# Political Aftermath, now what?



## chica11

Hello,

I know some people brought it up in the London forum but I think that thread should be only to offer support and condolescences to the people of London.  I wanted to know what everyone thought was going to happen now in terms of the whole "war on terrorism" which somehow of course got linked by my president with the "war in iraq."  I don't see how he made that connection but someone here can enlighten me.  Anyway, someone asked when British people are going to get angry and what their politicians are doing? And someone else answered they already have.  I was in London during the massive protests.  I can also say as someone from the United States that the support for this war is quickly diminishing here and from where I am, there was never any support for it.  The problem is, these politicians and these terrorists don't seem to care and we the public have to suffer for it.  Do you think anything is going to change soon?  

Best


----------



## ILT

chica11 said:
			
		

> ...
> The problem is, these politicians and these terrorists don't seem to care and we the public have to suffer for it. Do you think anything is going to change soon?
> ...



I don't like to talk about politics that much because it is a matter bound to generate problems, but this time I will, the events cannot go unnoticed.  I agree with you, but I think that this won't stop until _these politics _(as you call them) stop being elected (both Bush and Blair have been reelected in their own countries).  If people continue to vote for them, they get the idea that they are doing things right.  And as long as they continue to mess up in the name of their voters (because in their actions they represent all the citizens of a country), then terrorists are going to act against inocent people, because let's be real, they are not killing the politics, just the regular John Does.  I mean, they get all the bodyguards and armored cars, but they don't provide that to their people, and who suffers the consequence of their actions? John Doe, of course.

And don't get me wrong with that representation thing, but since Bush likes war so much, and the Bush before him and some other US presidents, we foreigners have this idea that americans like going into war.  I live on the border with the US, and go to the US almost weekly, and believe me, at least here, there is still a lot of support, here they loose loved ones at war, but they feel the war is fair and just, when the ones loosing are the soldiers and their families.

I think that if we were back in those times when Napoleon and Mark Anthony and Julius Caesar lead their own armies into battle by themselves, we would have much less armed conflicts, I don't think any President is willing to actually go to the warfield.


----------



## chica11

I love translating said:
			
		

> I don't like to talk about politics that much because it is a matter bound to generate problems, but this time I will, the events cannot go unnoticed. I agree with you, but I think that this won't stop until _these politics _(as you call them) stop being elected (both Bush and Blair have been reelected in their own countries). If people continue to vote for them, they get the idea that they are doing things right. And as long as they continue to mess up in the name of their voters (because in their actions they represent all the citizens of a country), then terrorists are going to act against inocent people, because let's be real, they are not killing the politics, just the regular John Does. I mean, they get all the bodyguards and armored cars, but they don't provide that to their people, and who suffers the consequence of their actions? John Doe, of course.
> 
> And don't get me wrong with that representation thing, but since Bush likes war so much, and the Bush before him and some other US presidents, we foreigners have this idea that americans like going into war. I live on the border with the US, and go to the US almost weekly, and believe me, at least here, there is still a lot of support, here they loose loved ones at war, but they feel the war is fair and just, when the ones loosing are the soldiers and their families.
> 
> I think that if we were back in those times when Napoleon and Mark Anthony and Julius Caesar lead their own armies into battle by themselves, we would have much less armed conflicts, I don't think any President is willing to actually go to the warfield.


 


I agree if Bush or any of his family actually had to go into battle then things would be different.  And I don't think Bush got elected because Americans like going to war I think he got elected by the religious right in this country (which is very strong) because of his support and affiliation to their cause.  But that's a whole different story, a tangent shall we say that I won't get into.


----------



## Fernando

ILT, I suppose you know that when Nap or Julius lived war was an everyday business. Nowadays, we have lived in Spain without wars in a 66 years (almost a lifetime), at least in our soil.

I was against Iraq war both for ethics and for politics, but I feel we can not withdraw the forces now. I do not want to be blackmailed once and again.

Our democracies can stand 300 deaths a year because of terrorist attacks. Our democracies can not stand that an attack has more power than the vote of the people.

Furthermore, we have Iraqi people, who has voted in the last elections. Terrorists are attacking their own people. They are wise men. They are not afraid of US soldiers. They can use nationalism to fight US presence, but they are frightened to death to the fact that women in Iraq could have freedom or that a Islamic country become democractic.

British and US stance (we have been attacked, you are going to be attacked) is the one and only answer.


----------



## Helicopta

If there is a solution, and we can only hope that there is, it can surely only be reached through negotiation.
If all the years of bloodshed in Northern Ireland and IRA bombs on the British mainland taught us anything, it’s that hatred and mistrust are only exacerbated by the use of guns and bombs. Since the Good Friday agreement, some progress is finally beginning to be made. The progress is hampered by distrust on both sides and old wounds that are slow to heal but nonetheless there is hope. Retaliation by governments for terrorist attacks, followed by more terrorist attacks in retaliation for the retaliation, is getting us nowhere and meanwhile the death toll continues to rise exponentially.
I think it’s time some bitter pills were swallowed.


----------



## ILT

Hi Fernando:  Yes, times are different, and things have changed a lot.  Fortunately a lot of people nowadays will live a lifetime without the fist-hand knowledge of a war, and my heart goes to those who will not, as well as for those not fortunate enough to know what they are going to eat tomorrow or where they are going to sleep tonight.  There is so much to do in this world that it will only be done once we all agree to live in peace and help each other.  Excuse me if I sound like a Miss Universe runner up, but as impossible as the task may seem, I like to think I'm doing my part.


----------



## Fernando

Demands of Al Qaida, Helicopta. Please choose which one do you prefer to swallow:

- Islamic countries: From Spain to Indonesia. 
- Sharia in every islamic country (wowen issue in the 1st place of course)
- Atomic bomb for Muslims
- Israelis to the sea
- Fire squad for any democratic islamists, in Turkey, Egypt, Marocco or Iran.

Moreover, IRA has been 'militarily' destroyed. Only then, they have accepted to talk. And let me say that I am fully against Good Friday agreement. Altough I sympathise the 'Irish cause', I would like to see every member of IRA in jail.

There is a common mistake: To view this as a rich vs poor fight. False. None is richer in Islam than Ben Laden. We must help Africa, South America or East Asia, but many Islamic killers are getting out from the richest countries, which would do better helping their poorest religious mates than contributing to armed fight.

If I have to stand the possibility to be killed in an attack, I am ready to defend my freedom. Captain America vs Miss Universe.


----------



## Helicopta

Fernando said:
			
		

> Demands of Al Qaida, Helicopta. Please choose which one do you prefer to swallow:
> 
> - Islamic countries: From Spain to Indonesia.
> - Sharia in every islamic country (wowen issue in the 1st place of course)
> - Atomic bomb for Muslims
> - Israelis to the sea
> - Fire squad for any democratic islamists, in Turkey, Egypt, Marocco or Iran.


I’m not suggesting that Al Qaeda can be negotiated with. I do however believe that if the negotiations surrounding the Israel/Palestine situation can be seen to achieve some results. It may go some way to undermining some of the support that Al Qaeda enjoys amongst certain Muslims.




