Global Sentiments

Global Sentiments

Daniel said: "The other half just re-stated that you refuse to care what people in other parts of the world think." I stated nothing of the kind. I DID state that I care nothing about what TERRORISTS think. I do believe that terrorists are a small part of the world's population. There is simply nothing anyone can do to ever change a terrorist's mind. If the U.S. wasn't there for them to hate then they'd hate Isreal. If Isreal wasn't there they'd hate European countries. If Europe wasn't there they'd hate Iran. If Iran wasn't there they'd pour their energies on other Arab countries. They hate for the sake of hating. I can't change that, you can't change that. Trying to understand and embrace that will change nothing, they'll still hate. Daniel said: "You've just exhibited the same arrogance I see in many people in the U.S. who think we can get away with ignoring the rest of the world and kill those that do something we don't like." Again putting words into my mouth. Daniel stated: "Then when you start implying that what I am saying is like defending a rapist, it's obvious that you are not listening." If you are defending a terrorst then you understand me correctly. A terrorist is no better than a rapist. In fact, they're worse. Daniel said: "I thought I was fairly clear that I think the large majority of the people there are reasonable, but have problems with us." Ok, maybe I misread your posts. I thought you were stating that their problem wasn't with "us" but the U.S. government. Which is it? chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

[dacust]

Global Sentiments

OK. I give up. Half of your responses simply responded to me as if I had an attitude that I never stated. The other half just re-stated that you refuse to care what people in other parts of the world think. You've just exhibited the same arrogance I see in many people in the U.S. who think we can get away with ignoring the rest of the world and kill those that do something we don't like. Then when you start implying that what I am saying is like defending a rapist, it's obvious that you are not listening. I will not try to state my opinion any more, But I would like to point out some of the errors in how you reacted to me: Chuck said: "I think you might be a little naive here. I firmly believe that there is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent terrorists from coming out of the woodwork" I never said "prevent". See disclaimer #3 (the second "3", sorry I had two number 3's) I specifically said that it would not eliminate it. As carefully as I stated that, you chose to read it the way you wanted to react to it. Not taking the time to try to understand what I said caused you to call me "naive" and "silly". If, indeed I had said what you seem to think I said, I'd agree with you that I'm naive and silly. But, now instead of making a good point, you only reveal that you don't read. You just skim until you see something you can respond to with a cute phrase. *I* think it's a bit naive to think we can simply stamp out terrorism by force (darn I SAID I was going to try not to state my opinions...) I won't take the rest of your responses to what I said on a case by case basis, because the majority of the rest of your reaction shows that you chose to ignore the wording where I said "terrorists" at some times, but at other times use phrases like "people in that region", "people in the mid-east". I thought I was fairly clear that I think the large majority of the people there are reasonable, but have problems with us. And that there is a small group that seems to think terrorism is the way to go (a group which I, and most people in the middle east, abhor). Either you totally missed what I was saying, or you are really so blind and ignorant as to think all Muslims are terrorists. (Sorry, I'm reacting like you would, here.) Your responses act as if I said it would solve the problem. If you will read it again, you'll notice that very little is said with out a "many", "most", "just", or other qualifiers that shows I did not think anything was absolute. See the second disclaimer #3 again. Yes, if you choose to, you can read it that I think terrorists have nothing but noble thoughts. I think most people reading it would not arrive at that conclusion. Especially if they had read any of my other posts on this subject. However, reading it again myself, it wouldn't surprise me if someone read it and asked for clarification, because some of it is not worded carefully to make absolutely sure that that point is gotten across in EVERY sentence. (This, by-the-way, is me trying to be objective and re-read my own post to try to see if it's reasonable to interpret it in a way other than what I meant. It could be interpreted different, but I think only by someone who is choosing to interpret it for their own ends instead of trying to understand what I meant.) Anyway, as I said, I give up. Having to carefully write something with all the disclaimers (that you don't read) and having to worry about exact phrasing (since you jump on individual phrases instead of trying to understand the overall message) is making it way too difficult to discuss anything with you. Thanks for making me think, though.

