Regardless of the obvious personal issues displayed in attempted analysis by many, at the core, humanity is one.
Those who are attracted to killing terrorists display the very behavior projected upon the apparent other. Humans who have been relegated to a position where all that is left for them in the way of protecting and saving their way of life and all that they hold dear is to go forth on what is known as a suicide mission is not a behavior limited to any culture, place, time nor theology. Those who see no other option than action that will most likely result in their own death defending what is dear to them are seen by most cultures as heroes. Now, one can take the analysis a bit further and ask what is at the center of such a holy war…for Americans, Germans, Israelites, Pakistanis, Iraqis, Buddhists (one just set fire to himself in Tibet this week), American Indians etc. Often empathy is needed to be able to see such things… and is not always available. Yes, there are internal wars…in fact, I suggest there is no other. And, such wars are but projected upon the apparent external world. Since my original post about this topic had to do with pointing out the poor analysis apparently fueled by hatred and propaganda presented here, lets return to look at those who have attracted such derision by our posters here at Minds Eye. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War Civilians. Military. Human beings all. If these were our biological brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers etc. rather than ‘just’ our metaphorical brothers et al, how would we feel? Bottom line, ‘we’ have killed more civilians in this unnecessary war than ‘we’ had of our own military killed. Yes, I’ll use the group identifier of ‘we’ based upon nationalistic identification…although there just might be one or two who don’t so identify. The quotation marks are merely to point out the issue of nationalism…something propagandists love to shout. “Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.” - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials May eyes open… …personal agendas…indeed! On Apr 15, 12:33 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > What you are saying is simply not true, orn. A real American hero fights for > rights, rights that apply to anyone regardless of their history, regardless > of his own mortality. A real American hero might not even be in possession > of the Amercan nationality. A real American hero rejects the temptation to > set me on moderation, for he values to right to have an own opinion higher > than the harmony he is seeking. A real American hero is not the terrorist > you try to make him look by manipulating on personal pronouns. > > My advice to you is: try to find your hidden agenda, try to find the > terrorist within you and kill him. That would be a step forward. > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:40 AM, ornamentalmind > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Those who decide to die while fighting for a cause they believe in are > > often called heroes in the USA (and other Western countries). > > > ‘We’ on the other hand call those who do so from different backgrounds > > than ours terrorists. > > > As to what is ‘rude’ or ‘bad manners’, few would disagree that such > > issues are purely subjective and mostly culturally driven…and change > > from place and time to place and time. > > > Those who wish to follow any one of the countless sets of rules for > > the general term of etiquette seldom, if ever, do so just to ‘be > > nice’. When more honest, there is almost always an agenda involved. > > > On Apr 14, 10:25 am, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > You are correct. I am not getting the point. > > > > I agree that the leaders of Al Queda would rather send their 'soldiers' > > to > > > do their dirty work. But why would that stop them from sending someone in > > > with a nuke or a dirty bomb if they assume that they are well enough > > hidden? > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:20 AM, [email protected] < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > I see you are still not getting the point. > > > > > If any terroist first had nuclear weapons and by such I assume > > > > misslies. Then any launch will be easy enough for other powers to > > > > track down the launch site, then we hit them with our own misslies. > > > > The point is that if say the USA where attacked with nuclear misslies, > > > > they would retaliate in kind, as they must, I dare say the same is > > > > true for my goverment over here in the UK. > > > > > I doubt that Bin Laden wants to die, nor any top dog in any terrorist > > > > organisation, power being a corrupting influence and all that. Nope > > > > we can see that when we are hit by suicide bombers, these are normaly > > > > young easily infulenced people who have undergone an amount of good > > > > ole fashioned brain washing. Ahh the leaders though, nope I do not > > > > belive they would relish the idea of of being killed them selves. > > > > > On Apr 14, 4:24 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:53 AM, [email protected] < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Ohh my freind there is soooo much differance. Have we in > > retaliation > > > > > > for the twin towers flown any planes into any terroist buildings? > > > > > > No but we've flown quite a few Hawk missles into 'em. ;) > > > > > > > Will we if attack by nucleuar weapns retaliat with nuclear weaponms > > of > > > > our > > > > > > own? > > > > > > Tactical nuclear weapons can be as small as a couple of kilotons. > > > > Dropping a > > > > > bunker buster into a fortified cave in the side of a mountain would > > be a > > > > lot > > > > > easier than taking it down with a few hundred troops. > > > > > > If Chicago were nuked I can't imagine much outcry if we vaporized the > > > > side > > > > > of a mountain in retaliation... > > > > > > Can you now see the huuuuge differance? > > > > > > > You are correct terrorists seem to rejoice in the killing of the > > > > > > infidel, do you honestly belive they would rechoice in being nukked > > in > > > > > > their turn if they nuke us? > > > > > > If terrorist had the same type of economy and social structure that a > > > > nation > > > > > typically has then I would agree that nuclear weapons could be a > > > > deterrent. > > > > > But terrorist organizations don't have cities or central governments. > > > > They > > > > > are usually very decentralized and worry a lot less about assets > > being > > > > taken > > > > > out by a single bomb. In fact, I doubt that our biggest bomb would do > > > > much > > > > > more than put a minor dent into an organization like Bin Laden's > > which is > > > > > spread across most of the planet.
