Deport (from US) all Arab non-Citizens?

[Dirt Man]

Sadly true, Pure. But let's not forget the equally polarizing efforts of Franken, Moore, Nader and folks like them.

I'm an American and proud of it, but it seems like the only ones in my country without a voice anymore are the moderates. How did this happen?

The squeaky wheel always gets the grease. In other words those that complain the loudest get noticed the most by the media.

Arguements work much differently:

Women, and not just a few men have always thought that if they raised their voice in an arguement, and get the last word in that they have won the arguement. The truth is no one ever wins an arguement, ever. Nothing is changed by arguementing as each side goes away from the arguement with their convictions intact. The same can be said for most debates as well. The only thing arguing is good for is letting off some steam if even that. I'm sorry if you don't agree as I'm not going to argue about this, and I'm more than happy to let you have the last futile word. See, by not arguing I do win.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[TheEarl]

That was because he had broken no laws here in the US before then. And also because no one had come forth to claim his assets here in the USA for damages inflicted upon them by him elsewhere. Anyone is free to invest money in our country. America is the land of Freedom for everybody, as long as they don't break our laws, or physically attack us. Then the laws of our land kick in big time. And the home of the Brave becomes a reality all over again. Committing mass murder in our country, or doing a sneak attack on us seems to always really piss us off.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

I understand why the assets weren't seized, but I find it sad in the days of international co-operation that a terrorist was allowed to openly fund himself via international companies.

I'm not attacking anyone with that.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

The squeaky wheel always gets the grease. In other words those that complain the loudest get noticed the most by the media.

Arguements work much differently:

Women, and not just a few men have always thought that if they raised their voice in an arguement, and get the last word in that they have won the arguement. The truth is no one ever wins an arguement, ever. Nothing is changed by arguementing as each side goes away from the arguement with their convictions intact. The same can be said for most debates as well. The only thing arguing is good for is letting off some steam if even that. I'm sorry if you don't agree as I'm not going to argue about this, and I'm more than happy to let you have the last futile word. See, by not arguing I do win.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

DM - I'd say the point of an open-minded debate is to learn something. I certainly enter this kind of debate with a mind to learn.

The Earl

 

[Dirt Man]

I understand why the assets weren't seized, but I find it sad in the days of international co-operation that a terrorist was allowed to openly fund himself via international companies.

I'm not attacking anyone with that.

The Earl

Okay, here's how it works. If I point to you and acuse you of being a terrorist, does that make you a terrorist? Of course not. Without proof all I'm doing is slandering your name. However if I can prove that you are a terrorist, that's an entirely different animal all together. It works on the same basic principal for your assets here as well. As I said, if no legitimate claim is made on them, then the government here can't touch them. Another legality that hasn't been mentioned here, but is overly abused is Diplomatic Immunity.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[shereads]

Dirt, the IRS can seize assets and so can Drug Enforcement, before the is a trial and conviction. Those powers have been used before to sieze assets of people suspected of crimes. The Bush administration has had a conflict of interest where the Saudis and particularly the Bin Laden family are concerned, because of a long history of doing business together. Your assertion that nothing could be done in the U.S. to hinder the financial activities of a suspected terrorist, even if it were true, doesn't address the issue of why the Bin Laden family and others were allowed to secretly leave the U.S. after 9/ll, without FBI interviews.

 

[TheEarl]

Okay, here's how it works. If I point to you and acuse you of being a terrorist, does that make you a terrorist? Of course not. Without proof all I'm doing is slandering your name. However if I can prove that you are a terrorist, that's an entirely different animal all together. It works on the same basic principal for your assets here as well. As I said, if no legitimate claim is made on them, then the government here can't touch them. Another legality that hasn't been mentioned here, but is overly abused is Diplomatic Immunity.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

Bin Laden was the world's 2nd most wanted man before September 11th and had calimed responsibility for several terrorist attacks. But I do see what you're saying.

It's just very depressing when people like Abu Hamza and Bin Laden can hide behind technicalities in the law and very good lawyers and continue what they're doing. That's why I supported 'probable cause' because these criminals should not be allowed to hide behind the letter of the law.

The Earl

 

[shereads]

Here is an example, from one state's law enforcement site, of how assets can be siezed PRIOR to an arrest. If it is applied in drug cases, I can't imagine why it could not also be applied to rein in terrorist activities, even before 9/ll. I believe the explanation in the Bin Laden case lies in our complicated relationship with the Saudi government, which includes business interests in the energy industry.