			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> Moreover, IRA has been 'militarily' destroyed. Only then, they have accepted to talk. And let me say that I am fully against Good Friday agreement. Altough I sympathise the 'Irish cause', I would like to see every member of IRA in jail.


How can a terrorist organisation be militarily destroyed? It only takes a handfull of people with malicious intentions to wreak havoc. The IRA may have been weakened but it still had (and has) massive stockpiles of weapons and men willing to use them. While releasing convicted murderers from prison may seem unjust, and I don’t like it any more than you. If it helps bring lasting peace to a troubled region; it may prove to be just the kind of bitter pill to which I referred.




			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> There is a common mistake: To view this as a rich vs poor fight. False. None is richer in Islam than Ben Laden. We must help Africa, South America or East Asia, but many Islamic killers are getting out from the richest countries, which would do better helping their poorest religious mates than contributing to armed fight.


I quite agree, but they are fighting aren't they?



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> If I have to stand the possibility to be killed in an attack, I am ready to defend my freedom. Captain America vs Miss Universe.


Yes, let’s throw more bombs at them. That’ll put a stop to it. It's plain to see how well it's working at the moment.


----------



## Fernando

Le contesto aquí a un forero que me ha preguntado por qué no me ha gustado este post de Eugin en el hilo de pésame a Londres:

"Por Gilad Atzmon: 

"Nos guste o no, debemos admitir que el Terror es un mensaje y más nos valdrá aprender a escucharlo con atención: 

En primer lugar, nos dice que somos tan vulnerables como cualquiera. 
En segundo, nos dice que deberíamos dejar que los demás vivan de acuerdo con sus valores y sus creencias. 
En tercero, nos dice que nunca más deberíamos darle nuestros votos a criminales de guerra. 

Pero, más que nada, nos dice que tenemos una obligación moral. Debemos detener a nuestros gobiernos".

Un fuerte abrazo para todos, indistintamente de su nacionalidad, credo o raza.
__________________
Eugin


1) "debemos admitir que el Terror es un mensaje y más nos valdrá aprender a escucharlo con atención"

¿Esto que quiere decir, que le hagamos caso al terror? Yo lo escucho... para oponerme a él.

2) "somos tan vulnerables como cualquiera" 

No, los iraquíes partidarios de la democracia son mucho más vulnerables que nosotros y están muriendo a centenares.

3) "deberíamos dejar que los demás vivan de acuerdo con sus valores y sus creencias. "

¿Perdón? ¿Por qué nos dice eso? ¿Exactamente qué parte del cuerpo despedazado de alguien nos dice qué? Porque yo no veo otro mensaje. 

3) "nunca más deberíamos darle nuestros votos a criminales de guerra."

O sea, que Bush y Blair y no sé si Aznar son criminales de guerra y estos chicos son unos angelitos. 

Las únicas dudas que tengo de que la guerra de Iraq fue un error es cuando veo a esta panda haciendo atentados. Si esto es el mensaje apoyado y jaleado desde el mundo islámico, Bush y Blair me parecen unos gatitos.

Perdona, Eugin, por otros correos tuyos no creo que esto sea norma tuya, pero considero desfortunado que incluyas "tu mensaje", sobre todo tan discutible como éste, en un hilo de pésame.


----------



## Fernando

I agree with Helicopta in supporting Israel-Palestinian talks. But if they do not agree it is THEIR business. I simply can not understand the reasoning: 'Israel has killed one Palestinian (usually, not ever, with a brand-new Kalashnikov in their hands). Let us kill 3,000 Americans'

Helicopta, if the 'sour pill' is to free ten IRA (or ETA) members with 30 year-sentence with only 15 years in prison, I am ready. If the pill is to give them something they are asking for, my throat is too narrow.

You can NEVER avoid the bad guys. They will ever be rapers, murderers and thiefs. So what? Are you going to negotiate with your raper or are you going to send it to jail? Are you going to negotiate with Mafia?


----------



## Fernando

I am done, boys. I have quarrelled against 3/4 women and I am beginning to understand why I have no girlfriend.

Now seriously, I am 'monopolizing' the thread. My points are said. Bye.


----------



## lsp

Fernando said:
			
		

> ...pero considero desfortunado que incluyas "tu mensaje", sobre todo tan discutible como éste, en un hilo de pésame.


I was quite offended by the quote and its appearance in a condolence thread, on its face value, but even more so knowing something about the quote's author and his "controversial" opinions (I say most politely).


----------



## Helicopta

Well Fernando, you may be done but I'd still like to respond to your last comments...


			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> I agree with Helicopta in supporting Israel-Palestinian talks. But if they do not agree it is THEIR business. I simply can not understand the reasoning: 'Israel has killed one Palestinian (usually, not ever, with a brand-new Kalashnikov in their hands). Let us kill 3,000 Americans'


It cannot be allowed to be simply a case of "Well, if they can't agree, let them carry on killing each other". The repurcussions of the dispute are far too wide ranging for that.
Outside of the fanatics themselves, no one can understand the reasoning behind their attacks but the fact is while the troubles continue they will use them as justification.


			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> Helicopta, if the 'sour pill' is to free ten IRA (or ETA) members with 30 year-sentence with only 15 years in prison, I am ready. If the pill is to give them something they are asking for, my throat is too narrow.


The purpose of negotiations is to find a compromise. A compromise cannot be achieved unless everybody gets at least something they are asking for.


			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> You can NEVER avoid the bad guys. They will ever be rapers, murderers and thiefs. So what? Are you going to negotiate with your raper or are you going to send it to jail? Are you going to negotiate with Mafia?


To a lot of people in this world, WE are the bad guys. Blowing the crap out of them does little to prove that we're not.


			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> I have *quarrelled* against 3/4 *women*...


I'm a *man* and I thought we were having a *discussion*. I don't come here to quarrel.


----------



## chica11

Does everyone think that the people who did the London attacks are Iraqui?  I don't but you know it's too early to tell and I am not an intelligence officer. The people who did the 9/11 attacks weren't Iraqui (hence my great confusion of us going to war with iraq based on terrorism (obviously I don't think that was the real reason)! So when people say that we bomb the shit out of them so why wouldn't they react back with violence I do agree.   Except are we actually bombing the shit out of people who are the terrorists, who have now attacked back or originally attacked in the first place?  I seriously question that.   It seems like everyone meaning our governments and the terrorists are attacking the wrong people.  But it's just an opinion.


----------



## Fernando

"I'm a man and I thought we were having a discussion. I don't come here to quarrel."

Glad to hear it. We are a minority here. Your A in Helicopta got me wrong. I know that it has no meaning in English. You must know that (even if my nick is Fernando) I could be a woman.

About quarrel: I am convinced that people can talk about politics without quarrelling. My comment was (or intented to be?) humour. Irony and Internet do not match.

I break my silence to agree with chica11.


----------



## V52

chica11 said:
			
		

> " a tangent shall we say that I won't get into ".



