Re:London Underground

Tony R wrote: The Doctor wrote: Hey I'm not really all that fond of the religious nuts in this country either.  I really don't have much respect for most organized religions, Christianity included.  On the other hand, I haven't heard of Christian suicide bombers killing innocent people on their way to work.  So fundamentalist Christians would be the second group to go. What about Christian Bomber Crews?  Stop the ignorant posts. This is people killing people.Religion is just an excuse.

Ignorance is in the eye of the beholder Tony.  I'm sure not everyone on these boards shares what seems to be an ultra-left anti-western attitude.  They just apparently aren't as vocal as I am.  Ignorance to me is continuing to try to apologize for and placate those who commit these horrible atrocities, while at the same time blaming the victims (or the countries of the victims) for the acts of these animals masquerading as humans.  Hopefully, these ultra-left, anti-western attitudes will not hold sway with the majority of the people or with our elected officials or pretty soon, we will all be praising allah.  Not because we believe in it, but because we are forced to.

However, I can see that I am in a minority here, or a very non-vocal majority, so I've said all I will say on the subject, except that I feel the utmost compassion for our U.K. friends.

Peace.  Out. 

Tony R wrote: As I have said before: We are all in this together.These atrocities are not committed against Americans or Britons or Iraqis-they are committed against Human Beings. One more sorry example of "man's inhumanity to man".......http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley1 9.gif" onclick="AddSmileyIcon'smileys/smiley19.gif'">[/ P]

Well said. Some of the potential arguments trying
to spring up this thread are making me ill...or should
i say more ill as I am totally sick with grief.

Right now is not the time for arguments and
opinions. That is neither here nor there. I only care
for the the deceased, their families and the ones
who may be still trapped down there.

Mark:

Let me go out on a very thin limb here...

As you probably know, Mohatma Gandhi taught non-violent civil disobedience as the best, most moral way to effect socio-political change.  And we know it works, of course, since neither Gandhi nor his followers fired one shot or beat a single person in effecting the change-over of India from British to home rule.

After WWII, Gandhi made an amazing - and very controversial - statement, one that most people find extremely difficult to understand, much less believe.  When asked about fighting Hitler, Gandhi suggested that the Polish people should simply have "laid down their arms and laid in front of the tanks."  He realized, of course, that the Germans might just ignore such a unified, national display of non-violence, and simply crush every Pole in the country.

However, that was exactly his point.  He understood that tyrants, dictators and despots were not seeking "real estate," but "people to subjugate and control."  In Gandhi's eyes, if the Poles had done this, the Germans might well have taken over Poland, but they would not have anyone over whom to exert control and power.  In other words, tyrants etc. are not out for "land grabs," but for "people grabs."  A tyrant or dictator is useless if he has no one to rule.

The same could be said for "faith-based" terrorists, and both the fundamentalist religious leaders and the self-appointed "political" leaders like bin Laden.  The terrorists may well "just keep on coming."  But unless they have people over whom they can exert power, control and influence, they are "toothless."  Yes, they can cause incredible damage and loss of life.  However, their greatest "success" is in how their actions "catalyze" changes in the governments they disagree with (or hate), since that is a small, but effective, example of "exerting influence" (and even a small degree of control) over those governments.

In this regard, each time a goverment allows itself to "cave in" to terrorism by changing even one iota of what that government stands for - e.g., free speech, free movement, free press, etc. - the terrorists "win."  In this regard, and without being callous or disrespectful of the families and friends of those who died on 9/11, one could argue that 9/11 was an incredible success for bin Laden & Co. (assuming they were involved: but that's another thread...) - indeed, they must be toasting each other as they watch how Bush & Co. unravel the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and erode and curtail many of our hard-won freedoms and civil liberties, all in the name of an illusory "security."

Peace.

However, that was exactly his point.  He understood that tyrants, dictators and despots were not seeking "real estate," but "people to subjugate and control."  In Gandhi's eyes, if the Poles had done this, the Germans might well have taken over Poland, but they would not have anyone over whom to exert control and power.  In other words, tyrants etc. are not out for "land grabs," but for "people grabs."  A tyrant or dictator is useless if he has no one to rule.

Most Muslims - and "most" means the vast majority - do not support the radical interpretation of Islam being espoused by fundamentalist imams.  They are just as outraged at these attacks as most "Westerners" - not least because they their faith and scriptures are being blamed, despite the fact that Islam is ultimately as peaceful a faith as Judeo-Christianity.  And I can state this with certainty from over two decades of intensive study of comparative religion.

Peace.