Drug Asset Seizure and Forfeiture

1. What is drug asset seizure and forfeiture? It is the seizure of drug related assets that have been used to facilitate drug trafficking or are derived from drug trafficking. Drug assets are subject to seizure and forfeiture under Wyoming civil law, and federal administrative, civil and criminal law. Forfeiture is not a new concept. In America, it dates back to 1789, where it was used primarily to deter maritime import and export smuggling.

2. Can the government just take an asset? No, the asset must be seized legally. Then the government has to be able to prove in a civil, administrative or criminal proceeding that the asset was used to facilitate drug trafficking, or was derived from drug trafficking for it to be forfeited to the government.

3. How are assets seized? Assets are seized by law enforcement officer’s incident to arrest, search warrant, and consent or with a seizure order.

4. What type of assets are seized? Typically, drug assets subject to seizure include currency, vehicles, real estate, firearms and other property.

5. What happens to the asset after it is seized? When an asset such as motor vehicle or currency is seized, it is treated like evidence and stored in a secure location. Reports are completed regarding the seizure of the asset including the identity of the owner, description of the asset, estimated value, liens if any, identity of lien holders if any, and other relevant information.

6. How is the forfeiture of an asset conducted? After an asset is seized, an Assistant Attorney General reviews the evidence and determines if a forfeiture action should be filed. If the evidence is not sufficient, the asset is returned to the owner. If the evidence is sufficient, a forfeiture action is filed. Once a forfeiture action is filed, the owner of the asset can contest the forfeiture in court.

 

[Pure]

Hi Karen,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure: The votes are at the extremes, perhaps indicating the polarization of US society-- an effect that Ann Coulter, Perl, Frum, Cheney, GWB are working hard to achieve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Karen: Sadly true, Pure. But let's not forget the equally polarizing efforts of Franken, Moore, Nader and folks like them.

I'm an American and proud of it, but it seems like the only ones in my country without a voice anymore are the moderates. How did this happen?
===

As com'on Karen. Limbaugh's been on the airwaves for what,
10 yrs? Right wing "traitor" accusations (against other republicans [Eisenhower, Marshall] and liberals) go back into the 1950s.
Perl, neo con theorist, a year or two ago, in the National Review wrote of the older conservatives (Robertson, Sobran, Robert Novack) , not keen on Iraq war etc. as "unpatriotic."

Franken I see as a response; I don't recall such a thing before GWB took office.

Who of the left or liberals has the following and money and exposure of Coulter??

J.

PS BUT YES: I hope the moderates in each party stay that way.

 

[Pure]

As Sher says and indicates:

Saudi money financed the war against the Soviets in Afghnistan; Pakistani money financed the set up of the Taliban.

The Saudis, in particular are in bed with various US businessmen and politicians. Their financing of world wide terror (and Islamic fundamentalism in general) in the 1990s, is now well known, and the US turned a blind eye.

There are laws in place that would allow freezing or seizure of assets of terrorists and measures against governments and "Private Islamic Charities" that support them--IF the national government, republican and democrat, could admit the Saudi problem. The terrorism was in full force in the 1990s, first WTC bombing, attacks on embassies, etc.

 

[shereads]

I'm afraid that we will never "admit the Saudi problem" until we free ourselves of oil dependency. In deference to the energy industry, Republicans will typically phrase that as "reducing our dependence on foreign oil," ignoring the fact that a few decades from now at our current rate of consumption, there will be no oil industry as we know it now, domestic or foreign.

One of the smartest things I heard anyone say after 9/ll was from some celebrity I didn't recognize on Bill Maher's show, who pointed out that if the U.S. had committed itself twenty years ago to weaning our economy away from fossil fuel dependency - and had gone about it with the same focus and dedication that took us to the moon - we would be able to be fully honest and open about our relatonship with the Saudis, and we could choose to be isolationist if that's what we wanted. Instead, we're now talking once again about going to the moon, and to Mars. Pretending that fossil fuels are an inexhaustible resource, and that we can solve our problems by drilling the last wilderness refuge for the last drop of crude, is incredibly short-sighted. But highly profitable for some.

As it is, everything we've done since 9/ll, from smuggling the Bin Laden family out of the country to focusing on Saddam Hussein, seems to have deflected attention from the real issue: there are Saudis even among the families of the power elite, who hate the U.S. and who fund terrorism through "charities" in this country and elsewhere.

Osama Bin Laden who?

Has anyone in politics beside Howard Dean even mentioned his name latelY/

As Sher says and indicates:

Saudi money financed the war against the Soviets in Afghnistan; Pakistani money financed the set up of the Taliban.

