View Full Version : Redirect the Hate
09-12-2001, 04:31 PM
Many people are angry about what happened in New York and Washington DC yesterday, and rightfully so. All kinds of emotions ran through me as I sat in school yesterday and learned of what happened. Anger. Sadness. Confusion.
The terrorists and their motives are currently unknown. The most likely candidate? Hate. Hate about something perpetrated by the United States of America. Hate that transformed them from human beings into animals. Animals kill. Animals do not see their prey as other animals.
These terrorists, and the people you saw cheering yesterday, do not see the people who died as human beings. They lump all of us together as Americans. The plain crashes did not kill people, they killed Americans. The people cheering were not cheering because little Joey was murdered. Nor did they cheer because the crash killed Michelle, who was a just rehabilitated crack-addict who was applying for a job to get her life back in order. They cheered because a lot of "Americans" died. It is called emotional detachment.
Emotional detachment. Do you want the situation resolved? Yes, you do. I have heard people talk about bombing Afghanistan. Will it kill Osama bin Laden? Maybe, maybe not. Will a bombing kill a lot of innocent people? You better believe it. But hey, the people who will die are only Afghanistanies. No big deal, right? It doesn't matter that children will become orphans. That wives will become widows. That mothers will become childless. They are just Afghanastanies. Remember?
Emotions ran through anyone who had a heart yesterday, and many continue today. Is hate one of them? I hope not. The people of America made me proud yesterday. They became selfless and helped complete strangers. Then they opened their mouths and forced me to lose that pride.
People died through an act of terrorism yesterday. The people who are guilty deserve to be punished. But not at the price of innocent civilians. Redirect your anger. Redirect your hate. Redirect all of your negative emotions into something positive. Go out do something positive. Send money. Send food. Give blood. Left alone, hate grows inside of you. Left alone, hate will mutate. Left alone, hate will consume you.
Lose the hate. Please. Then I can be proud to be an American. :-)
09-12-2001, 04:51 PM
by Gary Zukav
The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon are occasions of great significance. They are opportunities for you to feel inside, to find those parts of yourself that are in fear, and to make the decision to move forward in your life without fear. That is the challenge for each individual on this planet today. The pursuit of external power - the ability to manipulate and control - creates only violence and destruction. The painful events in New York and Washington are
living examples of that reality.
The causal chain that created this violence is one in which compassion and wisdom are absent. Are wisdom and compassion present in you as you watch the television, and read the papers? It is important to realize that you do not know all
that came to conclusion, or into karmic balance, as a result of these events. Because you are not able to know all that can be known about them, you are not in a position to judge them.
When you are able to look at the events of the Earth School from this perspective, you will see clearly the central importance of the role that you play in it. That role is this: It is for you to decide what you will contribute to this world.
Many will be asking your opinion of these events. Each question is an opportunity for you to contribute to the love that is in the world or to the fear that is in the world. This is the same
opportunity that presents itself to you at each moment.
If you hate those who hate, you become like them. You add to the violence and the destructive energy that now fills our world. As you make the decision to see with clarity and compassion, you
will see that those who committed these acts of violence were in extreme pain themselves, and that they were fueled by the violent parts of ourselves - the parts that judge without mercy,
strike in anger, and rejoice in the suffering of others. They were our proxy representatives. If you can look with compassion upon those who have suffered and those who have committed acts
of cruelty alike, then you will see that all are suffering. The remedy for suffering is not to inflict more suffering.
This is an opportunity for a massive expression of compassion. It is also an opportunity for a massive expression of revenge. Which world do you intend to live in -- a world of revenge or a
world of compassion?
I think, however, we need to prepare for some civilian casualties when we retaliate and put an end to terrorism in general and Bin Laden in particular. The Afghans have been harboring him for a long time in spite of overwhelming evidence that he has sponsored the worst terrorism in the world. We are therefore not only at war with Bin Laden but also with the country of Afghanistan. Innocent people die in wars. It cannot be helped. Afghanistan should not have begun a war against the United States if they want their people to be safe.
09-12-2001, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Jeff:
Afghanistan should not have begun a war against the United States if they want their people to be safe.