Ciao a tutti, 
I am listening to your opinions, and I decided to quote just the words above , even though any of your points deserves more and more attention. Speaking of politics is rather difficult everywhere, but politics is "life" I guess and we can't avoid to talk about it ... 
Dear Chica11
We ARE into it! Too late for everyone of us. This problem will be with all of us for many years . It will be the "leit-motive" of our future, and the worst hasn't come yet. We really need to talk about it, but really the first thing who dies in war times is the Truth. I really "appreciated" the "honesty" of Bush the Second, in his speech after the september eleventh attempt. "It will be long and dirty" he said. And definitely it is long and dirty. And I feel so tragic when I realize that I don't know nothing, and can't be certain of just one of thousands opinions a hear everyday, starting from mine, so incomplete ad uncertain. Feeling so insicure is the thing that mostly bothers me. Where is this damn, forgotten, unreachable, inaccessible Truth?
Still in my  insecurity I ask to myself :
1- Why are we  so late in studying new energy sources?  (the problem of everything is this oli slaveryl)
2-  Why we  judge (and choose!) our politicians  by their  image? By their "aplomb" in front of cameras? 
3-  Why we choose  twice  the same people who made terrible mistakes?
it happened in the States, in UK, in France, and it is going to happen in 
Italy next year.

There's just one point I think for sure : A so vast terroristic organization can't be managed by a crazy billionaire, this kind of organisation can be managed only with a more, more strong "stay behind" : a state, or more states. So, I'm certain that the conflict will be really long and dirty, because it is the conflict between two different ways of living.

Meanwhile I am writing , in my living room, my son is chatting and playing with his friends, I can hear their happy voices. I would like to hear them forever.
Vittorio


----------



## meili

I might be from South East Asia but I can daresay that I am very much aware of what has been happening and is still happening in the world today.

Our country this time is experiencing such a turmoil with regards to politics.  And I do not know if people will agree with me, but politics is similar, or is parallel, with show business.  Being a citizen of a democratic country (and a country with multiple party!-I wish they narrow down the number of political party rivalries to two!), I don't know who are really for the people, and by the people.  Nations has their leaders, cabinet members, the senate and the congress, but then still, they, too, have different views and instead of fighting for the common good, would end up fighting each other - over the news, on tv and radio - such actors and actresses!

Why am I saying all this? FYI: I've personally seen on international tv that President Arroyo and Bush are 'closed friends' and even went to school together.  So after the Sept 11 attack, Phils showed its sympathy and extended help by sending Filipino soldiers to war.  The 'terrorists' then, began kidnapping and killing overseas filipino workers in Iraq (or in the middle east).  Thus the quarrel (again) of our national leaders.  The soldiers were then asked to return home, return to combat again, pulled out again, and so on, and so forth.  More people we're killed - all because of leaders not having the same motives - and world peace! 

Then came Abu Sayyaf (ring a bell? - and they were connected to the Al-Qaeda) doing their own version of terrorism to the Philippines - and other people.

I don't know if a negotiation will still work, nor will it end with all this war (and I guess with this phase it will go on and on - and worst) but then if people (leaders, specifically) will begin to sit down, compromise and arrange their goals and platforms, and in turn be one and support the leaders of other nations, I don't think we will have to spare lives. In this case I would like to quote some of our co-foreros signatures: _The road to hell is paved by good intentions, _ hence, _I will try until I lose heart and I lose hope. And then I will try again - el novato _

And for the record, just like Pres Bush and Pres Blair, Pres Arroyo has also been voted twice!  They just love sending people to war, perhaps, eh?

And for the records


----------



## Benjy

well.. i have been thinking (  ) and i suppose the real question is how do you fight an idea? you can't negotiate with a man who wants something that you cannot give him. you can't kill ideas. to be honest the motivation to take lives in such a way is so far removed from my daily reality as to be utterly incomprehensible. the only revenge we can really take on them is to carry on regardless and show them like ken livingstone said in his statement why they will   fail. that we wont be cowed or intimidated. thats all you really can do. you cant kill an idea. you can only think of better ones


----------



## DDT

Benjy said:
			
		

> you cant kill an idea. you can only think of better ones


...in full respect of ideas different than yours...

DDT


----------



## chica11

Benjy I wholeheartedly agree that we can't and shouldn't fight this with more violence.  I agree with your idea that we can't kill an idea, we can just think of better ones.  The best thing to do, instead of going and starting wars or attacking more innocent people is to continue to thrive in our multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, free societies.  The best revenge is to live well.  

Of course there is the whole issue which is the Western presence in the middle east and I am not talking about the Iraq war, I'm talking about our presence and influence which has existed for years and years.  It's obvious to me that these terrorists want us to get out of the middle east, period/or full stop as they say in britain.  But I wonder how many people in the middle east actually want the west to stop meddling in their lives and in their "world".  I don't know enough to make any commentary.  I definitely think that going into Iraq was not a good decision and added to fuel to the fire but I also wonder if we never went into Iraq would these terrorist acts stop?   For some reason I doubt it.  Frankly the US and the entire west really should start putting all our money towards science and technology so that we are not so dependent on petroleum.  I know we could do it now!! But we don't because those CEO's have an enormous amount of influence.  

This war seems like it will be never ending.


----------



## Everness

chica11 said:
			
		

> Benjy I wholeheartedly agree that we can't and shouldn't fight this with more violence.  I agree with your idea that we can't kill an idea, we can just think of better ones.  The best thing to do, instead of going and starting wars or attacking more innocent people is to continue to thrive in our multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, free societies.  The best revenge is to live well.
> 
> This war seems like it will be never ending.



We might have objectively multicultural societies but we haven't yet developed a non-racist identity (and add ethnicity, religion, ideologies, etc. to the mix). Not only we are committed to monoculturalism but to its evil offspring: monocultural ethnocentrism. We openly or subtlely embrace the "we-are-better-than-them" mentality: Christianity is better than Islam; Western democracy is better than any other type of government system; etc. People on the other side of the aisle, unfortunately, repeat the same pattern of thought.

I agree with what Luar stated in another post. Many of us suffer from the worst type of "ism": the unintentional one. Deep down we are as intolerant as these terrorists but we don't act out our unresolved prejudices and biases to the extreme they do. We are fellow passengers on the same train but, unlike the terrorists, we get off before reaching the final destination, that is killing someone with a bomb. But that doesn't make us better individuals than them although we believe we are. We suffer from the same exact disease; the only difference is that they display fully-blown symptoms. Just take a minute to reflect how you discriminated in thought, feeling, or action against others in the last week.

Of course we don't like to be compared with terrorists. I don't either. But maybe this is the only way to confront our inner demons and do something with them.


----------



## cubaMania

Everness said:
			
		

> ...we are as intolerant as these terrorists but we don't act out our unresolved prejudices and biases to the extreme they do. We are fellow passengers on the same train but, unlike the terrorists, _we get off before reaching the final destination, that is killing someone with a bomb. But that doesn't make us better individuals than them_ although we believe we are...


