The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Current Events
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Current Events Help understand the world by talking about things happening in it

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 12-06-2001, 03:06 PM   #9
tw
Read? I only know how to write.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally posted by dhamsaic
How would you respond if your citizens were being killed? If innocent children were beingtargeted?
Americans have been regular targets since the world changed - 1 Aug 1990. American citizens have been killed just because they are Americans and are therefore enemies of those terrorists. Nothing logically changed on 11 Sept other than another in a long series of direct attacks on Americans.

As I noted, how easy to hype public opinion after a major event. 12 Sept. What changed in your opinions compared to 10 Sept. If you had a major opinion change, then either you responded emotionally, or did not realize what was happening in the world. IOW either your responded emotionally or logically.

Maybe you don't remember VietNam. We could not withdraw even though we were the enemy of the Vietnamese people. Why? Emotion. We were under seige by communism. The domino effect, etc. Therefore the greatest enemy to the Vietnamese people was the same nation that Vietnamese leaders had asked for protection only ten years earlier. We were so emotionally attached to our thinking in part because we were denied facts eventually revealed in the Pentagon Papers.

My point is that if emotion is part of your opinion, then one is his own worst enemy - as VietNam demonstrated. Proper decision making is made only from logical facts. Only at the end, emotionally ask, "Does this make sense". Only after all logical facts are considered, does emotion play any part in decision making - and only to question the final result.

Yes, I am angry about WTC bombing I and II - both of which were equally violent - only one of which was as successful as planned. However you are encouraged, now that some of the emotion has died off, and review some of those post 11 Sept posts.

My first posts warned of an emotional response for good reason. My greatest fear was how emotionally and therefore irresponsibly Americans would respond. I am please to report that most responded logically - not emotionally. Maybe it was the many post '11 Sept' events such as the special West Wing episode that kept us logical. However, in Israel, there are no moderates anymore because emotion has empowered all extremists.

Logically, all terrorism both by the Likud government and by extremist Palestinian groups are directly traceable to no settlement according to UN Resolution 242 and the Oslo Accords. Who fears those provisions? Extremists. How does one undermine those provisions? Make people emotional so they will support extremists. It is a vicious cycle because too many people don't know how to maintain logical thought when emotion runs amuke.

How does the world end middle east terrorism? Logically, one effective method is to enable both side equally to obtain destructive terrorist weapons. IOW the only logical way at this point - especially with our own right wing government encouraging more terrorism on the Israeli side - is to sharply increase the death tolls equally on both sides. It will not happen and it would be condemed by those who only see the bloodshed and not the solution. But at this point, the only way a Middle East settlement will happen is if both sides suffer sharp and equal numbers of deaths - to drive the emotional back to a logical viewpoint.

Why are moderates gaining power in the Balkans and Ireland? The people now and emotionally remember the altnernatives. It is why Sen Mitchell and why Ambassador Holbrook could be so successful. Neither tried to use power to solve the problem. Both empowered moderates.

I consider the current Middle East situation treacherous. The original question is irrelevant because it asks me to be emotional. Notice the cold blooded logical response I have just advocated. Now I emotionally ask myself, is this acceptable? I don't like the solution, but I know of no other because the Middle East contains no moderates of any consequence. Extreme death rates well beyond a trivial 24 killed in a recent suicide attack are necessary to empower moderates. Yes, the death rate by terrorism in the middle east is really quite trivial at this point - especially when you consider the hundreds killed by other non-reported terrorist attacks against the Palestinians. A big event is only 24 dead? Peanuts compared to what is required to cause a settlement.

Moderates are not even being impowered by our reduced intelligence President apparently because he sees the entire situation in terms of power and not in terms of what provokes the current massacres. Therefore I emotionally reget having to see sharp increase in death rates as the only viable and logical alternative.
tw is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:35 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.