Afghanistan did not begin a war against the US -- the terrorists did. The government of Afghanistan can control the actions of their people no better than the American government can control the actions of theirs.
What if Bill Gates, or Rupert Murdoch(sp?), or Ted Turner were playing with big weapons while secretly plotting a terrorist attack against the UK or Japan? As long as they have the proper licenses they can own them. If it was a secret plan, nobody would know about it until the event had taken place.
Would you want the government of the UK or Japan declaring war on the United States and bomb us for the actions of one of our nation's most powerful people and their secret group? Osama bin Ladin is a powerful -- and smart -- man in Afghanistan. The guy is at least a millionaire in a relatively impoverished country; he moves three times a week to avoid capture.
For now, just tighten our defenses and come to an agreement with the Afghan government to find bin Laden. When he is found, he can be punished. Instead of going to war, put a bounty on his head. It would be far cheaper than deploying troops to go somewhere. That would save money and lives. I am sure one of bin Laden's lackeys would turn him in for a million or so.
09-12-2001, 06:34 PM
The U.S. govt. has already posted a 5 million dollar reward for Osama Bin Laden, not to mention that he is the pampered son of Saudi royalty. Money isn't an issue. He is a hero to all islamic fundamentalists. It has been Bin Laden's stated purpose in life to kill any and all American's, military or otherwise because we support the govt.s of Saudi Arabia which he feels is a corrupt govt. as well as Isreal. Until we have renounced our support of either of these governments we will always be a potential target. He is supposedly responsible for the original bombing of the WTC in '93, the embassies of Tanzania, and Kenya, as well as the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. How many times must the U.S. turn the other cheek? We have asked the Afghani govt. for assistance but because they are also fundamentalist islamics(Taliban) dedicated to the downfall of Isreal and the United States, they are unwilling to cooperate. I think if one of our countries wealthy individuals did this they would be in jail faster than you could bat an eye. There is no responsible party in Afghanistan, the internationally recognized govt. of Afghanistan is a 10% minority, the Taliban has usurped control of the central govt. to push their religious ideology on the entire country. There are no right for women and very few for men. Death is a daily occurance and I'm not talking about natural death(unless firing squads, hanging, mutilation, etc are natural.) The time has come to step up and teach nations that if they expect to be international political players they must also accept the responsibility and consequences of harbouring known terrorists. However, in Bin Laden's case it goes one step further. His ideology is followed by as many as 30,000 followers. All of whom would love nothing more in life than to have been one of the 12+ terrorists who died for their beliefs. And these followers reside in countries around the globe. I agree that is would be cheaper than war to just ask for those responsible to be handed over to American justice, but if they aren't, we should storm the place. If you're not with us, you're against us. It's not optional to comply, it's maditory and the consequences will require the lives of many, militarily or otherwise
"For now, just tighten our defenses and come to an agreement with the Afghan government to find bin Laden. When he is found, he can be punished. Instead of going to war, put a bounty on his head. It would be far cheaper than deploying troops to go somewhere. That would save money and lives. I am sure one of bin Laden's lackeys would turn him in for a million or so."
"Lose the hate. Please. Then I can be proud to be an American. :-)"
Let me say something, steven. If you are not proud to be an american at this time, or at any time, then I feel sorry for you. Both of the above statements are passive at a time when such an attitude is very dangerous.
We can't be passive when the very core of what I and millions of other americans so love and cherish, our country, our freedom, our future, and our sense of liberty and justice, is attacked from hostile forces. Ttake it from me, steve, be PROUD to be an AMERICAN, don't put conditions on how you feel.
Putting bounties on people's heads is just plain stupid, especially in this instance. That won't solve $hit, and only drag things out for a long time, leaving room for even more terrorist attacks.
It is time now to end terrorism as it exists today, completely and absolutely. If that means full on war, american deaths, and civilian deaths of the country(s) we might punish, SO BE IT. War is not a game, stephen. You can't place bounties on people such as this anymore, the ante has been upped to the point of the united states kicking some goddamn ass.
If we do not stop it now, then the next time you see such pictures on tv, it will be in the aftermath of a nuclear explosion. Those terrorists who you want to put a bounty on are awful close to realizing their perverted dream of actually possessing a nuclear weapon, and a delivery vehicle. It's time to kill the bastards, all of them, for if we do not then we will never be free.