Everness, you have a good point to make in that our own prejudices are often deeply hidden and we need to work against them consciously, we need to examine our own thoughts and feelings and do our best to eliminate what is unfair, uncharitable, and wrong as best we can.

But, please, don't ruin it by claiming that those who don't commit murder are as bad as those who do.  That is just ridiculous.

Murder is wrong, torture is wrong, oppressing helpless people is wrong.  And it does not matter whether that murder goes under the name of "terrorism for the glory of Islam" or under the name of "invading Iraq because we can convince people that Sadaam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" or under any other name.

We can have many different opinions about many different things, but if we cannot at least all agree that murdering, torturing, and starving are unacceptable, are wrong, and are to be condemned universally and unconditionally -- well, words fail me.


----------



## Everness

cubaMania said:
			
		

> Everness, you have a good point to make in that our own prejudices are often deeply hidden and we need to work against them consciously, we need to examine our own thoughts and feelings and do our best to eliminate what is unfair, uncharitable, and wrong as best we can.



Yes, we need to kill the little terrorist within us. 



			
				cubaMania said:
			
		

> But, please, don't ruin it by claiming that those who don't commit murder are as bad as those who do.  That is just ridiculous.
> 
> Murder is wrong, torture is wrong, oppressing helpless people is wrong.  And it does not matter whether that murder goes under the name of "terrorism for the glory of Islam" or under the name of "invading Iraq because we can convince people that Sadaam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction" or under any other name.
> 
> We can have many different opinions about many different things, but if we cannot at least all agree that murdering, torturing, and starving are unacceptable, are wrong, and are to be condemned universally and unconditionally -- well, words fail me.



You are right. Wanting to kill someone is different than actually killing someone. And this applies to domestic violence and to international politics. 

I picture violence as a railroad with different stops. The first stop is cognitive violence (intellectual and emotional). I'm referring here to the experience of thinking or wanting to hurt someone. Experiencing homicidal thoughts is normal and ok; acting them out isn't ok. The second stop is verbal violence. Here we cuss at someone, trying to destroy their self-esteem. The third stop is physical violence. Words aren't enough so we beat the living shit out of someone. The final stop is killing someone. My point is that even if you get off the train before reaching the final stop, you were travelling on the wrong train and you already inflicted harm on someone else. But most importantly: you are training yourself to think and act violently. 

I didn't come up with this concept. It's something I learned from Jesus' teachings in Matthew 5: 21-22: 

_21"You have heard that the law of Moses says, `Do not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.' 22 But I say, if you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the high council. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell._

What does this has to do with the violence inflicted by the US on innocent Iraqis or the violence inflicted by terrorists on innocent civilians in London? What Luar wrote earlier prompted me to revisit my thoughts about ways to avoid violence and promote peace within our families, neighborhoods, country and our broken world community.



			
				luar said:
			
		

> It is very common to think that we promote peace by searching for better ways of communicating and relating to each other, but we are far away from the root of the problem. I truly believe that all wars begin in the very first place in ourselves. There is so much violence, rejection, hatred, and fear in our hearts, that it is almost impossible to foster peace in our relationships with others. Having said that, I invite all of us to make an effort to be more gentle, understanding and compassionate first to our own selves. Later, I hope, we will see the miracle of peace happening.



Don't wait for the Bushes, the Blairs and the Osama bin Ladens of this world to create peace on this world! It's our privilege and responsibility.


----------



## cubaMania

Everness said:
			
		

> ...Yes, we need to kill the little terrorist within us...


Since we are on the subject of introspection, examining our own thoughts and feelings, I hope you will not take offense at my observation that in attempting to advocate peaceful thoughts and actions, you use the imagery of killing.

Even though we are basically in agreement, that response struck a strange sour note when I read it. I don't have a desire to kill, torture, or starve anybody, not even little (or big) terrorists. And I don't have a terrorist within me; what I have are prejudices, stupid misunderstandings, unwarranted assumptions, mistaken ideas, all of which I need to examine critically and manage to the best of my ability not just today, but for all of my life.

Just food for thought, Everness, in tune with the basic message of your posts.



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> Don't wait for the Bushes, the Blairs and the Osama bin Ladens of this world to create peace on this world! It's our privilege and responsibility.


Totalmente de acuerdo! Bush and bin Laden, I am sure will never contribute to peace in our world. (I don't have enough insight into Blair's character to judge.) We, the people, must exert whatever efforts we are capable of to change the course of events brought about by these violent leaders. It seems hopeless at times, but history tells us that peaceful people have prevailed before against great odds, so we must not give up the effort.


----------



## Everness

cubaMania said:
			
		

> Since we are on the subject of introspection, examining our own thoughts and feelings, I hope you will not take offense at my observation that in attempting to advocate peaceful thoughts and actions, you use the imagery of killing.



Point taken. I was actually drawing upon some of Paul's theological constructs that use this type of imagery. Romans 8:12-14:

_12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; *but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,* 14because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God._



			
				cubaMania said:
			
		

> And I don't have a terrorist within me; what I have are prejudices, stupid misunderstandings, unwarranted assumptions, mistaken ideas, all of which I need to examine critically and manage to the best of my ability not just today, but for all of my life.



You know what cubaMania? I think that terrorists are just like us. Sometimes we tend to demonize them as if they weren't human beings. We also tend to assume a "Holier-Than-Thou" attitude and believe that we aren't capable of inflicting significant harm on others. Terrorists also have prejudices, stupid misunderstandings, unwarranted assumptions, mistaken ideas, etc. just like you and ME. Maybe the great difference is that in the case of terrorists all these things went unchecked and grew out of proportion or were cleverly manipulated and exarcerbated by others for political or ideological gain. The difference is just one of degree. 

My 2 cents!


----------



## chica11

I am just curious to know who is the "we" in this?  As in we are no different than the terrorists.  Does "we" mean everyone in western society? Or does "we" mean our governments?  After all I wouldn't compare myself to a terrorist or anyone I know personally, since we have never personally decided to go and murder anyone, or even thought about it enough to make any plan of action.  Yes our governments do very bad things and have no right to demonize the terrorists. After all people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.  But anyone who comes from the West knows that even though we technically have democracies and democratic elections, each individual doesn't select the president/prime minister.  And not everyone even agrees or wants that person to be in power.  I hope my question/post is not confusing.


----------



## luar

Everness wrote: _I think that terrorists are just like us. Sometimes we tend to demonize them as if they weren't human beings. We also tend to assume a "Holier-Than-Thou" attitude and believe that we aren't capable of inflicting significant harm on others._

Khalil Gibran, in his book The Prophet, talks about the same idea just shared by Everness. I strongly recommend chapter XII, Crime and Punishment. I hope you guys like it!


----------



## cubaMania

Of course, we are all products of our experiences.  If I had been brought up in a house full of hate, or sent at an early age to a religious school that preaches "kill the infidel" or been an acoholic and drug-user who found a way out through fundamentalist Christianity--who knows what I would be like.  I might be a killer, just like the terrorists or just like Bush.  But I wasn't and I'm not.  I'm not sure where you are going with this line of thought.  We all know that human beings if subjected to sufficiently vicious treatment can be twisted into violent and hate-filled souls.  Now what?