The Saudis, in particular are in bed with various US businessmen and politicians. Their financing of world wide terror (and Islamic fundamentalism in general) in the 1990s, is now well known, and the US turned a blind eye.

There are laws in place that would allow freezing or seizure of assets of terrorists and measures against governments and "Private Islamic Charities" that support them--IF the national government, republican and democrat, could admit the Saudi problem. The terrorism was in full force in the 1990s, first WTC bombing, attacks on embassies, etc.

 

[Pure]

Just some basic info, pretty widely accepted, along the lines Sher mentions:

http://www.middleeastinfo.org/article3754.html

The Saudi Connection: How billions in oil money spawned a global terror network

By David E. Kaplan (U.S. News & World Report, 12/15/03 )

[start excerpts]
America's longtime ally and the world's largest oil producer [Saudi Arabia] had somehow become, as a senior Treasury Department official put it, "the epicenter" of terrorist financing. This didn't come entirely as a surprise to intelligence specialists. But until the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. officials did painfully little to confront the Saudis not only on financing terror but on backing fundamentalists and jihadists overseas.

Over the past 25 years, the desert kingdom has been the single greatest force in spreading Islamic fundamentalism, while its huge, unregulated charities funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to jihad groups and al Qaeda cells around the world. Those findings are the result of a five-month investigation by U.S. News. [...]

• Starting in the late 1980s--after the dual shocks of the Iranian revolution and the Soviet war in Afghanistan--Saudi Arabia's quasi-official charities became the primary source of funds for the fast-growing jihad movement. In some 20 countries, the money was used to run paramilitary training camps, purchase weapons, and recruit new members.

• The charities were part of an extraordinary $70 billion Saudi campaign to spread their fundamentalist Wahhabi sect worldwide. The money helped lay the foundation for hundreds of radical mosques, schools, and Islamic centers that have acted as support networks for the jihad movement, officials say.

• U.S. intelligence officials knew about Saudi Arabia's role in funding terrorism by 1996, yet for years Washington did almost nothing to stop it. Examining the Saudi role in terrorism, a senior intelligence analyst says, was "virtually taboo."

[end excerpts]

Of course the CIA's effort to fund and arm the Taliban are well-known.

J.

 

[KarenAM]

Hi Pure,

PS BUT YES: I hope the moderates in each party stay that way.

As do I.

I agree that Franken is a response; extremists typically are. Much of Limbaughs's fame came because Bill Clinton was president for eight years and so Limbaugh had something to rant about week after week. And it has long been true in American politics that politicians use the word "traitor" to vilify their opponents.

What's scary now is that extremists on both the left and the right are using increasingly narrow definitions of who is an acceptable human being. We here on this board, for example, are considered criminals by both radical feminists like Dworkin and MacKinnon, and by reactionaries like Ashcroft. And with the government more and more willing and eager to use its power to enforce political and social orthodoxy, it puts America itself in danger of losing its values of tolerance and democracy.

 

[Pure]

Very well stated, Karen.

 

[shereads]

Examining the Saudi role in terrorism, a senior intelligence analyst says, was "virtually taboo."

[end excerpts]

It's almost possible to understand that level of denial, pre-September-11-01; how many people ever thought that terrorism would manifest itself inside U.S. borders? I remember feeling almost relieved when the Oklahoma City bombing turned out to be an inside job and not a sign that we had lost our seeming immunity to international terrorism. If I had been holding high office in a country whose economy as as dependent as ours on a resource that could be had cheaply and predictably, so long as we maintained a "friendly" relationship with the Saudi government, I can imagine how easy it might have been to believe that nothing horrific was likely to come of all those radical groups their charitable donations were spawning.

What has amazed - and infuriated - me is our government's reaction after 9/11, when not only have we barely hand-slapped the Saudi elite, but we have gone to a substantial amount of trouble to protect those who were in the U.S. from the embarrasment of being questioned by the FBI - and then pulled attention away from Saudi involvement by focusing on Iraq. We would almost certainly have found Osama Bin Laden and put an end to his leadership of Al Queda if that had been the focus of an effort funded to the tune of $200 billion and counting. Hell. Posting a $200 billion reward while the trail was still warm would have made some goat-herder a happy boy.

