Happy Birthday!

"Jean O'Boyle" wrote in message
news


I really do not think we are over reacting, Ben..Other nations have had to
deal with terror before we did, but the thing was that we thought that we
were untouchable and comfortable in thinking that something like that
would
never happen to us and lived our lives without giving terror a thought
until
the horrific incidents on 9-11...

9-11 wasn't the first. We've had things like the Pan Am flight over
Scotland, Oklahoma City and the first bombing of the WTC's.

To say we haven't given terror a thought isn't fair to the people in
Oklahoma City or that lost loved ones on the Pan Am flight.


Partisianship has destroyed the workings of our
government to the point that when a good thing is put on the table by one
party, the other in its efforts to not to allow the opposite party get the
credit for the good thing, will vote against it. It is true of both
parties.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

--Tom

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article , "Jean
O'Boyle"
wrote:


The other is that much of terror was essentially homegrown. The IRA in
England and Ireland, the Basque seperatists in Spain, McVie here in the
US. It
is one thing to have your own kind blow you up and quite a bit different
to be
attacked from outside.


I'm not sure I see a difference whether it's your own people or someone else
who blows up your buildings and kills hundreds or thousands of people.

Are you saying it's worse if it's your own people? Or worse if it's someone
outside?

--Tom

In article , "Tom & Linda"
wrote:

I'm not sure I see a difference whether it's your own people or someone else
who blows up your buildings and kills hundreds or thousands of people.

Are you saying it's worse if it's your own people? Or worse if it's someone
outside?


I am saying that from a psychological standpoint it is worse to be
attacked from outside. We see a greater danger from all those "outsiders" as
opposed to what we are sure is just a rabid minority when it is one our own.
Now, how real, that perception is, I don't know. Haven't seen anything in the
way of studies or anything, just my opinion from talking to people, etc.

--
"Salary is the only biological variable which peaks
after the age of 25. Somebody once suggested female libido is another
but I completely reject that because female libido and salary are
not independent variables."
Dr. Neil Barnes

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , "Tom & Linda"
wrote:


I'm not sure I see a difference whether it's your own people or someone else
who blows up your buildings and kills hundreds or thousands of people.

Are you saying it's worse if it's your own people? Or worse if it's someone
outside?



I am saying that from a psychological standpoint it is worse to be
attacked from outside. We see a greater danger from all those "outsiders" as
opposed to what we are sure is just a rabid minority when it is one our own.
Now, how real, that perception is, I don't know. Haven't seen anything in the
way of studies or anything, just my opinion from talking to people, etc.


That's right, and that's why I say get at the psychological
underpinnings of the "why" of this form of terrorism. I view it as a
means and not as a philosophy.

I see it as this. The Muslim world had a great period. A time when Islam
almost led the world and was ahead of the Western World. Through various
conquest on both sides, the Muslim world came out the also ran. They are
behind the Western world. The British had much to do with the
"outsiders" who reshaped the Muslim world, created false borders,
supported dictators and those with concepts different to the
culture/history/religions of the people. The U.S., at this point, is the
new Britain and has intervened in the affairs of the Muslim world. I
think that we are not up against religious radicals but revolutionaries
who are using religion as a unifying point to create a large variety of
people in various lands, and the discipline of the "pure" religion will
lead them to their "righteous" place. To me this has nothing to do with
frequent American claims of they want to kill us, they don't like our
freedoms, or anything of that nature. Why do they target innocent
people? Because they have been killed in their lands by those either
supported by Western powers or by the powers themselves. Vengeance. I
justify none of this killing.

The psychology of the defeated is what is leading to revolt, which is
taking the form of what we call "terrorism". The psychology of the
wounded, us in 9/11, the hubris of us who for some reason should never
be attacked on out own soil yet it is OK for us to attack others on
theirs, these two psychologically wounded (although ours is "nouveau")
are at odds and I fear will only lead to escalating violence.

Ben S.

--
"Salary is the only biological variable which peaks
after the age of 25. Somebody once suggested female libido is another
but I completely reject that because female libido and salary are
not independent variables."
Dr. Neil Barnes

Jean O'Boyle wrote:




Ben, I think that there are more people who care than those who do not..All
they need to do is think of the horror that they would feel if one of their
loved ones was being tortured or starving.. The thought of my little
grandchildren being in that position would drive me up the wall..I could NOT
bear it and would die to prevent it.