----------



## Everness

cubaMania said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where you are going with this line of thought.



I think I hit a roadblock. All my line of argumentation is futile to say the least. 

Violence is the only way we are going to solve our problems. Now I get it. (And I'm not kidding.) 

Bush and Blair are right. The only way to erradicate terrorism is by chasing down terrorists like rats and exterminate them one by one. If in order to reach that goal one has to invade 1, 2, 3 countries and kill thousands of innocent people, so be it. The survival of Western civilization is at stake, but most importantly, my life. (Every morning when I get onto the commuter train, I think it could be my last trip. Lately I've developed a obsession with backbags and people who carry them.) 

Eventually, and following the death of thousands and thousands of people, one of the parties will prevail. Peace, real peace, is achieved by winning a war and annihilating your enemy, not by sitting down and trying to sort things out or prevent further bloodshed. This war on terror or against the Great Satan (depending on what side you are) has started and won't end until one of the parties is destroyed. Nothing will stop it. Violence has its own rationale and it makes sense. Violent people speak the same language and they definitely understand each other. 

I think that Israelis and Palestinians provide us with a great illustration of what the quality of life on planet Earth will be during the next hundred years. The good news is that we'll get accustumed to violence and carnage and become desensitized to it. Pretty soon, news will be when a day goes by without a bomb blowing up some train or bus full of people. 

Good luck in your journey and, if possible, stay safe...


----------



## chica11

Now, now is there really any need to be sarcastic in this forum.  This is a serious subject and I don't think any of us has the right answers.  Bush, Blair and the terrorists who seem to be more a like than not, definitely don't have the answers.  
This issue is complicated and confusing and no one person on either side has the right answer.  The fact of the matter is, I don't think the West in general (like I said, this is a gross generalization!!) knows much about the Islamic and Middle Eastern cultures and the Islamic and Middle Eastern Cultures don't really know much about our culture or at least we don't fully appreciate and understand each other's cultures and situations.  To me that is one of the most fundamental problems.  A lack of respect and understanding for people who are different than you, is to me the root of most of this.


----------



## luar

You got the message! Now? Well, try to use these lenses to see all the people around you, especially those who you dislike and moreover the ones that have hurt you in any way. Please, let me know if this technique helps you or not to create peace in your surroundings. Remember, you would always have the other alternative: Blow them up, following the example that the “Freedom Army” and the terrorists has set.


----------



## luar

I just want to say that I posted the previous message in response to CubaMania´s.


----------



## luar

chica11 said:
			
		

> A lack of respect and understanding for people who are different than you, is to me the root of most of this.


 
Well said! We human beings are so special, in absent of a better adjective, that it does not matter the issue in question: sports, religions, politics, etc. we will always want to impose our preferences to others, believing that ours are better. I do not quite understand why.


----------



## cubaMania

luar said:
			
		

> You got the message! Now? Well, try to use these lenses to see all the people around you, especially those who you dislike and moreover the ones that have hurt you in any way. Please, let me know if this technique helps you or not to create peace in your surroundings. Remember, you would always have the other alternative: Blow them up, following the example that the “Freedom Army” and the terrorists has set.


I'm puzzled, luar, as to why you think there is any solution here.  We all already knew that people are shaped by their environment.

Those creating the current crisis in violence are not going to change based upon any such insight.  It is too late for them.  Bush is convinced that his God speaks to him and tells him to bomb the "evil-doers" in Baghdad, and bin Laden is convinced that his God demands he kill "infidels."  My life has always been peaceful.  I have never had a desire to murder, torture, or starve anyone.  I do not hate Bush or bin Laden, I just want them both prevented from continuing to harm people.  Truly, I do not see anything new here that might help us solve these problems.

I think it is up to the normal, decent people of the world, the vast majority who are not driven by demons, do not hate, do not have fantasies of killing or torturing others.  We need to make our influence felt as much as we can in the policies of our countries and in the leaders we elect and follow.  It is not hopeless.  Peaceful people have prevailed and changed the course of nations before and it can happen again.  But truly I do not think it will happen by introspection, I think it will happen by political and personal action.


----------



## cubaMania

chica11 said:
			
		

> Now, now is there really any need to be sarcastic in this forum...


chica11, I don't think Everness is being sarcastic.  I think he is feeling genuinely hopeless.  It's very understandable in this crazy world.  But of course, we must not give in to hopelessness, we must fight on.  Just one of us cannot change the course of history, but millions upon millions of us acting together can.  Every Muslim in the world, especially all clerics, should be standing up and condemning bin Laden's religion of violence.  And every Christian in the world, especially all clerics, should be standing up and condemning Bush's ludicrous pretense for invading Iraq and making it clear that the voice he hears is not the God of Christianity.  And all of us ordinary, normal people need to add our voices, our votes, our political demonstrations, whatever we can to the influence for non-violence.  There should be nobody left who is not speaking up in some way saying murder is wrong, torture is wrong, starvation is wrong always and without exception.

Look at history, Everness.  Huge, fantastic, unbelievable changes have been brought about by ordinary peaceful people working together against great odds.  Do not give up hope.


----------



## luar

cubaMania said:
			
		

> I'm puzzled, luar, as to why you think there is any solution here. We all already knew that people are shaped by their environment.
> 
> Those creating the current crisis in violence are not going to change based upon any such insight. It is too late for them. Bush is convinced that his God speaks to him and tells him to bomb the "evil-doers" in Baghdad, and bin Laden is convinced that his God demands he kill "infidels." My life has always been peaceful. I have never had a desire to murder, torture, or starve anyone. I do not hate Bush or bin Laden, I just want them both prevented from continuing to harm people. Truly, I do not see anything new here that might help us solve these problems.
> 
> I think it is up to the normal, decent people of the world, the vast majority who are not driven by demons, do not hate, do not have fantasies of killing or torturing others. We need to make our influence felt as much as we can in the policies of our countries and in the leaders we elect and follow. It is not hopeless. Peaceful people have prevailed and changed the course of nations before and it can happen again. But truly I do not think it will happen by introspection, I think it will happen by political and personal action.


 

I do not disagree with you, CubaMania. Insight alone is not enough to change anything. But by having understood that you are not better not worst than anyone, your personal and political actions would be different from those who believe they have the Truth. 
I am glad to hear that you have been always at peace, and that you have never had any bad feeling towards people around you. I wish I could say that too, but I can´t. The seed of intolerance is planted even in myself! (ask my dear aunt, she would happily confirm this data). Although it is true, I have never taken a gun to kill, often I find myself rejecting those who do not understand life the way I do. With this, I am trying to say that world peace would only be achieved through personal peace. You cannot clean the outside with dirty hands.