 

[shereads]

I read a theory about the slow death of "moderate" politics in the U.S., that had to do with the super-efficiency of gerrymandering in the computer age. The reasoning was that incumbents used to have to worry a lot more than they do now about being defeated by an opponent from the other party. In recent years, using data so accurate that it's possible to identify city blocks by race, income level and registered political affiliation - voting districts have been honed to a fine edge to benefit the party that holds power in each state. This means that an incumbent office holder has little to fear from an opponent unless there is a challenger from within his own party - and the one way to invite one is to be perceived as "not Republican enough" or "not Democratic enough" by party activists.

Personally, I think that as long as the word "liberal" remains unspeakable among members of the Democratic party, we need fewer fence-sitters. Unless we lean more to the left, there's such an overbalance on the right that we're becoming basically a one-party country.

The last time I heard someone called a liberal in a way that didn't sound like an accusation was when Paul Wellstone's plane went down. News stories and obituaries identified him as a liberal in the nostalgic tone that you might use if the last of some exotic species had just died at the Washington Zoo.

 

[KarenAM]

That's an interesting idea, Shereads. My fear is, though, not so much that there is an overbalance on the right (though I agree there is) but that both the left and the right are increasingly authoritarian in how and what they want to do. Both want to regulate society and so they attempt to regulate not only behavior, but belief. Both distort and lie, and because our media driven culture has become so sophisticated, we now live in a world where sound-bites and exciting exceptions are what people percieve as reality.

To give an example: If you look at popular media discussions of pornography (a subject we all here hold near and dear), you will find both liberal and conservative "experts" decrying how bad it is because some people become addicted to it. The fact that most people do not, and that there is good evidence that a lack of exposure to erotic material is more closely associated with sex crimes than overexposure is, is ignored. Instead we are all treated to endless biographies of a small number of individual addicts, which are intended to convince the reader that using pornography is dangerous and harmful for everyone. It's like assuming all consumers of alcohol are alcoholics (and we all know how the attempt to ban alcohol turned out).

The trouble is that many Americans fall for this, and so are manipulated by extremists. This does nothing to empower the average citizen, but a lot to empower politicians, activists, and others whose motives are often, I believe, suspect. It's no coincidence that this is all happening as America's public education system continues to be both the most expensive and least effective in the developed world; how better to control people than by eliminating their ability to think and shortening their attention span?

I think we need more fence-sitters who think and analyze and who have at their disposal information that hasn't been filtered through a party line, not more "liberals" or "conservatives".

 

[MR. Gibson]

I agree with what you say karen. Shoot! If america loses all it's tolerance of different races and faiths who come here the statue of liberty loses all of it's damn meaning!

 

[shereads]

Karen, when I hear politicians demanding an end to internet porn, or proposing an amendment to ban gay marriage, or bravely taking a stand against burning the flag (that comes up every time Congress gets bored; as if we're constantly confronted with people blocking traffic so they can burn today's stack of flags) I tend to think they're pandering to their constituents, rather than trying to manipulate us.

Right now the hot-button issue is the gay marriage ban. I doubt if most people seriously give a damn who marries whom, but those who do are the ones who write to their leaders and demand that something be done about it. The one person I know who is a successful political activist insists that written letters to elected officials makes an impact, simply because so few people bother.

Additionally, if you're part of a special-interest group with an organize agenda, you know how to conduct a poll so that the outcome "proves" the popularity of your point of view. Present the results to your congressman through your lobbiest, and presto! You've proven that "the people" - as we are so condescendingly referred to, as if we speak in unison - want their government to protect the sanctity of marriage, or that the people are in favor of The Patriot Act.

No matter how often politicians say they don't rely on polls to determine policy, you can see them lean in one direction or another depending on what issue is hot in the moment. When the results of a public opinion poll are reported, you rarely learn exactly how the questions were phrased. It's possible to dictate the answer to a question by phrasing it a certain way.

A specific example that I read about once was a poll that asked, "Are you against burning the United States flag?" Well of course. But that's dramatically different than asking, "Do you believe that there should be an amendment to the Constitution that prohibits burning the flag?" Asked the first way, some organiztion was able to sway a congressman to introduce a flag-burning amendment because "the people" demanded it.

My point is that I think lobbyists, pollsters, 'think tanks' and those who support them are the ones influencing public policy. How many times have you seen a political figure suddenly become vocal on an issue he's never taken a stand on before, like abortion? Or even change his public stance completely? I don't think it's because he's had a crisis of conscience and decided that something had to be done; it's because he's been made to believe that he's more electable as a pro-life or pro-choice candidate. He thinks he's listening to the voters, when in fact he's listening to those who pretend to speak for us.