It's us against them, stephen, good against evil, and sometimes you have to hate evil a little bit. War isn't a game. You don't seem to understand that there probably (I hope) will be NO negotiating with afghan, for the ruling party are the very people who harbor such murderous, cowardly, chicken-$hit specimens.
Anyone who celebrates the death and maiming of innocents deserves to be bombed themselves, just as anyone who orchestrates such killings does. Accessories after the fact, that's what the celebrating "people" are.
Israel, which lives with this type of fear every day, has the right idea. Someone commits a terrorist act against them, they target the individuals who plan and encourage the acts.
09-12-2001, 10:52 PM
Afghanastan did not start a war, that is correct. But they have harboured Bin Laden in the past and may be doing so now, when he has taken credit for terrorist acts. If Bill Gates was a terrorist, would t be forgiveable for the U.S. to harbour him? Nope. Billionaires like Bin Laden shouldn't get special treatment.
If he orchestrated this, and it appears he did, he must be taken out along with anyone who helps him hide. Hitler would have never rose to power and orchestraed The Holocaust if the governments of the world hadn't just minded their own business, America included.
A simple analogy is this, if a bully walked into the playground, punched your little brother then left before you could get to him, would you simply allow him to come back every day and punch your brother in the face? Of course not, but if you never did anything to stop him, that's exactly what he'd do, punch your brother over and over again, then your sister, then the other kids then you. Terrorists are just big bullies with skewed perceptions of how to get their points across, bullies with no regard for the sanctity of human life. The U.S. and its allies need to clear the playground of bullies and keep doing it until the bullies realize they'll lose in the end. Just as Pearl Harbor woke up U.S. officials to the need to get involed in WWII, it seems this incident has made officials realize the U.S. needs to join the war against terrorism too. Too bad it wasn't realized sooner.
It's unfortunate that some innocents will likely be casualties in any retaliation, but that's war. War is always ugly, but sometimes necessary.
What I don't get is why news organizations like Fox News and TIME can get interviews with this asshole Bin Laden, but the NSA can't track him down. Such bullshit.
One more thing, not all support terrorism in the name Allah (God). Those who do are an evil minority. Living in New York, I have found Muslims to be some of the most friendly and gracious people I have ever met. And coming from a Southern boy, that's a helluva compliment.
"Because you're not promised tomorrow." ~ Stuck Mojo
I make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them. I believe Afghanistan started a war with us when they began harboring our enemies who were planning us harm. By hosting terrorist training camps in their country they have directly contributed to the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans. I hope the deserved retribution is not at all hampered by anyone's wimpy politics. Only by showing them we mean business and making them pay will there be no country willing to harbor mass murderers in the future.
09-13-2001, 06:15 AM
Fully agree with you. A slap on the wrist for this type of thing simply won't cut it.
09-13-2001, 12:03 PM
Don´t cut Iraq or even Iran out of the picture just yet.
09-13-2001, 01:43 PM
Yeah, Hussein was all to happy about this. GWB's Dad should have finished him off with the Gulf war.
We won't hear who's going to be attacked until fter it happens, so I wish the press would stop asking qustions of the Press Secretary that the rest of us know he's not gong to answer for security reasons. These reporters remnd me of children, asking the same questions over and over.
"Because you're not promised tomorrow." ~ Stuck Mojo
09-13-2001, 02:01 PM
This morning the Afghan government basically requested that we not attack them. Should we honor this? I say yes... under the right conditions. Tell them that if they can offer up Osama bin Laden and his colleagues we will not. Set a deadline. If they do not agree to the conditions, then apply military pressure. We should not kill first, ask questions later. Their are currently US bases close enough to send missiles to Afghanistan. Send missles to destroy their major agricultural areas and other sources of food. If people have to die, limit the number of casualties.
My statements were not, and are not, passive. Force does not always win. I am too young to remember, but I believe the Vietnam war ended in a stalemate. Like I said above, aim for agricultural instead of civilian areas. The people will live, but they will have to struggle harder at survival. It will not be a "slap on the wrist", rather a "mess with us and see what happens... that was just a small demonstration of our true power."