----------



## asm

Everness:
 
I think you are right; the model you use to explain violence is perfect. I’d like to comment about the possible transition from one stop to the next with an article I read about the Rwanda civil war. When the Hutus were killing the Tutsi in that African country, some Hutu killers were having some trouble doing their task (killing Tutsi in a great scale), but the more they killed enemies the more comfortable they found themselves doing so. Once they got used to kill, they did forget the remorse and continued with the massacre. 
It looks that the (violence) train, when takes some momentum, is difficult to get stopped. This is why I think the war on terror has not been efficient; I was/am opposed to the war, but even if I weren’t, I would think that a fire cannot be extinguished with more fire.

I am pretty sure that today we have more terrorists (actual and potential) than those we had in the past.

 

I am not in favor of terrorist actions and I think terrorists should be persecuted and prosecuted; however, I think that violence only breeds more terrorism in both sides of the divide.

 

The train is running (and very fast in some areas), it is difficult to stop it (that is why we feel hopeless), but more violence will not stop it, it will only make more people board the train, willing to get faster and faster. I think this train should be called the “catch-22 violence train”.
 



			
				Everness said:
			
		

> I picture violence as a railroad with different stops. The first stop is cognitive violence (intellectual and emotional). I'm referring here to the experience of thinking or wanting to hurt someone. Experiencing homicidal thoughts is normal and ok; acting them out isn't ok. The second stop is verbal violence. Here we cuss at someone, trying to destroy their self-esteem. The third stop is physical violence. Words aren't enough so we beat the living shit out of someone. The final stop is killing someone. My point is that even if you get off the train before reaching the final stop, you were travelling on the wrong train and you already inflicted harm on someone else. But most importantly: you are training yourself to think and act violently.
> 
> .


----------



## chica11

Asm, I just wanted to say that I agree with your analogy.  We are on this train and it's going pretty fast.  It's possible to stop it, I think but it will take some great force from all of us!


----------



## Everness

cubaMania said:
			
		

> Look at history, Everness.  Huge, fantastic, unbelievable changes have been brought about by ordinary peaceful people working together against great odds.  Do not give up hope.



I'll try. But I'm at the end of the rope. Now I understand why good people with noble goals resort to violence. They do so out of frustration because their non-violent ways take them nowhere. On top of that, people rightly tease you for your idealistic take on life. The world belongs to the violent. Period. You can't argue with Bush's missiles and Osama's bombs.


----------



## asm

Everness said:
			
		

> The world belongs to the violent. Period. You can't argue with Bush's missiles and Osama's bombs.


Indeed! This is a sad true statement. 

Unfortunately all religious genesis have been created to deviate this path; however, followers (people of all sizes, colors, and flavors) have not been congruent with the original ideas. The saddest part of the story is that all these conflicts are supposed to be on behalf of God (???).

What would Abraham, Jesus and Mohamed should say if interviewed in the same room with the topic "Terrorism"?


----------



## cubaMania

asm said:
			
		

> ... The saddest part of the story is that all these conflicts are supposed to be on behalf of God (???)...


I do not think the answer lies in religion.  I think the answer lies in non-religious, secular values.  We need to reject utterly the legitimacy of murder, torture, and starvation.

Everness:  Yes, some will ridicule us but that will not stop us.  Surely we are strong enough to stand up to ridicule.


----------



## Everness

asm said:
			
		

> What would Abraham, Jesus and Mohamed should say if interviewed in the same room with the topic "Terrorism"?



Sometimes I wonder if they would even be open to sit down and talk theology without getting into an argument... My optimistic outlook on life has taken a serious blow. Ojala sea pasajero...


----------



## Everness

Just what we needed! Apparently the people responsible for the bombings in London are suicide bombers. Some of us were crossing our fingers that this unsophisticaded warfare technology wouldn't be exported from the Middle East. Well, it's time to wake up: It's here.  

Fortunately, many of us who view ourselves as open-minded, non-racist, multiculturalist individuals, don't have Muslim or Middle-Eastern well-educated, high-functioning close friends with no criminal history or apparent links with terrorism. Otherwise, we should have the right to look at them with suspicion. They would fit the profile of the new breed of terrorists who live in our midst...


----------



## desde aquel verano

Hi, Everness. I don't know if you've seen the latest news regarding the London bombers, but it seems this new breed of terrorists who live in our midst don't exactly fit your definition of "high-functioning, well-educated, Muslim or Middle-Eastern" individuals... rather they are British citizens (born and bred) who most probably come from humble backgrounds in the North of England (where I am from, unfortunately...)


----------



## desde aquel verano

Actually, after just looking on the BBC website, it seems that at least one of them wasn't from such a humble background... but still British, all the same.


----------



## Everness

desde aquel verano said:
			
		

> Actually, after just looking on the BBC website, it seems that at least one of them wasn't from such a humble background... but still British, all the same.



I'm aware that the information is still kind of sketchy. However, I don't like the profile that is gradually emerging. We are definitely talking about British-born individuals with a higher level of socialization. The backlash on Arabs and Muslims in Great Britain could be huge and unprecedented in a country that has been an example in terms of dealing with diversity. When you are scared, both your insight and judgment take a toll. 


Here's more information. 
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...3jul13,0,1449069.story?coll=la-home-headlines


----------



## asm

I do not say that religious is or is not the answer. What I say is that both sides of the divide are taking religion as a pretext to "win" (or defeat the other part).

If all religious leaders were alive and with us (Jesus, Abraham and Muhammed), I am sure they would condemn all these atrocities people are doing on their names.





			
				cubaMania said:
			
		

> I do not think the answer lies in religion. I think the answer lies in non-religious, secular values. We need to reject utterly the legitimacy of murder, torture, and starvation.
> 
> Everness: Yes, some will ridicule us but that will not stop us. Surely we are strong enough to stand up to ridicule.


----------



## cubaMania

asm said:
			
		

> I do not say that religious is or is not the answer. What I say is that both sides of the divide are taking religion as a pretext to "win" (or defeat the other part).
> 
> If all religious leaders were alive and with us (Jesus, Abraham and Muhammed), I am sure they would condemn all these atrocities people are doing on their names.


asm, you may be right that both sides are using religion as a pretext or excuse for actions they want to take for other reasons.  That is a possibility.  I am not completely sure that is the case however.  I see some evidence that for both bin Laden and Bush, this is not a case where religion is a pretext, but rather a case where religion is their reason.

bin Laden's version of Islam appears to me to require the killing of "infidels" in defense of the faith and as far as I can see that is actually his motivation.  With Bush the matter is not quite as clear because he is surrounded by so many people with obvious ulterior motives (control of oil supplies, vast wartime profits, imperialism, etc.)  But it is interesting that Bush early-on used the term "crusade" when describing his plans.  It is possible that many surrounding Bush, such as Cheney, are glad to use religion as a pretext, while at the same time for Bush himself it is sincere religious motivation.  Bush is a born-again fundamentalist Christian.  His brand of Christianity is extreme, as is bin Laden's brand of Islam.

Meanwhile, hardly hitting the newspapers at all, are the events in Northern Ireland where the Catholic faction Christians, within the last two days have been throwing grenades and gasoline bombs at police stations because they are unhappy that the Protestant faction Christians were allowed to hold a series of parades through city streets.