[J.Pluta]

Global Sentiments

I know that I got a few emails from my international readers that suggested that I might be baised against India and/or Indians. I thought I was pretty clear in my statements that I has no problems with those who hold visas, or who perform the offshore services; my beef is with those who abuse policies in order to displace American workers. I thought I went out of my way to be even-handed, but some of the incredible hatred I got in return confounded me. And then I read some things recently that just floored me. You can read them yourself in the following URL: http://saloon.javaranch.com/cgi-bin/...&f=32&t=005028 This is a typical geo-political discussion over there, initially focusing on "who's next" in the deposed dictator sweepstakes, and chatting about Mugabe and Karimov, but somewhere about the 11th message, a gentleman with a definitely Indian sounding name posts the following: "Personally i support Saddam. Actually majority of indians support him...coz he isnt a terroist, it is America who made the world call him so. America is just making way for its hidden agenda...i.e. OIL in Iraq. If it is that concerned abt world peace and terroism, dont u think it should hav helped India first which is facing terroism since last 40-50 years? " I was floored. I continued to read others, each from a different person, all folks from India: "Sad to say, but the above statement truly reflects the majority Indian sentiment." "For our other (non-Indian) friends on this forum, let me give you my take on the basis of anti-american sentiment in India. During the cold war era, USSR was supporting India, esp. in the Indo-pak rivalry. Infact, America probabley started supporting Pakistan to contain support for USSR in that region. And most of us in India grew up being taught that USSR was all good and America was all bad, that Stalin and Lenin were heros, and that people in USSR lived ideal lives." "Hate would be a much exaggerated word to define the emotion it is more kind of mistrust." These are excerpts, and in the interests of full disclosure, there were some pro-American (or at least less anti-American) sentiments expressed as well. But the overwhelming sense I got was that there are a large number of people in India who mistrust and/or hate America. I'd really want to hear from some other folks from India regarding this particular issue. If American companies are thinking of sending sensitive data and mission critical systems support over to India, it's probably important to know what those people think of you and your country. Joe

Global Sentiments

Daniel said: "The point I'm trying to make is that by refusing to understand the the social/political/economic situation that is producing the extreme frustration and anger that is manifesting itself as terrorism, we are doomed to spend the rest of our existence with more and more terrorists coming out of the woodwork. Trying to just hunt them down will only produce more." I think you might be a little naive here. I firmly believe that there is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent terrorists from coming out of the woodwork. There will always be terrorsist just as there will always be ants. It's a mental condition that will never be appeased. Just as there will always be mass murderers, rapists and drug dealers. To think otherwise is silly. Daniel also said: "In this country we have stated our resolve to exterminate terrorism. What's makes you think they have any less resolve in their goals?" As it has been since the beginning of time. Hatred and war will persist. Daniel claims: "Their basic goal is to get the people of the U.S. to get interested in what our own government is doing in our names, and to realize that it is unfair for us to continually mess with their countries." I believe that terrorists are psychopaths who enjoy gaining attention for themselves. It's like an arsonist. They love the attention it brings, even if it causes them death in the process. They have weak minds and are easily brainwashed into thinking this attention is for some good. I do NOT believe they are trying to get my attention to change my government. If that is truely their mission, as you state, then you can see by my reaction it's not working and likely will never work. You're trying to claim that their mission is benevolent. I believe it is not. They're simply crazed. They are no more benevolent than the ants that invade my house. And, like the ants, we will never rid our planet of them. We can only hope to rid our local sphere of them. Daniel said: "Their portion of the world has been in turmoil for centuries," You'd think after all these millenium they'd learn what civilization is all about. Yet they keep bumbling on, relying on religion to control the masses and keep them opressed. Daniel claimed: "The terrorists are using horrible evil methods to try get across a message that all the people in that region want to get across." The next thing I expect to hear is that the local rapist is trying hard to tell me that the school system did terrible things to him and raping women is his way of bringing it to my attention. Daniel said: "The majority of them don't want to get the message across using terrorism," I simply don't belive that. Terrorism is like extreme sports. It's a rush. To be able to put the hurt on Goliath must be a very big adrenalin high. If they channelled this energy into something constructive they could achieve amazing things. Daniel said: "but they want the message to get across." The only message I'm receiving is that they are uncivilized barbarians that love to kill for the thrill of it. They certainly don't embrace the sancity of life. Until they do I won't embrace them. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

[dacust]

