alliance with the Shah of Iran. When
King Fahd, like the Shah, is forced from power, they say, Americans will
be on the wrong side of history."
and here's another quote:
"NARRATOR: Already, critics of the Saudi government point out the king
has managed to turn the world's largest oil producer into a debtor nation."
People like bin Laden say that the U.S. government is supporting a corrupt
dictatorship. Is there a lie in this? The U.S. government is supporting
an anti-democratic government. The terrorists say this is the reason they
feel motivated to terrorism.
My own opinion is that I think the initiators of violence are crazy,
mentally decentered. However, if Americans support U.S. independence from
England in 1776, they might also be sympathetic to other people's desire
to have representational government.
Please consider what the narrator of the PBS show said again: Saudi
Arabia, the world's largest oil-producing nation, with only 14,000,000
inhabitants, actually owes money.
I have absolutely zero sympathy for terrorist violence. However, the
situation is so black and white that it is difficult not to think
that there is some truth in the terrorist's complaints.
In 1967 I was hitch-hiking on Ta Khli Air Base in Thailand. A U.S. pilot
who was flying daily bombing missions to Hanoi gave me a ride. He told
me he thought the bombing of Hanoi was pointless. He said that Hanoi was
almost always covered with fog, and that he could not see what he was bombing.
So, don't feel that you are having a radical viewpoint if you oppose U.S.
military or political involvement. Plenty of others have come before you.
In a democracy, it is the citizens' responsibility to think independently
and make their views known.
There is no intent to "bash" anyone. There is only an intent to try to describe why the two cultures have been killing each other for millenia. There must be some reason! If you don't like my attempt, please supply your own description.
Jews are not fragile. I learned to think the way I described partly by listening to Jewish friends talk about other Jews.
I'm feeling really uncomfortable with the lack of logic in valuing the
lives of people, who happen by chance to have been born in the U.S., so much more highly than people who were born elsewhere.
The U.S. government killed an estimated 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and an
estimated 150,000 people in Iraq. The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30
years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people. None of the people who
were killed in any way directly threatened the U.S. These people had mothers and fathers, wives and families and friends.
The average killing by the U.S. government in the last 30 years has been about
100,000 people per year.
The recent terrorism is, like all violence, reprehensible. I grieve for my
country, and I grieve for the people lost. However, if 5,000 people have been
killed in New York and Washington D.C., that is only 5% of the U.S.
government's yearly average.
I grieve for those killed by the U.S. government, also.
The Bush Administration was requesting $343.2 billion for the Defense
Department in Fiscal Year 2002. Now the budget will be much more.
Would it be too much to ask to spend 1% of that amount on an initiative to try
to discover how the U.S. could live in the world without killing? I've tried
to pull together some ideas about relating to other people in a non-violent
but powerful way in an article called, "What should be the response to
violence?"
This Slashdot story begins: "In this time of madness, I find myself staying
up later than usual, watching more tv than ever before, tracking more
channels, with more open browser windows than even I did before. As though
KNOWING more will somehow help."
Perhaps if this person had been aware of what his government was doing, he
would have lost much more sleep. Knowing more will help.
CmdrTaco: "Does the govt really think that crypto export restrictions
have prevented terrorists from having strong crypto?"
This is such an obvious and sensible objection that it makes me wonder.
My guess, and it is only a guess, is that a large part of the U.S. government
no longer serves the purpose of democracy. The war may be, not on terrorists,
but on the American people. My guess is that it is not conspiracy, but
widespread government corruption.
That's the only conclusion that supports all the information. For example,
the U.S. CIA trained Osama bin Laden. See the 1998 MSNBC article referenced
in the first paragraph of What
should be the response to violence? where I've tried to pull together
some of the facts.
Whenever there is a problem, there seem to be two situations that go
together: 1) The U.S. government intelligence agencies say they did not
foresee the problem, and 2) the intelligence agencies had a years-long
prior involvement with the person who caused the problem. Osama bin Laden
is one example of this.
Another example is General Noriega of Panama who had a working relationship
with the U.S. CIA for years before he was accused of drug trafficking.
Was the exposure of Noriega caused by his not taking orders? A quick Google
search on "Noriega
General Panama CIA" gave a link to a chapter in a book by Noam Chomsky,
The invasion of
Panama. Chomsky's book is called What
Uncle Sam Really Wants.
I've found that the Cisco 675 DSL modem is documented very poorly. In three weeks, Cisco technical support has been unable to provide a complete sample script to configure the firewall features of the 675. (The case is still open.)
Cisco makes it very difficult to get firmware upgrades, unless you have a support contract that costs more than the modem.
The 675 provides no protection in "bridging" mode. In NAT mode, it cuts off services like Yahoo Messenger and Microsoft NetMeeting, without documenting that these will not be available.
Please don't confuse an explanation of the violence with the violence itself.
Ask yourself, Why aren't Jews liked "so much" in France? I am saying it is because of the arrogance of saying that they are "God's Chosen People".
Remember, I am only trying to provide an explanation. If you have alternate explanations, please provide them.
You said, 'There are much less examples in History of places where Jews could live with Christians without being "wiped".'
There are many fewer examples in European history books of places where Jews could live with Christians peacefully. Don't forget that the Pharaoh of Egypt enslaved the Jews more than 3,000 years ago. Don't forget that Abraham, founder of the Jewish tribe, was a slave owner. He got the slaves by warring with neighboring tribes. That region has a long history of violence. Don't forget that the Jewish record Christians call the "Old Testament" contains many stories of violence.
"We're not in the Boy Scouts,"
Richard Helms was fond of
saying when he ran the Central
Intelligence Agency. He was
correct, of course. Boy Scouts
do not ordinarily bribe foreign
politicians, invade other
countries with secret armies,
spread lies, conduct medical
experiments, build stocks of
poison, pass machine guns to
people who plan to turn them
on their leaders, or plot to kill
men such as Lumumba or
Castro or others who displeased
Washington. The CIA did these
things, and more, over a long span of years.
Stratfor provides interesting
and more complete analysis.
Lax Security One of the important points made in the article
is that security in U.S. airports and on U.S. airplanes before the bombing
was lax compared to the security in Europe.
