> > Whoops. Sorry, I don't recall arguing that we should not respond to the > > attacks. In fact, I was, on the whole, fairly pleased with how the > > response went. > >OK, I'll chalk up my mistaken understanding of what you meant to an >information transfer error, without worrying about troubleshooting to see >what part the transmitter and what part the receiver played in the error. >:-)
These things happen. I was wrong once, too. >No, but the US military seems to be doing a much better job of maintaining >its credibility. The quotes on civilian casualties was "nothing we have >indicates they are that high, but since we do not have people on the ground >we cannot get our hands on what the casualties actually are." That sounds >like something someone who is trying to be correct says. You're right. I do tend to take what the military says with a grain of salt, but that grain doesn't have to be too big. Telling us something like, "There have been absolutely no civilian casualties" would be a bit too suspicious. >Also, if the US military is caught lying outright, then the cozy >relationship they have with the press will be come adversarial immediately. >(The only real exception to that is a temporary lie about troop movements in >order to keep the enemy from knowing the real movement.) I would certainly be uncomfortable if the military were telling us everything that they knew and were doing in the Middle East. But the military has, in the past, demonstrated its willingness to lie about certain things, and to try to put a positive spin on things that are not good (is the military developing anthrax, for example?). Of course, half of waging war is public relations. >That's fair enough. A feeling of deprivation can affect attitudes. >However, as 20th century European history shows, even an "advanced" country >can feel the need for scapegoats and justify horrendous actions. That's why >I think that ending deprivation will not end terrorism. Oh, it won't. But it would bring an end closer. The religious component of extremist Islamic terrorism cannot be ignored, and neither can the cultural component. > > I don't believe that Israel has been entirely without guilt in the matter > > either. > >No, it hasn't. The worst action of the government, IMHO, has been >settlements. Directing attacks against those they consider responsible for >either directing or failing to stop the suicide bombings is much more >defendable than settling the West Bank. Agreed. I think that even the United States has criticized Israel for not doing enough to reduce the settling in the West Bank. >I don't think accepting diversity should mean accepting horrendous actions >that masquerade as diversity. Here in the Woodlands TX, we have a good >model for accepting diversity with Faith United. They sponsored an inter >religious response to 9-11 and have now sponsored 3 interfaith Thanksgiving >observances. In addition, the local Islamic society and the local synagogue >had jointly sponsored a prayer service for peace in the Middle East last >spring. I think that's fantastic. In my part of California, there have been very similar services (although there was also at least one ultra-conservative Christian service wherein Islam was denounced as a "satanic religion"). Two cultures can live side by side together in peace, and I think one of the great things about America is that we have demonstrated that to be true in many places (of course, we also have shown that two people who agree with each other on 90% of their shared doctrine can still find reason to kill each other). But if there are aspects of culture A that call for the destruction of culture B, and have always called for it... well, something has to change. Sliante, Richard S. Crawford http://www.mossroot.com AIM: Buffalo2K ICQ: 11646404 Y!: rscrawford MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It is only with the heart that we see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." --Antoine de Saint Exup�ry "Push the button, Max!"