Global Sentiments

We're in danger of trying to turn this analogy into an allegory, but I'll keep running with it for now. You haven't gotten rid of the ants. You only kill the few that show up from time to time. In the real world, is it acceptable to just track down the terrorists after they have showed their faces? Unlike the ants that are just a nuisance in your bathroom, terrorists are not showing up for a little water and warmth. The point I'm trying to make is that by refusing to understand the the social/political/economic situation that is producing the extreme frustration and anger that is manifesting itself as terrorism, we are doomed to spend the rest of our existence with more and more terrorists coming out of the woodwork. Trying to just hunt them down will only produce more. In this country we have stated our resolve to exterminate terrorism. What's makes you think they have any less resolve in their goals? Their basic goal is to get the people of the U.S. to get interested in what our own government is doing in our names, and to realize that it is unfair for us to continually mess with their countries. We have helped install many a dictator, and then turned around and ran them out of power when it suited us later. Their portion of the world has been in turmoil for centuries, but our government has helped make it exponentially worse in the last several decades by using those countries as pawns. People in the mid-east have been yelling for decades that we should stop killing their leaders and screwing with their politics. Since we never listened, why should it surprise us that terrorism is the result? We are the bully on the block, and they know there's no way to stand face to face with us in a fair fight. The terrorists are using horrible evil methods to try get across a message that all the people in that region want to get across. The majority of them don't want to get the message across using terrorism, but they want the message to get across. The U.S. has the power. That means we have the chance to do some real good in the world. I don't mean be "do-gooders". I don't mean we save the entire world. But if we could just spend a LITTLE time trying to be compassionate when dealing with other countries, especially the ones we're mad at, then we could make our own lives so much easier instead of taking a course that means we spend more and more time looking over our shoulders. OK, now for the disclaimers. 1) I said "Trying to just track them down". Notice I use the word "just". I agree we need to try to track them down, I just don't think that by it self, it will produce any long term results, or even sort term ones. 2) Just because I agree that people in the mid-east have some very legitimate grips that we need to pay attention to, I absolutely do not agree with the terrorists methods (and neither do the great majority of people in those countries). Many an evil deed is done with great intentions. 3) "We are the bully on the block." I'm not saying we are all bad. Often we have good intentions. We do much good in the world. But we can be blind. And since we are the biggest and baddest around, it's easy for us to be arrogant and decide we're going to do what we want and not bother understanding why it pisses other people off. Once again, many an evil is done with great intentions. 3) "looking over our shoulders". I'm not saying it will make everyone love us. It would cut down on some of the vehemence, though. There will always be people jealous of others who are successful. But why do we have to go out of our way to make people hate us? One last thought: Most people's definition of "Love your enemy" is that they hope God will help their enemy to be saved and take them to heaven, and the sooner the better.

Global Sentiments

Leaving the food out isn't he problem (to continue our metaphor). Ants will still come. Somehow ants attack the sink in my master bedroom on the second floor. Only thing there is warmth and water, no food. Nothing I can do about that but keep the spray handy. Same with terrorists. No matter what we do or say they'll keep coming. They simply hate us because we don't embrace their fanatical ideas. I'm not going to waste my time to try to understand them. I simply don't care about them, they insects to me. Best to keep the spray handy. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "Daniel Stephens" wrote in message news:6ae8baf2.12@WebX.WawyahGHajS... > Chuck said: "Personally, I have no desire to try to understand how a terrorist thinks. I'll leave that to the CIA guys." > > Taking that attitude is what makes the situation worse. For two reasons. > > First, I have never really trusted the CIA. I'm not talking about conspiricies or corruption, I'm simply talking about the fact that they have a slightly different agenda. They have their own jobs to think about, and in a position like they have, developing a God complex is easy. And natural. I think they basically do a good job, but by us (oh no, OK, so for Joe, do I need to go into detail what I mean by the word "us"?) not caring what the terrorists think, at the very least we make the CIAs job more difficult. They not only have to deal with the REAL problems, but they have to deal with people's anger about perceived slights, hurts, damages, etc. > > If you spray for ants but leave the food out, you'll have the ants return much quicker. And it's pretty well guarenteed that the ants will come back. > > If we understand what the terrorists think, we'll most likely be able to (as a world, not just individuals) deal with the problem better, and with a more lasting effect. Even more important, we might be able to see where our government (and especially the CIA) has done things in those countries that helped start the hatred in the first place. > > There's a saying, from somewhere, that says "Love your enemy". Most people seem to not understand this concept at all. First to define "love": If a child is cought shoplifting, the parrent's first reaction is "Not my child", then "they were going to pay for it", to "someone put them up to it", to "I wonder why", to "What did I do wrong", and so on and so forth. The parent WANTS the child to be good, no matter how the evidence looks, and will exhaust ALL arguments before deciding that their child is simply bad. > > Love your enemy is the same thing. I want to know why. I want to know if there was something that I did that was part of the problem. I want to know what I can do to help. Unlike the imperfect love of a parent, (where it can be a kind of blind love,) I also, while loving my enemy, have no problem condemning someone to death if it seems they went too far. But I still want to understand. > > -dan

[dacust]