If we all took the time to speak for ourselves, directly to our elected representatives, they'd know that most people want a common-sense approach to government. They'd still be lured by big-money interests, but the only thing money can do is buy an ad campaign. It can't actually buy your vote.

Unless you live in Miami, or Louisiana, or Chicago.

 

[shereads]

I agree with what you say karen. Shoot! If america loses all it's tolerance of different races and faiths who come here the statue of liberty loses all of it's damn meaning!

Well said, Mr. G.

 

[Pure]

Karen,

What you say about agreement of left and right reminds me of some remarks I read, and kinda liked, though I'm only in partial agreement with the fellow (who calls himself 'libertarian') in lots of other areas:

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Lbtn/Lbtn-HateL&C.html

Why I Hate Liberals AND Conservatives


By John "Birdman" Bryant

I HATE BOTH LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES, and for one very simple reason: Both of them want to restrict personal freedom by criminalizing various types of behavior which, for all intents and purposes, harm no one except (possibly) those who engage in them.

IN PARTICULAR, liberals want to take away my guns, my property rights, my home school, my cigarettes, my fast foods, my unapproved cancer cure, my Confederate flag, my white-pride sticker, my eagle feathers, my moment of silence, my gas-guzzler, and my big flush toilet.

FURTHERMORE, they want to keep me from talking about (or making jokes about) certain racial or ethnic subjects, force me to race-mix, force me to treat people as equals whether I think they are or not, force me to mix with people who have weird diseases (and keep me from knowing who they are), keep me from getting a job or promotion so that somebody with a different hue or sex behavior can get it, appropriate my tax money for their charities and social engineering schemes, and force me to send my kids to schools I wouldn't send a dog to in order to be indoctrinated in beliefs which are totally opposed to my own.

LIKEWISE, conservatives want to take away my dope, my rock'n'roll, my dirty pictures, my birth-control devices, my abortion doctor, my morning-after pills, my union card, my Harry Potter and evil-lution books, my flag-burning kit, my Third-World friends, my illegitimate kids, and my polygamous wives.

FURTHERMORE, they wish to keep me from engaging in certain forms of intimate behavior in the privacy of my own bedroom, force me to put my life at risk -- and use my taxes for -- various acts of military adventurism and political power-seeking that I do not agree with, and require me to make reverent noises toward various brands of religion that I may or may not happen to believe in. [end excerpts]

I believe he got the last point slightly off: it's not ordinary cons, but the 'neo cons' who want the overseas adventures.

J.

 

[shereads]

Libertarians are extremists of another sort. If you live at the edge of a river, and choose to pollute it, they would say you are free to do so and that the people downstream will just have to live with it. If you want to marry your fourteen-year-old daughter, that's your business, right? There are public interests that can be served only by government interference, which is why we have government. Each of us wants "less government" in the areas where we crave freedom, and more government when the behavior of others either interferes with us or puts us in danger. How to strike a common-sense balance seems easier than it really is, as your post illustrates.

 

[KarenAM]

I very much agree with both your points, Shereads.

My big complaint about libertarianism is that it is too simplistic and that it is founded on the assumption that everyone is somehow inherently enlightened and can therefore be counted on to behave morally without the existence of law. In my experience the world is complicated and enlightenment a difficult thing to find; I sure don't have all the answers.

And it is more than politicians who are manipulating public opinion for their own ends. It is special interest groups of precisely the sort you mentioned.

And I get the feeling that the emotionally infammatory topics like flag-burning or gay marriage come up when these folks want to distract us from the more serious problems our nation faces, like a budget deficit of nearly half a trillion dollars, which I find particularly frightening.

 

[Pure]

To Sher-- PS to Karen

I guess the word 'libertarian' produces a certain reflex response.
I thought his points were good, and am sorry they're ignored in that reflex. Elsewhere he states diffs with libertarians.

Myself, I've more affinities with Chomsky, but around civil rights and gov intrusions, *some* of the Lib'ns make good points imo.

Another group with some good points is the old conservatives, who critique 'entangling alliances' and foreign adventures; see
www.sobran.com

======

By the way, IMO, the attack on old conservatives by neo ones in National Review is quite important (by Frum, the author of An End to Evil ). Here's a bit of the beginning for anyone interested. Here the "neo" worldwide crusade against 'evil' is contrasted with the 'unpatriotic' conservatives who want less military and overseas empire maintenance.

Apparently the article caused quite a fight, but according to Sobran, the National Review is pretty much the back yard of the neos now.

