On Sun, 16 Sep 2001, Richard Menedetter wrote:
> There is a *VERY* good article in german on the Frankfurter Allgemeine
> Zeitung.
> http://www.faz-online.de/IN/INtemplates/faznet/default.asp?tpl=faz/content_
> archive.asp&rub={7113DBFA-05D2-4BA6-94AC-23EE31EEE75B}&doc={CF860253-DF78-4
> A53-A9F4-1C7FA0B8DFC3}&reldoc={FA578FCB-0195-4524-892F-0783C8DE6B92}
I wish my German was better.
> (the only exception she states is Guliani, which acted wisely, and very
> respectably.)
Yes, I've been impressed with his demeanor, and the
lack of intensity and rhetoric in his press conferences.
> The attack was no attack on civilisation, freedom, humanity or the 'free'
> world !
> It was an attack on the United States, the only self proclaimed remaining
> superpower.
> It was an attack which was the consequence of politics, interests and deeds
> of america.
I would rephrase that last as, "Or was it an attack... ?"
> -+-
> Wo ist das Eingest�ndnis, da� es sich nicht um einen "feigen"
> Angriff auf die "Zivilisation", die "Freiheit", die
> "Menschlichkeit" oder die "freie Welt" gehandelt hat, sondern
> um einen Angriff auf die Vereinigten Staaten, die einzige
> selbsternannte Supermacht der Welt; um einen Angriff, der als
> Konsequenz der Politik, Interessen und Handlungen der
> Vereinigten Staaten unternommen wurde?
> -+-
>
> Sorry for being OT, but the news are so one sided, that people should
> also see the other side of it.
"Wearing the other guys' shoes," I see a superpower
financing the killing of our innocent people to the tune
of TRILLIONS of dollars since our land was forcibly taken
from us by the UN. We are an oppressed people, and the
financiers of that oppression, and murder of innocents,
have been the leaders of the US for decade after decade.
The US speaks out against human rights violations
all over the world. Yet, when it is their ally, Israel,
who commits the very same crimes, they not only look the
other way, but they reward them with additional funding,
and military equipment & technology.
:: back in Steve's shoes ::
Understanding why someone has committed an act of
terrorism in no way condones or mitigates it. Each
person is responsible for his own actions, and needs
to face the consequences. I do not believe in
"societal guilt" nor "guilt by association." Individual
actions alone determine guilt.
However, in seeing the other guy's point of view,
in just *trying* to understand his motivations,
perhaps it can help relieve some of our own pain,
anger, and thirst for vengeance. If we can actually
see both sides of the conflict, how can it help but
to impart some objectivity to our worldview?
> PS: I don't understand why CNN has to show a small group of 10-20
> palestinians on and on again ... this is the wrong signal.
Two reasons:
1) Sensationalism. Yellow Journalism. Reaction.
News-stand sales. A headline which outrages people
will sell many more papers than one which evokes
understanding.
2) The American news media are largely owned by
members of the CFR. If you've never seen those
three letters together, they stand for Council on
Foreign Relations. They have an agenda, but it is
somewhat cloaked. If you can read between the lines,
you can discover it in their magazine. An article
which seems particularly relevant in light of recent
events is
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/Search/document.asp?i=20010901FAResponse5577.xml
(Kissinger is, or was, a member of the CFR, so his
views which are villified in this article seem somewhat
out of character for what I'd have expected from him.)
> PPS: As sad as it is, it really seems as if america is now on the
> fastfood news trip.
> Simplest messages are needed like: we the good ones will find "them" and
> hunt "them".
>
> Absolutely nothing about the historic and personal backgroud, which has
> triggered the attacks.
American TV has touched upon it briefly, VERY briefly.
> PPPS: "WAR"
> Italy can declare war to Austria.
> But the mafia can *NOT* declare war to austria.
> If the mafia decides to act against austrian law in austria, than they will
> get to court.
Exactly. It greatly disturbs me that Bush, et.al.
are trying to portray this crime as an act of war.
However, once again putting on a different pair of
shoes... If the colonists had lost the American
Revolutionary War, history would have recorded it as
a reign of terrorism, an evil uprising, quashed by the
mighty and righteous monarchy (as a matter of fact,
that's basically the way England viewed it at the time).
Such a terrorist uprising would never have been
accorded status of "War."
- Steve (thinking the world would be a better place
if EVERYONE could see the opposite viewpoint once in a
while)