Israel has been in a pretty much constant state of war for my entire life. That attitude is a way of life, not something they chose to do with free will.
Let's use your bully analogy. Growing up, I was younger and smaller than everyone else in my grade. In sixth grade a "bully" initiated a fight with me. I put him in a headlock and kept him grounded and unable to attack until we were seperated. Did he mess with me again? Nope. Strategy is important. The best offense is a good defense. Even though that is an old phrase, it is true.
I feel that people should lead by example. Let America do that. Set the example that if you mess with us, we will persevere and prosper while serving you your retribution.
People learn. A bully becomes a bully by picking on people weaker than them. Eventually they will have such an ego that they believe they are strong enough to take on anyone. Then they fight someone who they vastly underestimated and they fail miserably and are often humiliated. Then they bully no more.
09-13-2001, 05:12 PM
there is no punishment severe enough for those who are responsible for acts of terrorism.
My biggest question is: how do you stop an enemy who has no regard for their own life? If someone has been brainwashed and death is not a deterrent, it would seem almost impossible to completely be rid of them and still live in a free society?
Steven, I don't think america is the type of country to go after another country's food supply, it's agriculture. We're talking about a real rugged country here, and its crops are what keeps all the afghans alive. We don't want to starve the citizens, that's just not right.
We have to go in there militarily, take em over and root the evil out, cell by cell. Might have to in a few countries (those with governments who give aid to the pukes) in the gulf. In other, civilized countries (those with governments that are humane), we have the world opinion on our side for a freakin change, and with their help we can root out all the cells in the rest of the world, again, one by one.
We do this for two reasons, for blood vengeance, and also for the simple justice of it all.
Some might balk at the vengeance element here, as they believe that vengeance belongs to the lord god only. But god never had a huge dagger slammed deep down into his or her heart, spilling his life's blood. America has, so we get vengeance this time god.
America has stood alone a lot in this world, and mostly not by our choice. We have many faults, and sometimes we seem and act as clumsy as the giant that we not only act like, but actually really are.
And I don't believe there is a country on earth we haven't helped, we are so very giving, yet when tragedy has stricken here in our past, there was never was much news about such things from other countries. Have I been blind all this time? Have I turn a deaf ear? I hope to god lots of countries have helped us in the past. I just need somebody to refresh my memory I guess.
But this time, humanity took a hit, and be it from the gentle kindness that civilized humanity posseses, or be it because they all realize it could have been the Eifel Tower, Big Ben in london, or other 100+ story tall buildings in china.
I hope and believe it's the kindness that drives the other countries. Regardless, we can do the world's people a favor, all of us together and lead by america, wounded and pissed
09-15-2001, 10:04 AM
APPEASEMENT LIVES: A classic piece of appeasement appeared today under the guise of restraint and reason. My former colleague and friend Robert Wright argues in Slate against unilateral American action against the forces and states that have just declared war upon the United States. "[K]illing Islamic fundamentalist terrorists (which the perpetrators almost certainly were) can be not just ineffective, but counterproductive." This is the familiar argument of those who believe that these acts of fanaticism cannot be avenged without spawning more fanaticism. Kill one suicide bomber and you create four more. Wright's argument is that our new enemies are "simply not susceptible to normal deterrence." If Wright means by this that the indoctrinated handful of young fanatics who will always remain a threat cannot be deterred, he may be right. That is why these people must be hunted down and assassinated, and why we must kill any and all who surround or abet them. But the states and regimes that survive by fostering this evil surely can be deterred - and not by polite threats or warnings. In fact, the absence of a serious deadly response will only convince them to continue to foster the evil in their midst, and it will only get worse. Wright entertains the fallacy that because we can never eliminate all threats, we cannot eliminate any. His argument is simply defeatism. In 1940, many similarly well-intentioned urged Chamberlain to sue for peace, as whole swathes of the British establishment wanted, and as narrow British self-interest might even have required. Look what the consequences of war were back in 1940: the destruction of almost every major city in Britain. But Churchill was right to fight - even though it meant the deaths of hundreds of thousands of British soldiers and civilians. And he was right to say that there would be no surrender even if the entire city of London were reduced to rubble. A shocking statement that, isn't it? But it reflects an iron will that we must now summon for ourselves.