The violence goes on and on and on, and it's not always easy to sort out whether it is *in spite of* or *because of* religion.


----------



## Everness

Bush said, "We are taking the fight to the enemy abroad so we do not have to face them here at home."

George Orwell said, "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."


----------



## chica11

George Orwell said, "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
-Quoted by Everness

Everness, I agree with your putting Orwell's statement.  Not to necessarily compare Bush to Joseph Goebel but I believe Goebel said something to the effect of:  "If you tell a lie often enough, people will start to believe it..." 
and obviously some of us, sadly have.


----------



## Everness

chica11 said:
			
		

> Not to necessarily compare Bush to Joseph Goebel but ...



Yes, it would be unfair to Goebel...


----------



## chica11

I would have thought the other way around.. actually. 

But Bush is still in a similar category.


----------



## cubaMania

Nice irony, Everness.
It is along the lines of the witticism in which someone speaks eloquently of how depraved, evil, vicious, monstrous, etc. are the people to be found in prisons, and concludes by adding... "and the inmates are almost as bad."

Of course we are actually a very long way from the extreme horrors of Nazism.  But it is worth remembering that the horror of the Nazi holocaust did not spring up fully-formed overnight.  It took a steady drumbeat of lies and propaganda over many years.  The drumbeat of lies coming from Washington D.C. is loud and steady and appears to have fooled many people.  Let us hope we can stop its progression long before we reach such extremes.


----------



## Fernando

Yes, of course, Bush is the same as Goebbels (why do you say Goebel?), because Bush has proposed to get rid of every Muslim in the world and he plans to kill all 1 billion Muslims.

Furthermore, he controls all media in the US and NOBODY in US criticizes him. He has a censorship ministery that is sending to jail on a regular basis to every journalist which does not agree.

All radio/TV broadcasts are obligued also to  broadcast Bush's speeches, mosques have been closed in all US.

He has announced he is going to be in power for ever and he has not going to have new election days, only "referenda".


----------



## Everness

Fernando said:
			
		

> He has announced he is going to be in power for ever...



I can deal with the rest of your post but this last sentence is a joke in very bad taste...


----------



## chica11

To answer your question Fernando, I most likely said Goebel instead of Goebels for the pure fact that I got his name wrong and forget that its Goebels not Goebel, my bad!!


----------



## Everness

This is the kind of document Bush and Blair don't want you to read.

http://www.riia.org/pdf/research/niis/BPsecurity.pdf


----------



## Fernando

Why should they not?


----------



## Fernando

Everness said:
			
		

> I can deal with the rest of your post but this last sentence is a joke in very bad taste...



For the sake of your tranquility, this awful dictator, equal to Goebbels, is going to quit in 2008, just in 3 years.


----------



## meili

Fernando said:
			
		

> All radio/TV broadcasts are obligued also to broadcast Bush's speeches, mosques have been closed in all US.


 
Sorry for being so naive in such things... But.. is it true?  That is not right.  I don't like him.


----------



## Fernando

Just sarcasm.


----------



## Everness

meili said:
			
		

> Sorry for being so naive in such things... But.. is it true?  That is not right.  I don't like him.



It might not be true but the following certainly is...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...,1,4341438.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed


----------



## Fernando

I can not understand how Bush-Goebbles allows these news to be known. I assume he is closing Chicago Tribune right now.


----------



## Everness

Fernando said:
			
		

> I can not understand how Bush-Goebbles allows these news to be known. I assume he is closing Chicago Tribune right now.



Careful with your jokes. My president is very impressionable and might don't understand your sense of humor. Actually that's how the war on Iraq started.

Dick Ch: Hey Georgie, why don't we invade Iraq and beat the living shit out of Saddam?
W: Yeah man... that's a great idea (while sipping a cold Bud). 
Dick Ch: (looking concerned) Easy Georgie... I'm just fuckin' with you.
W: No, no... Let's do it...That son of a bitch tried to kill my daddy.
Next thing our tanks were rolling into Baghdad.


----------



## Benjy

you know what? i hate to do this but i am going to crack my moderator whip. facts please. on topic please. thank you. don't make me close the thread.

ben


----------



## Everness

Benjy said:
			
		

> facts please. ben



Hi Ben. When it comes to politics and religion (among a zillion other things) I think that there are no objective facts but subjective opinions. How did W decide to invade Iraq? Whom should we believe? The leftist historian who writes history books for our liberal colleges or should we believe W's account? 

I think that any fact has multiple interpretations and people pick one that they believe that more or less reflects the truth or is the truth. All of a sudden we realize that other people have different takes on the same "facts." We start arguing and when we run out of arguments, we resort to verbal and physical violence. If we manage to get rid of the people who think differently, we reach the "logical" conclusion that ours was the truth and not just a simple opinion. 

Hey, this is just my opinion!


----------



## Benjy

right. i am all for opinions. and when i said facts, i wasnt specifically talking about your last post. otherwise i would have quoted it  i guess what i am trying to say is this: i am all for opinions, but something to back it up would be nice. also, this thread is rapidly turning into what i might deem chat rather than debate or discussion. that is what i meant by "facts and on topic". i am sorry if was not very clear


----------



## luar

cubaMania said:
			
		

> Of course we are actually a very long way from the extreme horrors of Nazism. But it is worth remembering that the horror of the Nazi holocaust did not spring up fully-formed overnight. It took a steady drumbeat of lies and propaganda over many years. The drumbeat of lies coming from Washington D.C. is loud and steady and appears to have fooled many people. Let us hope we can stop its progression long before we reach such extremes.


 
Today´s newspaper say that at least 25, 000 civilians have been killed in Iraq since the war started. It also say that the American army is responsible for at least 90 percent of the total (sorry, I couldn´t post the link). As you can see, they are a little bit behind. But there is no reason for despair, remember it took the Nazis some time to improve their killing methods, but finally they got it! 

Now seriously speaking, in the year 2004 Bush was reelected as president of the USA. Political experts hypothesized that Americans were more concerned about “moral” issues than international policy matters. I assume that the majority of voters consider that killing children in their mothers´ wombs is more reproachable than making children suffer in their own flex the terrible damage that fear and dead leave behind. It is hard for me to choose which act is more immoral. 

We can easily forget that Bush´s decisions are supported by many men and women that readily accepted the idea that long-lasting peace and freedom can be imposed. There is so much indifference and ignorance among our people, so much lack of real interest in what others are suffering. Therefore, it is not surprising that any narrow-minded could be reelected after initiating a lie-based war. 

Let me share something that I found extremely funny, now that we are talking about war and its promoters. I happened to be in Madrid, when the Angels of Freedom occupied Iraq. I cannot remember where exactly I read this: _Aznar son of the bitch!_ And then, there was a little note below: _I am a bitch, but I am not Aznar´s mother_. I still laugh!