George Bush had Increased Support for Israel. The Economist
article does not mention that the Bush Administration in the U.S. had recently
increased its support for the Israeli government and therefore also Israeli
violence. The Clinton administration, in contrast, was more careful not
to do things which could be interpreted as an incitement to violence.
Once again, intelligence agencies were useless. It is amazing
to me that "intelligence" authorities claim that they did not have any
idea that there would be an attack like this. Below is a link to an album
cover from a band called "The Coup". It is black American "Party Music".
The album was sold long before today's bombing. The album cover shows
both towers of the World Trade Center in New York in flames:
If black rap artists can have this idea, why didn't the intelligence
agencies have it? The idea was not particularly innovative, since the World
Trade Center had already been bombed once. Did the intelligence agencies
think that those who did it would just stop trying?
From one of the Stratfor articles: "Reuters is reporting that Arabic
satellite television channel MBC warned Sept. 8 that followers of suspected
Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden were planning a major attack on U.S. and
Israeli interests in the next two weeks."
Violence is Assumed. Commentators on three of the largest
U.S. TV networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC, have made comments that assume without
debate that the U.S. will engage in military action in retaliation. One
U.S. senator said on TV that the U.S. response should be comparable to
the U.S. response to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. One of the U.S.
responses at the time of Pearl Harbor was to be the only country that has
ever used nuclear weapons. Is the senator suggesting that?
This is my reply to the many people who are recommending violence
as an answer to violence:
Do you have any thought that violence in retaliation might be a mistake,
and might just invite further violence? Those who say no may change their
minds after they consider the following issues:
The U.S. government (not necessarily the U.S. people) has a history
of thinking that violence is the answer. The U.S. government
killed 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and maybe 150,000 people in Iraq. The
U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000
people. None of the people who were killed were in any way directly threatening
the U.S. These people had mothers and fathers, friends and families and
wives.
Most of the citizens of the U.S. had, and have, no idea of the beliefs
of the people that their government killed. Most people in the U.S. cannot
even locate the countries the U.S. government bombed on a map of the world.
People cannot be thought to have chosen violence when they do not come
close to understanding the issues. It is often the government that chooses
violence, not the people.
No matter how violent a country is, or how many people a violent country
kills, there is still an inexhaustible supply of people in other countries
who also want to engage in violence. Violence can be unending. Do you want
that?
No matter how angry you are, there are thousands of people who are more
angry than you. Do you want them to attack you?
As was mentioned above, the Bush administration recently increased U.S.
support for the violence of the Israelis. This was sure to make the people
being killed by the Israelis unhappy. Do you find it surprising that some
of them are motivated to violence also?
There are many countries where people are severely distressed by Israeli
violence. Recently there was a TV news story about street violence in which
Israelis were killed. The Israeli counter-attack was shown on TV: A helicopter
fired rockets at a building, causing huge explosions. It is not important
in this instance whether the Israelis are the aggressors. What is important
is that a significant number of people in the world think they are the
aggressors.
The problems between the Jews and the Arabs have existed for 3,300
years. The Jews say that they are the "chosen people" of God.
The Jews say that Arabs are descended from an illegitimate child of their
tribal founder, Abraham, and a slave girl.
It is not difficult to understand the thoughts of the Arabs. It is not
difficult to understand that it is annoying to live next to a group of
people who claim that they are superior, and that Arabs are inferior. It
is not difficult to understand that it is annoying to live near people
who claim that you are a descendent of a bastard and that God doesn't like
you as much.
It is also not difficult to understand that the constant claims of the
Jews of superiority over everyone else (including people of European descent
like me) are mentally de-centering to Arabs who happen to be psychologically
conflicted.
Violence is caused by mentally de-centered people. Mentally
de-centered people engage in violence. It's that simple. Being violent
toward them makes mentally de-centered people even more mentally de-centered.
That's why violence is not a good answer to violence.
The U.S., and all those who hate violence, should take very strong action.
But the action must be designed to cure the problem of highly-conflicted,
mentally de-centered people. Whatever that response is, it must be more
sophisticated than violence.
The terrorists are extreme examples of mentally disturbed people. Remember
that those who crashed airplanes into the buildings cannot possibly benefit
from their own actions. They are dead. Someone who is willing to commit
suicide is about as mentally de-centered as it is possible to be.
Does the U.S. really have a place in a dispute that began 3,100 years
before the founding of the country? How many people here really
understand this dispute? What percentage of the citizens of the U.S. can
even find Israel on a map of the world? I think the percentage is low.
I find the arrogance of my Jewish friends annoying, too. However, there
are many differences between myself and the terrorists. I am less conflicted.
I am better educated. It doesn't matter to me what other people have been
saying for thousands of years; I don't believe Jews actually are superior.
I don't live in an area where I am at risk of being killed by Israelis.
I am not Arab, so I am not the target of the strongest claims of Jews that
they are superior.
I can also understand why Jews would find Arabs annoying. There is an
element of the Arab culture that allows Arabs to think that lies are sometimes
acceptable. My Arab friends have sometimes lied to me over trivial issues.
To someone who values careful thought, lies are extremely repugnant.
Should we be giving Israel money when that will be seen as us a choosing
to enter a 3,300 year-old conflict? The U.S. government gives billions
of dollars every year to Israel. If anything, this money seems to have
made Israel weaker. The Israelis have spent money they didn't earn; this
is always a corrupting influence; they have had problems with inflation.
It can hardly be said that the people of the U.S. give the money; most
have no idea that money is going to Israel. So, the people pay the money,
but the government gives it away. Rightly or wrongly, sensibly or crazily,
the Arabs see this money as encouragement of Israel's violence toward them.
On this particular issue both cultures are crazy! They've been killing
each other since the time of the Pharaohs! What does this have to do with
the U.S.? Do we walk into bars and take part in any fight that is happening
there?
The U.S. has a history of secret interference with the governments
of other countries. We often hear about secret activities of
the U.S. government after it is too late to object. The U.S. supported
the killing of president Mossadegh of Iran, and then supported an extremely
weak man, the Shah of Iran. (See Iran
1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings) [thirdworldtraveler.com],
for example.) This provoked a revolution in Iran that was hostile to the
United States. Citizens of the U.S. were kept hostage.