NOTE to Karen: As several have predicted, if the dems get too strong around war and economy issues, the repubs will trot out the gay marriage drum and start banging it.


http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1282/6_55/98954244/p1/article.jhtml?term=

or

http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp

Unpatriotic Conservatives: A war against America.

National Review,
April 7, 2003,
by David Frum

"I respect and admire the French, who have been a far greater nation than we shall ever be, that is, if greatness means anything loftier than money and bombs."

-- thomas fleming, "hard right," march 13, 2003

[start]
From the very beginning of the War on Terror, there has been dissent, and as the war has proceeded to Iraq, the dissent has grown more radical and more vociferous. Perhaps that was to be expected. But here is what never could have been: Some of the leading figures in this antiwar movement call themselves "conservatives."

These conservatives are relatively few in number, but their ambitions are large. They aspire to reinvent conservative ideology: to junk the 50-year-old conservative commitment to defend American interests and values throughout the world -- the commitment that inspired the founding of this magazine -- in favor of a fearful policy of ignoring threats and appeasing enemies.

And they are exerting influence. When Richard Perle appeared on Meet the Press on February 23 of this year, Tim Russert asked him, "Can you assure American viewers . . . that we're in this situation against Saddam Hussein and his removal for American security interests? And what would be the link in terms of Israel?" Perle rebutted the allegation. But what a grand victory for the antiwar conservatives that Russert felt he had to air it.

You may know the names of these antiwar conservatives. Some are famous: Patrick Buchanan and Robert Novak. Others are not: Llewellyn Rockwell, Samuel Francis, Thomas Fleming, Scott McConnell, Justin Raimondo, Joe Sobran, Charley Reese, Jude Wanniski, Eric Margolis, and Taki Theodoracopulos.

The antiwar conservatives aren't satisfied merely to question the wisdom of an Iraq war. Questions are perfectly reasonable, indeed valuable. There is more than one way to wage the war on terror, and thoughtful people will naturally disagree about how best to do it, whether to focus on terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and Hezbollah or on states like Iraq and Iran; and if states, then which state first?

But the antiwar conservatives have gone far, far beyond the advocacy of alternative strategies. They have made common cause with the left-wing and Islamist antiwar movements in this country and in Europe. They deny and excuse terror. They espouse a potentially self-fulfilling defeatism. They publicize wild conspiracy theories. And some of them explicitly yearn for the victory of their nation's enemies.

Common cause: The websites of the antiwar conservatives [end]

 

[Svenskaflicka]

OK, just a small note to try to ake cear where I stand, as I think that a few people have misunderstood me.

I DON'T think that the people who were killed 9/11 deserved it.
I DON'T think that the terrorists did the right thing.

I'm against violence and killing. No matter how angry or hurt or upset one may be, violence is NOT allright. We are civilized human beings - most of us, anyway - and as such, we should do all we can not to sink to the level of our enemies, but instead treat them with humanity. I would definitely not be able to love my enemies (I have a few), on the contrary, I hate them, and wldn't be sorry to read their arbituary in the newspaper.
BUT, I would do my best to rescue them from drowning, if that situation would arise. Why? Because they're human beings.
I'd save them, and then go back to hating them.

What I've been trying to point out regarding 9/11, is that I can understand what brought it on. USA has had really terrible foreign politics, and those countries who have had their people bombed or shot by American troups, or USA-funded troups, hate USA, and in this case, they snapped, and decided to strike back.
I understand it, but I still think that it was wrong. Just like I think USA's foreign politics is wrong.

The people who were killed 9/11 were innocent people who didn't deserve to die. And neither were the millions of innocent people that American troups have killed.

Violence and killing is WRONG. The end.

Svenskaflicka
Feeling "glibly"

(had to look that one up in the dictionary)

 

[jeanne_d_artois]

I agree with what you say karen. Shoot! If america loses all it's tolerance of different races and faiths who come here the statue of liberty loses all of it's damn meaning!

Who gave the Statue of Liberty to the US?

France.

Who fought the British during the US War of Independence?

France.

Who said that the war in Iraq might not be justified?

France including the majority of French people. Why? Because 1. they have fought a war against an Arab country and know that winning is not as simple as it seems; and 2. They didn't believe Saddam had WMDs; and 3. they saw no connection between 9/11, Osama bin Laden and Iraq. They, as friends and allies, tried to warn the US Government that the situation wasn't simplistic.

What did the US and UK do? Vilify France for being on the wrong side and ban French Fries (which aren't French anyway).

Jeanne