----------



## Fernando

luar said:
			
		

> Today´s newspaper say that at least 25, 000 civilians have been killed in Iraq since the war started. It also say that the American army is responsible for at least 90 percent of the total (sorry, I couldn´t post the link). As you can see, they are a little bit behind. But there is no reason for despair, remember it took the Nazis some time to improve their killing methods, but finally they got it!



According this link
http://www.7days.ae/regional-news/25,000-iraq-dead.html

the report says that 'allied' forces have killed more people than insurgents (not 90%). 

Moreover, "However, the report stresses that the vast majority of civilian deaths caused by US and British troops took place in the weeks following the start of war in March 2003, while currently far more deaths occur due to insurgency."


----------



## luar

Fernando: _"...the report says that 'allied' forces have killed more people than insurgents (not 90%)."_

Yes, it is true not 90 percent: "el estudio atribuye a las fuerzas estadounidenses un 98.5 por ciento del total de muertes."

Fernando: _Moreover, "However, the report stresses that the vast majority of civilian deaths caused by US and British troops took place in the weeks following the start of war in March 2003, while currently far more deaths occur due to insurgency."_

So, that means that they are less responsible for these 25, 000 deaths?


----------



## Fernando

luar said:
			
		

> Fernando: _"...the report says that 'allied' forces have killed more people than insurgents (not 90%)."_
> 
> Yes, it is true not 90 percent: "el estudio atribuye a las fuerzas estadounidenses un 98.5 por ciento del total de muertes."



I have posted my source. Please, post yours.

And please, learn some maths: 25,000 * 1.5% = 375 people killed by suicides. 

By God's sake, they have killed 80 people IN A DAY.


----------



## luar

Fernando said:
			
		

> I have posted my source. Please, post yours.
> 
> And please, learn some maths: 25,000 * 1.5% = 375 people killed by suicides.
> 
> By God's sake, they have killed 80 people IN A DAY.


 
My dear Fernando, I just can't post the link here, I don't now exactly why. I have to ask Mike about it. Well, I got this data from a local newspaper, called HOY. Try to do a search to find it. The article's name is _25, 000 han muerto en sangrienta guerra de Irak. _

I am going to follow your suggestion, I will review my math's notes when I finish writting this post. Thanks.


----------



## Fernando

Your link:
http://servicios.hoy.es/pg050720/prensa/noticias/Internacional/200507/20/HOY-INT-149.html

with these data:

"Las víctimas civiles causadas por la coalición liderada por Estados Unidos representa el 37,3% del total. Actos de terrorismo habrían causado algo más del 10% de muertes. Y cerca del 36% han sido causadas por criminales que actúan con mayor impunidad desde el comienzo de la guerra. La contabilidad presentada hoy extrae de las cifras los datos sobre fallecidos en actos criminales antes de la guerra, de tal modo que la estimación de los muertos causados por la quiebra del orden público se basa en el exceso de muertes respecto al promedio."

Where is the 98.5%?


----------



## Fernando

Original site:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/bodycount_all.php?ts=1121965110
I recommend you to read some random data to check who is killing civilians in Iraq.


----------



## luar

Fernando said:
			
		

> Your link (...) with these data:
> 
> "Las víctimas civiles causadas por la coalición liderada por Estados Unidos representa el 37,3% del total. Actos de terrorismo habrían causado algo más del 10% de muertes. Y cerca del 36% han sido causadas por criminales que actúan con mayor impunidad desde el comienzo de la guerra. La contabilidad presentada hoy extrae de las cifras los datos sobre fallecidos en actos criminales antes de la guerra, de tal modo que la estimación de los muertos causados por la quiebra del orden público se basa en el exceso de muertes respecto al promedio."
> 
> Where is the 98.5%?


 
Thanks for the effort, but that is not my source. _Hoy_ is a dominican newspaper. 

Fernando, it could be 90, 80, 70 or even 60 percent... Nothing would change the fact that around 25,000 women, men and children were wrongfully killed while the "salvation" army tried to make them "free".


----------



## Fernando

http://www.hoy.com.do/app/article.aspx?id=49325

What the article is saying is that 98.5% FROM THE 'KILLED BY ALLIED' FIGURE is caused by US Army (instead of other allies).

"La responsabilidad de los ejércitos de la coalición en las muertes de civiles es, sin embargo, muy desigual, y así el estudio atribuye a las fuerzas estadounidenses un 98,5 por ciento del total de muertes. 

El 1,5 por ciento restante corresponde a las causadas por las de otros países, como Gran Bretaña, Irlanda, Ucrania o personal de seguridad privado, especialmente contratado. "


----------



## luar

Fernando said:
			
		

> What the article is saying is that 98.5% FROM THE 'KILLED BY ALLIED' FIGURE is caused by US Army (instead of other allies).
> 
> "La responsabilidad de los ejércitos de la coalición en las muertes de civiles es, sin embargo, muy desigual, y así el estudio atribuye a las fuerzas estadounidenses un 98,5 por ciento del total de muertes.
> 
> El 1,5 por ciento restante corresponde a las causadas por las de otros países, como Gran Bretaña, Irlanda, Ucrania o personal de seguridad privado, especialmente contratado. "


 
You are right Fernando  . I got to excited while reading the article, that I missed the real meaning of these sentences. Nevertheless, that does not change my opinion regarding the war and how the USA and its allies have brought to the Iraqis dead instead of peace, and despair instead of freedom. Well, that´s all I have to say by now. 

Thanks again!


----------



## chica11

Hi, I just wanted to say something positive about the bickering between Luar and Fernando.  I see that you are both native speakers of Spanish and I congratulate you for arguing in English on this site.  Good job!! 

But let's stop the bickering for now and maybe instead of trying to see who is the most to blame, let's try and think of possible ways our countries should resolve these conflicts.  Not that they will listen to us of course.  I just think that it's easy to point fingers at people (and I am NOT saying fingers should NOT be pointed) but trying to think of ways to solve problems although more difficult, is really what is necessary.


----------



## luar

chica11 said:
			
		

> But let's stop the bickering for now and maybe instead of trying to see who is the most to blame, let's try and think of possible ways our countries should resolve these conflicts. Not that they will listen to us of course. I just think that it's easy to point fingers at people (and I am NOT saying fingers should NOT be pointed) but trying to think of ways to solve problems although more difficult, is really what is necessary.


 
Your words are full of wisdom.


----------



## Merlin

chica11 said:
			
		

> But let's stop the bickering for now and maybe instead of trying to see who is the most to blame, let's try and think of possible ways our countries should resolve these conflicts. Not that they will listen to us of course. I just think that it's easy to point fingers at people (and I am NOT saying fingers should NOT be pointed) but trying to think of ways to solve problems although more difficult, is really what is necessary.


 


I agree with you. If we want changes, it should start from us. Doing our part helping build a new tommorow without any bad intentions is a good start. I believe that poeple doing these things have their own agenda or motives. They crave for power, supremacy and money. And when they got what they want, who will suffer? Of course it will fall unto us. We will bear the pain or the consequence of their action. Why can't we all live in peace? I know it's not hard to do. Aren't they tired of fighting? Be a problem solver not the problem itself.


----------