The U.S. secret agencies' secret answer to the anti-U.S. sentiment was
to support Saddam Hussein of Iraq against Iran. We supported Saddam Hussein's
violent war against Iran. However, when Saddam Hussein became violent toward
another country in the region, we spent billions of dollars to kill an
estimated 150,000 Iraqis and destroy their property.
When executives do things openly they make lots of mistakes, and are
sometimes held accountable, usually in a very peaceful way, and usually
by their own staffs. When executives do things in secret, there is little
accountability, and the mistakes can become huge.
Anyone interested in the activities of secret U.S. agencies may have
been interested in a segment of the CBS show "60 Minutes" about the secret
involvement of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the killing
of Chilean General Rene Schneider. The show aired on Sunday, September
9, 2001. General Schneider was a strong supporter of democracy. Here are
links to information about U.S. interference with democracy in Chile:
Iran, Iraq, and Chile are just three of the countries that have suffered
from secret U.S. involvement. There is some discussion of U.S. government
interference in Saudi Arabia below. Also, don't forget Nicaragua. I asked
someone who went to Nicaragua during U.S. involvement there whether it
was possible to see the wealth that the U.S. government was pouring into
that small country. The amount was said to be about $1,000,000 per day.
I was told, no, there was no evidence of the money that was spent.
There is a cycle: 1) The U.S. government influences other governments
in hidden ways, including arranging the killing of foreign leaders. 2)
Some members of the countries with whom the U.S. has interfered want to
retaliate violently to the violence of the U.S. 3) The U.S. uses the violent
retaliation as a justification for more hidden activity.
Invading countries and killing the residents and destroying their property
is not a way of relating I consider socially skilled. Why do the citizens
of one country think they can kill the citizens of another? If killing
is the answer, can't the U.S. ask a better question?
The interference in the affairs of other countries by the secret U.S.
agencies has prompted some people to retaliate. These people who retaliate
are called "terrorists" in the U.S. The terrorists make everyone in the
U.S. less safe. So, U.S. citizens have, in some ways, gotten less security
for the money they spent on secret activities.
The violent attitude toward people outside the U.S. has, predictably,
spread to the internal police forces in the U.S. When some religious fanatics
decided to do stupid things in Waco, Texas, the U.S. government responded
by bringing in very violent-minded people. The result was that people were
killed.
There were people who didn't like the activities of the U.S. police
forces in Waco. There were people who were psychologically de-centered
by these activities. One of them, Timothy McVeigh, bombed a U.S. government
building in Oklahoma. So then the U.S. government killed him.
Secrecy encourages people not to trust. Violence encourages violence.
We tend to hear about the activities of secret U.S. government agencies
about 30 years after they occur. What are they doing now?
It is 10:00 o'clock. Do you know what the U.S. government is doing?
No, it is a fact that you don't. You don't know any other time, either.
You cannot even know how much of your money is spent on secret activities,
because the budget for secret U.S. government agencies is hidden in other
appropriations.
Definition of a terrorist: The other country's CIA.
There is in the U.S. very little attempt at understanding other cultures.
Arab friends of mine have described situations in Saudi Arabia that are
extremely volatile. Apparently Osama bin Laden, and many average Saudis
who live in the U.S., feel very unhappy with U.S. influence in Saudi Arabia.
They think that there should be political parties and democracy in Saudi
Arabia. However, the U.S. government strongly supports the dictatorial
regime of the house of Al Saud. Residents of Saudi Arabia, for example,
are not allowed to leave the country without an exit visa. They are potentially
prisoners of their own country.
Why not ask ourselves why Osama bin Laden is willing to go to so much
trouble to promote terrorism? Maybe we would learn something. I am NOT
saying Osama bin Laden is right about anything, and definitely his violence
is reprehensible. Nevertheless it may help to understand him. According
to Arabs to whom I've talked, there is considerable good reason to be dissatisfied
with the secret actions of the U.S. government.
As other people have said in the past, the U.S. government has a history
of supporting corrupt dictatorships. The U.S. government supported Pakistan
against India! India is the world's most populous democracy. It has been
suggested that the preference for supporting dictatorships is due to U.S.
government corruption. A dictator is almost certain to be willing to support
embezzlement of U.S. government money, and to keep it secret. Trying to
arrange embezzlement would be very dangerous in a democracy because of
the danger of being discovered.
Under the stress of conflict, people show how they truly think.
It has always annoyed me that people who call themselves Christian often
reveal that they don't really believe in the important messages of Christianity,
and that they don't even understand those messages.
Basically, Jesus Christ's idea of not returning violence with violence
means that we can vigorously protect ourselves, but that any response must
be the true minimum necessary to achieve security. This is a theory that
can be recommended even to the majority of people in the world who are
not Christian. The theory seems to fit the facts. The facts seem to be
that violence always has severely negative side-effects that overwhelm
any effect that might be seen as positive.
Answers? Prevention is an answer. Better understanding
is an answer. Being charitable long before any problems begin occurring
is a good answer. And maybe there are times when we just don't know the
answer.
There is often considerable misunderstanding about non-violent methods.
One reason to suggest non-violent methods is that they can be extremely
powerful. For example, suppose that representatives from the U.S. knew
Osama bin Laden's family. Or suppose that you understood how money is transferred
to bin Laden. Or suppose the U.S. was so well-liked in the region that
bin Laden had difficulty finding supporters. One of the values of non-violent
methods is that literally hundreds of them are available, and many of them
are far, far cheaper than violence.
The desire for non-violence is a desire to be extremely powerful.
Those who are really powerful can have a strong influence just by voicing
disapproval.
There are many people who support violence because they want to act
out their own personal anger, while at the same time hiding their internal
conflict from themselves. It is a fact that such people would be FAR more
comfortable if they could be helped to understand and take responsibility
for their anger. Acting out anger is like a drug. It provides only temporary
relief, and it makes the person who does it more angry. Having un-recognized
anger is like carrying a 100-pound sack of cement on your back wherever
you go. Un-recognized anger drags you down 24 hours per day.