Thanks for your comments, interesting to read contrasting views to mine.

Along those lines, there's one thing I want to address and truly bothers
me. This was brought up by the father of the young man who was beheaded,
Mr. Berg. For those that may not be aware, Mr. Berg is strongly opposed
to the Iraq war and is a strong critic of the Bush administration.

I see very little care and concern from our media and govt with Afghan
and Iraqi civilian casualties. Much of the rest of the world, even
though with some countries it is a form of propaganda, show the human
suffering and face of war as it impacts the civilian populace and come
up with a number for Afghan and Iraqi civilian deaths and wounded. Our
media and government have done an abysmal job in this respect. There's
almost no mention or concern whatsoever for this. While people in
Europe, India, Asia, and other areas can see the situations in
hospitals, the number of profiles of broken families with family members
loss as "collateral damage", I just don't see these profiles in our
media coverage very often. And let's get a count. If, say, 3400 people
were killed in 9/11, that's 3400 people in a land of 270 million ( or
whatever our population is right now). Afghanistan estimated dead is
between 7,000 to over 10,000 and that's of 24 million people, so that's
a bigger percentage of their people. Iraq may have the same amount and
their population is maybe 2 times that of Afghanistan.

We have plenty civilian organizations that care. But on the official
government and media level, I'm seeing a lot of selective caring, caring
for those that lose their lives from our declared enemies, but not a lot
of caring for the love ones of those we kill.

Ben S.


--Jean

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 17:01:32 GMT, (Kurt Ullman)
wrote:

Incorrect. Not voting, which is the majority of registered voters in
the US, is a statement in and of itself.

It is a statement that I don't care enough to try and change things.

It is change through non action in much the same vein as change
through non violence.

If one finds the candidates wanting and unqualified, then a vote
reflects differently. A no vote says exactly that. We need more
appropriate choices.

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 21:13:52 GMT, "Jean O'Boyle"
wrote:

It reminds me of what happens when people stop caring about each other and
bury their heads in the sand pretending that
something bad is not happening to others..

Like pedophilic priests who get moved around to destroy the lives of
children all across our nation?

Sorta like that?

On 05 Jul 2004 17:31:33 GMT, (Lunyma) wrote:

I love my country too... Still waiting for the benefits though.

Don't drive the interstate?

In article ,
wrote:

If one finds the candidates wanting and unqualified, then a vote
reflects differently. A no vote says exactly that. We need more
appropriate choices.
But under the Fed election rules and regulations, you don't get more
appropriate choices. Parties have to get a certain number of %age one time to
quaify for fed money the next. That is about the only way to (sorta) even the
playing field monetarily speaking.
Not voting has no negative impact on the current parties so they have no
real need or desire to change. Heck, the parties used actively discourage
those who weren't gonna vote for them.

--
"Salary is the only biological variable which peaks
after the age of 25. Somebody once suggested female libido is another
but I completely reject that because female libido and salary are
not independent variables."
Dr. Neil Barnes

If one finds the candidates wanting and unqualified, then a vote
reflects differently. A no vote says exactly that. We need more
appropriate choices.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 21:02:29 GMT, (Kurt Ullman)
wrote:

But under the Fed election rules and regulations, you don't get more
appropriate choices. Parties have to get a certain number of %age one time to
quaify for fed money the next. That is about the only way to (sorta) even the
playing field monetarily speaking.

I agree that we are "locked" up in a system that few can get through
to the political points where the can possibly be elected.

Still, not voting sends a clear message that this is yet another
unacceptable situation.

Not voting has no negative impact on the current parties so they have no
real need or desire to change. Heck, the parties used actively discourage
those who weren't gonna vote for them.

Can't agree here.

Anytime a party can unlock the non voters, they have created
opportunity for themselves.

They know the demographics, they know who is and is not voting by this
data and if they can find a way to put NEW votes into their coffers,
then they do not have to allow only for Xovers to assist in deciding
the vote.