Global Sentiments

Chuck said: "Personally, I have no desire to try to understand how a terrorist thinks. I'll leave that to the CIA guys." Taking that attitude is what makes the situation worse. For two reasons. First, I have never really trusted the CIA. I'm not talking about conspiricies or corruption, I'm simply talking about the fact that they have a slightly different agenda. They have their own jobs to think about, and in a position like they have, developing a God complex is easy. And natural. I think they basically do a good job, but by us (oh no, OK, so for Joe, do I need to go into detail what I mean by the word "us"?) not caring what the terrorists think, at the very least we make the CIAs job more difficult. They not only have to deal with the REAL problems, but they have to deal with people's anger about perceived slights, hurts, damages, etc. If you spray for ants but leave the food out, you'll have the ants return much quicker. And it's pretty well guarenteed that the ants will come back. If we understand what the terrorists think, we'll most likely be able to (as a world, not just individuals) deal with the problem better, and with a more lasting effect. Even more important, we might be able to see where our government (and especially the CIA) has done things in those countries that helped start the hatred in the first place. There's a saying, from somewhere, that says "Love your enemy". Most people seem to not understand this concept at all. First to define "love": If a child is cought shoplifting, the parrent's first reaction is "Not my child", then "they were going to pay for it", to "someone put them up to it", to "I wonder why", to "What did I do wrong", and so on and so forth. The parent WANTS the child to be good, no matter how the evidence looks, and will exhaust ALL arguments before deciding that their child is simply bad. Love your enemy is the same thing. I want to know why. I want to know if there was something that I did that was part of the problem. I want to know what I can do to help. Unlike the imperfect love of a parent, (where it can be a kind of blind love,) I also, while loving my enemy, have no problem condemning someone to death if it seems they went too far. But I still want to understand. -dan

[David Abramowitz]

Global Sentiments

Bill Robins asked: which companies would want their business operations in a country at war where nuclear munitions are a viable option? Apparently a whole bunch of them. . . . ....Unfortunately. Dave

Global Sentiments

Daniel said: "Absolutely. But we should try to understand what they THINK." Personally, I have no desire to try to understand how a terrorist thinks. I'll leave that to the CIA guys. Terrorists are non-civilized homosapeins (to call them humans would be an insult to me) and to ask me to try to understand them is an insult to my intelligence. I don't try to understand the ants that invade my house, I only try to eradicate them. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

[dacust]

Global Sentiments

Sorry, me saying "That is correct" is a little arrogant of me. I should have said "I definately think you are right", or something like that....

[dacust]

Global Sentiments

Chuck said "To the world "Americans" almost always means U.S." That is correct. However, as I said, many people take this as arrogance. Many Americans feel slighted, because they are also Americans. This is just a situation where I think it would be a good idea for us to be aware of when we speak. No a huge deal, but it does evoke a negative response in some people, usually the very people we are trying to make a point to (at least when talking to foreigners). A hard thing to keep in mind (and I include myself) when trying to make a point to someone, is that it doesn't matter as much what we are trying to get across. It matters what they hear. We can't completely control what they hear, but the more we try to understand their views (right and wrong), the more likely it is that what we want to say is what they will hear. Not necessarily "likely", but "more likely". Chuck said "Yet they don't understand that it only awakens our personal defenses and"..... Absolutely. But we should try to understand what they THINK. If we don't, we are doomed to repetition. Same reasons as above.

[dacust]

Global Sentiments

Yes, I think that is being very picky. However, you are technically right. I guess I should have said: "In my opinion, based on my limited viewpoint, it appears to me that the prevalent attitude of the people in the US that take the time to vocalize their thoughts, and the quotes I hear from politicians (that is, only on the stations I listen to), ....." yeah, whatever. Sorry, I just said "WE". I left it "WE" because I perceive it "prevalent", to be a widespread attitude. Whereas what I was referring to about our attitudes towards other countries is that it often seems to be based on the attitudes of the minority. I THINK I am making my statements about people in the US based on the MAJORITY of the attitudes I hear. Sorry to confuse you by over-simplifying.

Global Sentiments

Daniel said: "Even most statements from terrorists seem to see this difference, but they say they have to use terrorism to get our attention" Yet they don't understand that it only awakens our personal defenses and activates our protection emotions against the terrorists. Terrorists are terrible psychologists. They have no understanding of the general American resolve. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

Global Sentiments

Daniel said: "Lots of American politicians (Canadians, Peruvians, etc.) can be trusted." No matter how how you slice it, "polititian" and "trust" should never be used in the same context. Daniel said: "(Chuck, you said "Americans" above." To the world "Americans" almost always means U.S. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.

Global Sentiments

Joe Pluta wrote: > Actually, Chuck, if you read the post I was floored by the > pro-Hussein sentiment. But thank you for your input. Joe, Fanaticism knows no boundaries. I actually am quite intrigued as to how this whole "India" thing is going to play out. It's already been intimated that India has played down it's reaction to Pakistan's military actions in deference to it's business ties to the US. After all, which companies would want their business operations in a country at war where nuclear munitions are a viable option? Bill