THIS ISN'T TERRORISM, IT'S WAR: Besides, this enemy is not simply a band of thugs, but several regimes that aid and abet these people and have celebrated this atrocity. These regimes have declared war on the United States, and it is time we repay the favor. The precedent is not the Sudan under Clinton or even Libya under Reagan. Under Clinton, these regimes were encouraged. Under Reagan, they were scared, but, under Reagan, they had not yet launched this kind of war. Now they have - even daring to target one of the citadels of our democracy: the White House. This is the most grievous declaration of war against America in history. What Wright hasn't absorbed, I think, is that we are no longer fighting terrorism. We are at war. And we are not at war with any old regime or even a handful of terrorists. We are at war with an evil that will only grow unless it is opposed with all the might at our command. We must wage that war with a ferocity that doesn't merely scare these monsters but terrifies them. Merely murdering bin Laden is a laughable response. If this new war can be waged with partners - specifically Russia, NATO, China - so much the better. But if not, the United States must act alone - and as soon as we can be assured of complete success. There are times when it is not inappropriate or even immoral to use overwhelming power merely to terrify and avenge. Read your Machiavelli. We must shock them more than they have shocked us. We must do so with a force not yet seen in human history. Then we can begin to build a future of greater deterrence. I repeat: we are not responding to terrorism any more. We are at war. And war requires no restraint, simply massive and unanswerable force until the enemy is not simply defeated but unconditionally destroyed. To hesitate for fear of reprisal is to have capitulated before we have even begun. I don't believe Americans want to capitulate to anyone. The only question is whether we will get the leadership now to deal with this or whether we will have to endure even worse atrocities before a real leader emerges.
09-15-2001, 10:32 AM
I know America is not the type of country that would bomb agriculture, but... those who have the will to live will maintain their existance. Regardless of what action we take, it will not be American. Killing anyone, to me, is not American. I understand that sometimes war is a necessity, but let's wait until we have a target.
In the meantime, let's ferret out the terrorists in our own nation. Bush did the right thing by putting the military on alert. Invading a country right now, though, would be a mistake.
For those with high speed connections, here is a messageboard with pictures from all over the world mourning the events of Tuesday. http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y&a=tpc&s=50009562&f=34709834&m=4640913172&p=1
09-15-2001, 12:34 PM
It is about prevention and protection, we must
protect our population and our way of life. We
know their motivation, they hate our way of life
and have vowed to destroy us, they teach their
children to hate us. They are a tremendous threat to us,what if they bring in a nuclear device or
chemicals in our water or biological warfare.
Stepehen - Excellent paper. I agree with him, totally.
Steven - Do you really believe we don't have a target? The Prime Minister of Israel was on Fox News, today. He was very confident about the who and where of necessary targets.
09-15-2001, 01:41 PM
We have targets now. I was complaining earlier about people who wanted to bomb everybody for the sole purpose of revenge. Bombing just to be bombing I disagree with. Bombing for preventative purposes I have no problems with. If we know the location of the terrorist training camps, let the bombings commence. Hopefully the training camps will be a safe distance from civilian populations.
09-15-2001, 03:46 PM
Bill, excellent point. These radicals must be eliminated before they get their hands on weapons of mass destruction.
All -- I think we can all agree military action is not only necessary, but immenent. I als think it's prudent to gain as much intelligence as possible before we strike. While 'collateral damage' and civilian casualties may be unavoidable, the better we know our enemy, the better we can avoid as many civilans as possible. We also don't want to be dragged down to their level and just blow up shit because we're pissed.
While many Americans are calling for vengeance, myself included, in the end, this is more about self-defense than vengeance. If we cower in fear, stay away from flying or national monuments and attractions, and don't strike back at these radicals, they will have won. Our grandfathers didn't put their lives on the line against the Axis powers in WWII so that we would live in fear. The free world should remain free, and the USA should remain the leader by showing the scum of the world they cannot take away our freedom.
OK, now I'm starting to sound like a broken record. http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif Nuff said.
"Because you're not promised tomorrow." ~ Stuck Mojo