Violence is not a good answer to violence.
Regards,
Michael Jennings
Michael Jennings
P.O. Box 14491
Portland, OR 97293-0491
U.S.A.
E-Mail: M_Jennings@USA.com
This letter maybe sent to anyone by email without permission from the
author, provided that no changes are made. If you print this article with
no changes, you may give it to anyone you know. Other use requires permission.
Copyright 2001.
Please mention errors and shortcomings to the author.
These people should be nuked back to the stone age...
The laws of Physics are against this. Nuclear bombs work on cities. In the
countryside, a 100 Megaton bomb does surprisingly little damage. The damage
spreads only about 15 miles from the center of the blast.
In the mountains, as in Afghanistan, the energy of a nuclear blast would be
deflected upward.
Nuclear blasts also make all the air everyone breathes radioactive. Thus
everyone is punished, even people who haven't been born yet.
"These are not people, they are animals, and should be treated as
such."
The U.S. killed 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and maybe 150,000 people in Iraq.
The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated
3,000,000 people. None of the people who were killed were in any way directly
threatening the U.S.
"2) We give enough money to Israel so that they can wipe the Arabs off the planet.
"3) We stop giving money and let the Arabs wipe Israel off the planet."
Another thought: This war has been going on for 3,300 years!!! If they haven't "wiped" each other "off the planet" by now, they are unlikely to do it in the next few years.
I don't like any of the violence. But it is better to admit we don't know what to do than become violent ourselves.
Maybe there are times when we just don't know what to do. The conflict is more than 3,000 years old. If it was easy to know what to do, someone would have done something already.
We should not think that every time we don't know what else to do, we should engage in violence.
Should we be giving the Jews money when that will be seen as entering a 3,300 year-old conflict?
On this particular issue they're both nuts! They've been killing each other since the time of the Pharoahs! What does this have to do with the U.S.? Do we walk into bars and take part in any fight that is happening there?
The U.S., and all those who hate violence, should take very strong action. But the action must be
designed to cure the problem of highly-conflicted, mentally de-centered people. Whatever that is,
it must be more sophisticated than violence.
Slashdot Mirror
"You seem to think that "U.S. interference" somehow justifies mass murder and mass destruction."
Wow!!! I certainly DO NOT think that! Nothing justifies violence. My opinion: If you look closely, there is always a better way of having power than violence.
Consider how the U.S. got to be an independent country. Some people who lived in the U.S., then a British colony, wanted independence. They fought a war.
I don't think fighting a war is a good idea. However, the U.S. is not going to stop war by being violent!
I can see the story now: The U.S. has decided that it is not okay to fight for representation in your own government. To be logical, the U.S. is re-joining the British Empire. (I'm sure the British would think this was humorous. I'm not sure they would take us back.)
It does not matter what you or I think. Some Arabs think they have a reasonable view, and they are willing to be violent to further this view. Remember, they are not saying they want representation in the government of the United States. They are saying they want representation in the government of Saudi Arabia. That's what this fight is about.
You can be sure that if a terrorist ever calls me up and ask me for my opinion, I will tell him violence is STUPID. But I have no contact with any violent people.
"Perhaps the U. S. has meddled in other countries' affairs, perhaps arrogantly, but never to my knowledge without invitation."
The U.S. government pays billions of taxpayer dollars to get that invitation, and there are dictatorships that are willing to take the money.
"First, your entire post appears to be a cut and paste from the linked article."
Yes, but I wrote the article. The article just pulls together separate sources.
"Which Arabs? Which citizens of Saudi Arabia?
Arab friends of mine have told me that the government of Saudi Arabia is opposed by people who want representation. I've also seen this on television documentaries. Please realize that there are many sources I haven't included. The article I wrote could use more supporting information. The article is only a Slashdot post. I didn't want to take up a lot of space, so I uploaded the article to a personal web page, and provided a link.
"The US military has only been there in force since Desert Storm. The Saudis may not much care for their presence or their government but they also have no desire to be ruled by another Taliban."
Yes, but some Arabs don't like a continued military presence. You are mistaken about the U.S. government being there only for the Gulf War. The U.S. has a long history of involvement with the house of al Saud. Some of those who are not part of the ruling family say the government of al Saud is corrupt. I am not trying to give a personal opinion. This is an opinion of some Arabs.
"If anything, the original author is simply re-iterating the words of bin Laden himself."
That's the point! I am referencing bin Laden and others. It doesn't matter whether you or I consider that bin Laden has acceptable political aspirations! He says he will bring the war to the U.S. if the U.S. government continues interfering. Do you doubt that?
Osama bin Laden, a Saudi citizen, says he has a right to representation in the government of his country. The point: Does the U.S. have a right to say he doesn't? Second point: Are you willing to die for this cause? Are you willing to be unsafe for the rest of your life over this cause?
Why does the U.S. have to be involved in this dispute? Many bad things happen in the world. If the U.S. wants to help the world, why does it have to be with fighting?
Twenty percent of the people in the world don't have enough to eat. Why doesn't the U.S. help them? My opinion is that there are people in the U.S. who want to engage in battle. They just want to fight. They want to get involved in any battle available. And there's lots of money in secretly embezzling U.S. government funds.
My article: What Should be the Response to Violence?
There is a cycle: 1) The U.S. government influences other governments in hidden ways, including arranging the killing of foreign leaders. 2) Some members of the countries with whom the U.S. has interfered want to retaliate violently to the violence of the U.S. 3) The U.S. government uses the violent retaliation as a justification for more hidden and public violent activity.
One problem with secretly violent agencies is that there is a conflict of interest. If there is more violence, they get more money and prestige. So they have reasons to encourage violence. I am not claiming that they do so consciously. However, there is certainly unconscious pressure to increase violence and de-stabilize governments.
I think the record shows that the secret agencies of the U.S. government don't really work for the people of the U.S. They make trouble, they don't stop it.
See What Should be the Response to Violence? for more on this subject.
Sample headings:
The CIA trained Osama bin Laden.
Once again, intelligence agencies were useless.
There was plenty of warning.
"The United States government has so far shown a great deal of restraint..."
