A letter to the editor, published in today's Seattle Times:
It should occur to our current administration as well as to the public that it's highly likely that the rash of bombings that have been occurring in many countries (Bali, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.) which are likely to expand to other nations (including our own) in the future may be the result of our aggressive tactics in the worldwide "War on Terror."Well, Bruce Barnbaum of Granite Falls, WA, I hate you too. But if you're willing to pledge allegiance to me and obey my commandments, I might be willing to hate you less. Why don't you come on over to my place so we can start discussing issues and so you can understand my needs. Leave your weapons at home and bring a suitcase full of cash. I'm sure we can work something out. Just be sure to bring enough cash. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 30, 2003 03:50 PMSince 9-11, there has been no effort to understand the needs and concerns of the Muslim world; instead there has been only an effort to strike back.
But we should recognize that it's always easier to bomb stationary targets than it is to find the bombers, despite the continuing tough words by President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Tough words sound great to those who want to control the world, but they are empty words. Though they are designed to scare terrorists, they embitter, embolden and challenge terrorists. When will this administration and the American public recognize that our approach has been counterproductive?
The only way to end terrorist attacks is to start discussing issues with those who hate us; we're getting nowhere by continuing our tough words and denunciations of terrorist attacks. Our administration's approach is even more disturbing when our major strike (against Iraq) had nothing to do with terrorism, and its basic premise (weapons of mass destruction) was a lie.
How long will it take for those among us with their teeth and fists clenched to recognize this fact?
- Bruce Barnbaum, Granite Falls
"Tough words sound great to those who want to control the world, but they are empty words. Though they are designed to scare terrorists, they embitter, embolden and challenge terrorists."
Yes! Especially just after they have been uttered the Sate Department then does something totally assinine and sends a letter to Arafat asking him to support the Iraqi Council
or goes back on demands regarding Iran's nuclear program.
They do nothing about Syria despite Hizbollah training the "local boys" in Iraq. And so on.
The problem is that the terrorists have to be hit hard. One cannot turn round and express remorse that they felt some pain.
Pleading with Israel to halt roadblocks (was that Oxymoronic?), not to humiliate a group whose only emotion possible seems to be humiliation.
"The only way to end terrorist attacks is to start discussing issues with those who hate us; "
Bullshit! They cannot be relied on, are liars and will deceive at the first opportunity.
I suppose if Yossi Beilin can be fooled into another round of "Oslo" then there must be more around.
Does Bruce really understand why we are in Iraq? We are in a war against terror groups and their nation state sponsors. Without nation state sponsors, these groups can't project power and violence effectively since axcess to funds, safe harbor, training sites, weapons and diplomatic passports would be cut off. These nation states either have to fear for their survival or begin the process of reform. That's why we are in Iraq. It's the first middle east cesspool to fall. If we are successful, it won't be the last. If we are successful, not all will fall because of military force. We have many kinds of weapons.
Posted by: Gary Bezowsky on December 1, 2003 11:57 AMI don't even bother to read the letters anymore. Granite Falls, Tacoma, Olympia ... it's all the same. Bush is Hitler; he lied, people died; it's all about the ooooilll/WMD/his daddy or whatever else these arrogant pissholes believe.
And the so-called mainstream media happily parrots this "debate."
Not even worth my time. F 'em.
Posted by: jimg on December 1, 2003 12:40 PM The naivete of Barnbaum and those like him continues to astound me. He seems to think he can have a discussion on "issues" between us and insensate evil. Let's see: our "issue" is that we want to live and their "issue" is that they want to kill us. How do you resolve that Barnbaum?
Barnbaum's rampant multiculturism practically drips off the page(screen?). The Islamofacists are just misunderstood and bitter and their killing 3000 of us was just a cry for help.
In this war no one can sit on the sidelines and pontificate about how our enemies are misunderstood. The barbarians would much rather slit your throat than listen to another word.
Bill K. does a good job of chanelling insensate evil in his comment above. The issue is way more complicated than we don't want to get killed and they want to kill us? Why do they want to kill us so badly they are willing to kill themselves in the process? For much the same reason we are willing to kill them at the risk of them killing us in the process: because we fear what will happen if we don't. Are you ready to see Arabic replace English as the dominant language of the United States and international commerce and culture? Are you ready for the U.S., predominantly a Christian country, to be mostly converted to Islam?
Brown v. Board established that "separate but equal" was not a practical way to organize a society. Nations, however, are supposed to be separate but equal. Well, not equal, because of their riches and military power and geographic position, but conceptually equal players in international politics. But their separation only increases the inequalities. The European Union is a current example of trying to reduce the separation and inequalities in the various countries. But even in the EU, they had cultural, religious, and govnermental similarities that the Arab world does not share.
The Arabs see themselves as a once powerful nation, in some sense the rise to all of modern civilization, yet despite their oil, virutally segregated into the "colored" section of the international lunch room. They want to kill us mainly because we've demonstrated repeatedly that we don't want them to be our equals and the only way they are going to get into the "white" section is to kill the whities, because any other way results (as it did in Iraq) in the whities killing them.
The fight over Israel has shown us that this kind of fight can go on for millenia. The US can fight with radical Islam for as long and as successfully as the Israelies have fought the Palestinians. Or we can all decide the world is big enough for all of us. Yes, it means giving something up to get something in return. But that's capitalism and politics and lost of other things we do every day. Mostly it means giving up our insistance that other people believe as we do and accepting not just that other people believe other things, but going further and not treating them as unequal just because they are separate.
Posted by: Simon on December 3, 2003 03:23 AM> They want to kill us mainly because we've demonstrated repeatedly that we don't want them to be our equals
Actually, they've demonstrated that they're not our equals. Feel free to list what they've done in the last 500 years to be proud of. (Yes, they may have they toned down the jew killing for a while, but that's back on track.)
Yes, that region is the "cradle of civilization", but they've been stuck in the terrible twos for a long time. Much of the rest of the world has moved on.