I don't agree with this. There have been many, many calls for action. Bomb someone! I think the U.S. government would have bombed already, but no one knows who to bomb.
I think for most people in the U.S., bombing other countries is like an adult video game. They don't have any feeling for the pain that bombing causes.
Citizens of Saudi Arabia want to be able to try to change the political structure of their country. They want to do this without U.S. interference. This is not an unreasonable request. Certainly if the Saudi government tried to involve itself in a political dispute in the U.S., the U.S. would put forward whatever resistance was necessary to stop the interference.
For years there have been Arabs who have said that if the U.S. continued interfering, there would be attempts to bring the conflict to the U.S. After years of warning, that's what happened.
It seems self-destructive that there is never any serious consideration of their complaints. People in the U.S. expect to have self-determination. Should the U.S. deny that to other countries?
See http://www.hevanet.com/peace/ for more on this subject.
The U.S. taxpayers stayed the same. What changed was Clinton. Therefore he was responsible.
"No, Clinton brought the budget DEFICITS under control. We've only been turning a surplus for a couple years, not nearly enough time to erase the mountains of debt created over the last thirty years."
Clinton did reduce the debt, but you are right in what you said above.
"What would you propose the US do now, since you are so worldly and informed?"
I don't know how to solve all the problems. But I definitely want the U.S. to look for a better way of relating to the world than killing.
I feel that I have some useful ideas, and I feel that I could lead a useful investigation into finding answers.
"What complaints? There were no complaints, no demands made, no responsibility taken, even by bin Laden."
There were years of warning about U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabia and Israel. Some of these warnings came from bin Laden, who publicly threatened terrorism.
"The USA, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, is a debtor nation to the tune of a few trillion dollars."
The Clinton Administration got the U.S. mostly out of debt. The beginning of the huge debt occurred in the Reagan Administration, and coincided with homeless people becoming much more common in U.S. cities.
Most people in the U.S. have very little understanding of the destructiveness of the U.S. government. For most people in the U.S., the activities of their government are like an adult video game. The don't relate to it any more deeply than that. Most people in the U.S. cannot find on a map the 14 countries the U.S. government bombed in the last 30 years. Most know almost nothing about the cultures of the people who live in those countries.
Guess the source of the following quote. Who talked about the U.S. being "the greatest threat to the peace of the world"?
Yes, Osama bin Laden said something like this. However, he is not the source. U.S. senator from Oregon Wayne Morse said this in 1964. He was arguing against the U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
Why does a Saudi Arabian like bin Laden care about the activities of the U.S.? In interviews, he has said that he is against the U.S. support for what he considers to be a corrupt Saudi Arabian government. I certainly would be unlikely to give credibility to anything bin Laden said. However, Saudi Arabian friends have privately made similar criticisms. That's what made me take notice.
Mostly, however, I have little independent knowledge of news events. Like everyone, I depend on news sources. I thought that the September 13, 2001 PBS TV show about these issues was interesting. Here is a quote from a transcript of the show "Hunting bin Laden":
"NARRATOR: Muslim fundamentalists say that America's alliance with King Fahd is akin to America's disastrous alliance with the Shah of Iran. When King Fahd, like the Shah, is forced from power, they say, Americans will be on the wrong side of history."
and here's another quote:
"NARRATOR: Already, critics of the Saudi government point out the king has managed to turn the world's largest oil producer into a debtor nation."
People like bin Laden say that the U.S. government is supporting a corrupt dictatorship. Is there a lie in this? The U.S. government is supporting an anti-democratic government. The terrorists say this is the reason they feel motivated to terrorism.
My own opinion is that I think the initiators of violence are crazy, mentally decentered. However, if Americans support U.S. independence from England in 1776, they might also be sympathetic to other people's desire to have representational government.
Please consider what the narrator of the PBS show said again: Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil-producing nation, with only 14,000,000 inhabitants, actually owes money.
I have absolutely zero sympathy for terrorist violence. However, the situation is so black and white that it is difficult not to think that there is some truth in the terrorist's complaints.
In 1967 I was hitch-hiking on Ta Khli Air Base in Thailand. A U.S. pilot who was flying daily bombing missions to Hanoi gave me a ride. He told me he thought the bombing of Hanoi was pointless. He said that Hanoi was almost always covered with fog, and that he could not see what he was bombing. So, don't feel that you are having a radical viewpoint if you oppose U.S. military or political involvement. Plenty of others have come before you. In a democracy, it is the citizens' responsibility to think independently and make their views known.
"HOWEVER, your Jew-bashing is unacceptable."
There is no intent to "bash" anyone. There is only an intent to try to describe why the two cultures have been killing each other for millenia. There must be some reason! If you don't like my attempt, please supply your own description.
Jews are not fragile. I learned to think the way I described partly by listening to Jewish friends talk about other Jews.
I'm feeling really uncomfortable with the lack of logic in valuing the lives of people, who happen by chance to have been born in the U.S., so much more highly than people who were born elsewhere.
The U.S. government killed an estimated 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and an estimated 150,000 people in Iraq. The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people. None of the people who were killed in any way directly threatened the U.S. These people had mothers and fathers, wives and families and friends.
The average killing by the U.S. government in the last 30 years has been about 100,000 people per year.
The recent terrorism is, like all violence, reprehensible. I grieve for my country, and I grieve for the people lost. However, if 5,000 people have been killed in New York and Washington D.C., that is only 5% of the U.S. government's yearly average.
I grieve for those killed by the U.S. government, also.
The Bush Administration was requesting $343.2 billion for the Defense Department in Fiscal Year 2002. Now the budget will be much more.
Would it be too much to ask to spend 1% of that amount on an initiative to try to discover how the U.S. could live in the world without killing? I've tried to pull together some ideas about relating to other people in a non-violent but powerful way in an article called, "What should be the response to violence?"
This Slashdot story begins: "In this time of madness, I find myself staying up later than usual, watching more tv than ever before, tracking more channels, with more open browser windows than even I did before. As though KNOWING more will somehow help."
Perhaps if this person had been aware of what his government was doing, he would have lost much more sleep. Knowing more will help.
CmdrTaco: "Does the govt really think that crypto export restrictions have prevented terrorists from having strong crypto?"
This is such an obvious and sensible objection that it makes me wonder. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that a large part of the U.S. government no longer serves the purpose of democracy. The war may be, not on terrorists, but on the American people. My guess is that it is not conspiracy, but widespread government corruption.
That's the only conclusion that supports all the information. For example, the U.S. CIA trained Osama bin Laden. See the 1998 MSNBC article referenced in the first paragraph of What should be the response to violence? where I've tried to pull together some of the facts.
Whenever there is a problem, there seem to be two situations that go together: 1) The U.S. government intelligence agencies say they did not foresee the problem, and 2) the intelligence agencies had a years-long prior involvement with the person who caused the problem. Osama bin Laden is one example of this.
Another example is General Noriega of Panama who had a working relationship with the U.S. CIA for years before he was accused of drug trafficking. Was the exposure of Noriega caused by his not taking orders? A quick Google search on "Noriega General Panama CIA" gave a link to a chapter in a book by Noam Chomsky, The invasion of Panama. Chomsky's book is called What Uncle Sam Really Wants.
Another link on the first Google page was, The Real Drug Lords, A brief history of CIA involvement in the Drug Trade by William Blum.
See the latest version of the letter above at What Should be the Response to Violence?
One of the headings: "The CIA trained Osama bin Laden."
See the latest version of the letter above at What Should be the Response to Violence?
One of the headings: "The CIA trained Osama bin Laden."
People are guessing about how much power is used!!!!
It is better to measure it. When I have measured power use, it has been much lower than the rating of the power supply.
I've found that the Cisco 675 DSL modem is documented very poorly. In three weeks, Cisco technical support has been unable to provide a complete sample script to configure the firewall features of the 675. (The case is still open.)
Cisco makes it very difficult to get firmware upgrades, unless you have a support contract that costs more than the modem.
The 675 provides no protection in "bridging" mode. In NAT mode, it cuts off services like Yahoo Messenger and Microsoft NetMeeting, without documenting that these will not be available.
Please don't confuse an explanation of the violence with the violence itself.
Ask yourself, Why aren't Jews liked "so much" in France? I am saying it is because of the arrogance of saying that they are "God's Chosen People".
Remember, I am only trying to provide an explanation. If you have alternate explanations, please provide them.
You said, 'There are much less examples in History of places where Jews could live with Christians without being "wiped".'
There are many fewer examples in European history books of places where Jews could live with Christians peacefully. Don't forget that the Pharaoh of Egypt enslaved the Jews more than 3,000 years ago. Don't forget that Abraham, founder of the Jewish tribe, was a slave owner. He got the slaves by warring with neighboring tribes. That region has a long history of violence. Don't forget that the Jewish record Christians call the "Old Testament" contains many stories of violence.
I don't think you have been following the activities of the secret agencies of the U.S. government. The CIA has done everything that terrorists do.
For example, see this quote from the Atlantic Monthly story, Inside the Department of Dirty Tricks:
"We're not in the Boy Scouts," Richard Helms was fond of saying when he ran the Central Intelligence Agency. He was correct, of course. Boy Scouts do not ordinarily bribe foreign politicians, invade other countries with secret armies, spread lies, conduct medical experiments, build stocks of poison, pass machine guns to people who plan to turn them on their leaders, or plot to kill men such as Lumumba or Castro or others who displeased Washington. The CIA did these things, and more, over a long span of years.
Did you know that Osama bin Laden was trained by the CIA? See the MSNBC article, Bin Laden comes home to roost.
Do you think that Osama bin Laden is a terrorist? Then isn't the agency who trained him a terrorist organization, also?
Thanks. That is very much appreciated.
Also, I very much liked your story on that page.
I sent this to my friends:
_________________
Everyone,
As is often the case, the Economist seems to have the best story: America under Attack
Also see The Economist front page
Stratfor provides interesting and more complete analysis.
Lax Security One of the important points made in the article is that security in U.S. airports and on U.S. airplanes before the bombing was lax compared to the security in Europe.
George Bush had Increased Support for Israel. The Economist article does not mention that the Bush Administration in the U.S. had recently increased its support for the Israeli government and therefore also Israeli violence. The Clinton administration, in contrast, was more careful not to do things which could be interpreted as an incitement to violence.
Once again, intelligence agencies were useless. It is amazing to me that "intelligence" authorities claim that they did not have any idea that there would be an attack like this. Below is a link to an album cover from a band called "The Coup". It is black American "Party Music". The album was sold long before today's bombing. The album cover shows both towers of the World Trade Center in New York in flames:
The Coup -- Party Music, album cover shows the World Trade Center towers burning.
If black rap artists can have this idea, why didn't the intelligence agencies have it? The idea was not particularly innovative, since the World Trade Center had already been bombed once. Did the intelligence agencies think that those who did it would just stop trying?
From one of the Stratfor articles: "Reuters is reporting that Arabic satellite television channel MBC warned Sept. 8 that followers of suspected Saudi terrorist Osama bin Laden were planning a major attack on U.S. and Israeli interests in the next two weeks."
Violence is Assumed. Commentators on three of the largest U.S. TV networks, NBC, CBS, and ABC, have made comments that assume without debate that the U.S. will engage in military action in retaliation. One U.S. senator said on TV that the U.S. response should be comparable to the U.S. response to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor. One of the U.S. responses at the time of Pearl Harbor was to be the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons. Is the senator suggesting that?
This is my reply to the many people who are recommending violence as an answer to violence:
Do you have any thought that violence in retaliation might be a mistake, and might just invite further violence? Those who say no may change their minds after they consider the following issues:
The U.S. government (not necessarily the U.S. people) has a history of thinking that violence is the answer. The U.S. government killed 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and maybe 150,000 people in Iraq. The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people. None of the people who were killed were in any way directly threatening the U.S. These people had mothers and fathers, friends and families and wives.
Most of the citizens of the U.S. had, and have, no idea of the beliefs of the people that their government killed. Most people in the U.S. cannot even locate the countries the U.S. government bombed on a map of the world. People cannot be thought to have chosen violence when they do not come close to understanding the issues. It is often the government that chooses violence, not the people.
No matter how violent a country is, or how many people a violent country kills, there is still an inexhaustible supply of people in other countries who also want to engage in violence. Violence can be unending. Do you want that?
No matter how angry you are, there are thousands of people who are more angry than you. Do you want them to attack you?
As was mentioned above, the Bush administration recently increased U.S. support for the violence of the Israelis. This was sure to make the people being killed by the Israelis unhappy. Do you find it surprising that some of them are motivated to violence also?
There are many countries where people are severely distressed by Israeli violence. Recently there was a TV news story about street violence in which Israelis were killed. The Israeli counter-attack was shown on TV: A helicopter fired rockets at a building, causing huge explosions. It is not important in this instance whether the Israelis are the aggressors. What is important is that a significant number of people in the world think they are the aggressors.
The problems between the Jews and the Arabs have existed for 3,300 years. The Jews say that they are the "chosen people" of God. The Jews say that Arabs are descended from an illegitimate child of their tribal founder, Abraham, and a slave girl.
It is not difficult to understand the thoughts of the Arabs. It is not difficult to understand that it is annoying to live next to a group of people who claim that they are superior, and that Arabs are inferior. It is not difficult to understand that it is annoying to live near people who claim that you are a descendent of a bastard and that God doesn't like you as much.
It is also not difficult to understand that the constant claims of the Jews of superiority over everyone else (including people of European descent like me) are mentally de-centering to Arabs who happen to be psychologically conflicted.
Violence is caused by mentally de-centered people. Mentally de-centered people engage in violence. It's that simple. Being violent toward them makes mentally de-centered people even more mentally de-centered. That's why violence is not a good answer to violence.
The U.S., and all those who hate violence, should take very strong action. But the action must be designed to cure the problem of highly-conflicted, mentally de-centered people. Whatever that response is, it must be more sophisticated than violence.
The terrorists are extreme examples of mentally disturbed people. Remember that those who crashed airplanes into the buildings cannot possibly benefit from their own actions. They are dead. Someone who is willing to commit suicide is about as mentally de-centered as it is possible to be.
Does the U.S. really have a place in a dispute that began 3,100 years before the founding of the country? How many people here really understand this dispute? What percentage of the citizens of the U.S. can even find Israel on a map of the world? I think the percentage is low.
I find the arrogance of my Jewish friends annoying, too. However, there are many differences between myself and the terrorists. I am less conflicted. I am better educated. It doesn't matter to me what other people have been saying for thousands of years; I don't believe Jews actually are superior. I don't live in an area where I am at risk of being killed by Israelis. I am not Arab, so I am not the target of the strongest claims of Jews that they are superior.
I can also understand why Jews would find Arabs annoying. There is an element of the Arab culture that allows Arabs to think that lies are sometimes acceptable. My Arab friends have sometimes lied to me over trivial issues. To someone who values careful thought, lies are extremely repugnant.
Should we be giving Israel money when that will be seen as us a choosing to enter a 3,300 year-old conflict? The U.S. government gives billions of dollars every year to Israel. If anything, this money seems to have made Israel weaker. The Israelis have spent money they didn't earn; this is always a corrupting influence; they have had problems with inflation. It can hardly be said that the people of the U.S. give the money; most have no idea that money is going to Israel. So, the people pay the money, but the government gives it away. Rightly or wrongly, sensibly or crazily, the Arabs see this money as encouragement of Israel's violence toward them.
On this particular issue both cultures are crazy! They've been killing each other since the time of the Pharaohs! What does this have to do with the U.S.? Do we walk into bars and take part in any fight that is happening there?
The U.S. has a history of secret interference with the governments of other countries. We often hear about secret activities of the U.S. government after it is too late to object. The U.S. supported the killing of president Mossadegh of Iran, and then supported an extremely weak man, the Shah of Iran. (See Iran 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings) [thirdworldtraveler.com], for example.) This provoked a revolution in Iran that was hostile to the United States. Citizens of the U.S. were kept hostage.
The U.S. secret agencies' secret answer to the anti-U.S. sentiment was to support Saddam Hussein of Iraq against Iran. We supported Saddam Hussein's violent war against Iran. However, when Saddam Hussein became violent toward another country in the region, we spent billions of dollars to kill an estimated 150,000 Iraqis and destroy their property.
When executives do things openly they make lots of mistakes, and are sometimes held accountable, usually in a very peaceful way, and usually by their own staffs. When executives do things in secret, there is little accountability, and the mistakes can become huge.
Anyone interested in the activities of secret U.S. agencies may have been interested in a segment of the CBS show "60 Minutes" about the secret involvement of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the killing of Chilean General Rene Schneider. The show aired on Sunday, September 9, 2001. General Schneider was a strong supporter of democracy. Here are links to information about U.S. interference with democracy in Chile:
National Security Archive Chile Documentation Project [gwu.edu]
PBS News Hour: "... evidence of a policy to undermine democracy in Chile and to support dictatorship there" [pbs.org]
Hinchey Report, CIA Activities in Chile [state.gov]
Iran, Iraq, and Chile are just three of the countries that have suffered from secret U.S. involvement. There is some discussion of U.S. government interference in Saudi Arabia below. Also, don't forget Nicaragua. I asked someone who went to Nicaragua during U.S. involvement there whether it was possible to see the wealth that the U.S. government was pouring into that small country. The amount was said to be about $1,000,000 per day. I was told, no, there was no evidence of the money that was spent.
There is a cycle: 1) The U.S. government influences other governments in hidden ways, including arranging the killing of foreign leaders. 2) Some members of the countries with whom the U.S. has interfered want to retaliate violently to the violence of the U.S. 3) The U.S. uses the violent retaliation as a justification for more hidden activity.
Invading countries and killing the residents and destroying their property is not a way of relating I consider socially skilled. Why do the citizens of one country think they can kill the citizens of another? If killing is the answer, can't the U.S. ask a better question?
The interference in the affairs of other countries by the secret U.S. agencies has prompted some people to retaliate. These people who retaliate are called "terrorists" in the U.S. The terrorists make everyone in the U.S. less safe. So, U.S. citizens have, in some ways, gotten less security for the money they spent on secret activities.
The violent attitude toward people outside the U.S. has, predictably, spread to the internal police forces in the U.S. When some religious fanatics decided to do stupid things in Waco, Texas, the U.S. government responded by bringing in very violent-minded people. The result was that people were killed.
There were people who didn't like the activities of the U.S. police forces in Waco. There were people who were psychologically de-centered by these activities. One of them, Timothy McVeigh, bombed a U.S. government building in Oklahoma. So then the U.S. government killed him.
Secrecy encourages people not to trust. Violence encourages violence.
We tend to hear about the activities of secret U.S. government agencies about 30 years after they occur. What are they doing now?
It is 10:00 o'clock. Do you know what the U.S. government is doing? No, it is a fact that you don't. You don't know any other time, either. You cannot even know how much of your money is spent on secret activities, because the budget for secret U.S. government agencies is hidden in other appropriations.
Definition of a terrorist: The other country's CIA.
There is in the U.S. very little attempt at understanding other cultures. Arab friends of mine have described situations in Saudi Arabia that are extremely volatile. Apparently Osama bin Laden, and many average Saudis who live in the U.S., feel very unhappy with U.S. influence in Saudi Arabia. They think that there should be political parties and democracy in Saudi Arabia. However, the U.S. government strongly supports the dictatorial regime of the house of Al Saud. Residents of Saudi Arabia, for example, are not allowed to leave the country without an exit visa. They are potentially prisoners of their own country.
Why not ask ourselves why Osama bin Laden is willing to go to so much trouble to promote terrorism? Maybe we would learn something. I am NOT saying Osama bin Laden is right about anything, and definitely his violence is reprehensible. Nevertheless it may help to understand him. According to Arabs to whom I've talked, there is considerable good reason to be dissatisfied with the secret actions of the U.S. government.
As other people have said in the past, the U.S. government has a history of supporting corrupt dictatorships. The U.S. government supported Pakistan against India! India is the world's most populous democracy. It has been suggested that the preference for supporting dictatorships is due to U.S. government corruption. A dictator is almost certain to be willing to support embezzlement of U.S. government money, and to keep it secret. Trying to arrange embezzlement would be very dangerous in a democracy because of the danger of being discovered.
Under the stress of conflict, people show how they truly think. It has always annoyed me that people who call themselves Christian often reveal that they don't really believe in the important messages of Christianity, and that they don't even understand those messages.
Basically, Jesus Christ's idea of not returning violence with violence means that we can vigorously protect ourselves, but that any response must be the true minimum necessary to achieve security. This is a theory that can be recommended even to the majority of people in the world who are not Christian. The theory seems to fit the facts. The facts seem to be that violence always has severely negative side-effects that overwhelm any effect that might be seen as positive.
Answers? Prevention is an answer. Better understanding is an answer. Being charitable long before any problems begin occurring is a good answer. And maybe there are times when we just don't know the answer.
There is often considerable misunderstanding about non-violent methods. One reason to suggest non-violent methods is that they can be extremely powerful. For example, suppose that representatives from the U.S. knew Osama bin Laden's family. Or suppose that you understood how money is transferred to bin Laden. Or suppose the U.S. was so well-liked in the region that bin Laden had difficulty finding supporters. One of the values of non-violent methods is that literally hundreds of them are available, and many of them are far, far cheaper than violence.
The desire for non-violence is a desire to be extremely powerful. Those who are really powerful can have a strong influence just by voicing disapproval.
There are many people who support violence because they want to act out their own personal anger, while at the same time hiding their internal conflict from themselves. It is a fact that such people would be FAR more comfortable if they could be helped to understand and take responsibility for their anger. Acting out anger is like a drug. It provides only temporary relief, and it makes the person who does it more angry. Having un-recognized anger is like carrying a 100-pound sack of cement on your back wherever you go. Un-recognized anger drags you down 24 hours per day.
Violence is not a good answer to violence.
Regards,
Michael Jennings
Michael Jennings
P.O. Box 14491
Portland, OR 97293-0491
U.S.A.
E-Mail: M_Jennings@USA.com
This letter maybe sent to anyone by email without permission from the author, provided that no changes are made. If you print this article with no changes, you may give it to anyone you know. Other use requires permission. Copyright 2001.
Please mention errors and shortcomings to the author.
These people should be nuked back to the stone age...
The laws of Physics are against this. Nuclear bombs work on cities. In the countryside, a 100 Megaton bomb does surprisingly little damage. The damage spreads only about 15 miles from the center of the blast.
In the mountains, as in Afghanistan, the energy of a nuclear blast would be deflected upward.
Nuclear blasts also make all the air everyone breathes radioactive. Thus everyone is punished, even people who haven't been born yet.
"These are not people, they are animals, and should be treated as such."
The U.S. killed 2,100,000 people in Vietnam and maybe 150,000 people in Iraq. The U.S. has bombed 14 countries in 30 years, killing a roughly estimated 3,000,000 people. None of the people who were killed were in any way directly threatening the U.S.
Does that make us animals?
The point is that people cannot be thought to have chosen violence when they do not come close to understanding the issues.
"2) We give enough money to Israel so that they can wipe the Arabs off the planet.
"3) We stop giving money and let the Arabs wipe Israel off the planet."
Another thought: This war has been going on for 3,300 years!!! If they haven't "wiped" each other "off the planet" by now, they are unlikely to do it in the next few years.
I don't like any of the violence. But it is better to admit we don't know what to do than become violent ourselves.
Very good point.
Maybe there are times when we just don't know what to do. The conflict is more than 3,000 years old. If it was easy to know what to do, someone would have done something already.
We should not think that every time we don't know what else to do, we should engage in violence.
I don't know the answers. But there are some thoughts below in comment (#2283902)
Okay then, how about this:
Should we be giving the Jews money when that will be seen as entering a 3,300 year-old conflict?
On this particular issue they're both nuts! They've been killing each other since the time of the Pharoahs! What does this have to do with the U.S.? Do we walk into bars and take part in any fight that is happening there?
The U.S., and all those who hate violence, should take very strong action. But the action must be designed to cure the problem of highly-conflicted, mentally de-centered people. Whatever that is, it must be more sophisticated than violence.