OT OT-- Mike and Brian--
I agree with the assessment that the Palestinians would be more effective with civil resistence than murder. Indeed, if they did what the Buddhist monks did in Vietnam and immolated themselves rather than murder innocent civilians, they would have had the world on their side.
I disagree with Brian that Mike expressed hatred towards Muslems. He did express, as do I, anger at the actions that led to the WTC, the assasination of countless thousands of Algerians, the mass murder by Assad at Hama and by Saddam Hussain at Halabja--which was gassed. In addition Bob Kennedy and Pope John Paul were shot by Muslems. Karen Armstrong, in her very supportive book on Muhammad, claims that Islam is misunderstood as a religion of war. It only allows for "just wars". I think that was among the dumbest claims. Everyone sees their own cause as being "just".
Given that we are under attack--by an element of Islam--the problem can be stated as how can we defend ourselves in the least destructive way possible. Interestingly, we had the grandaughter of the assasinated President of Syria over for dinner. She's from Hama, which was destroyed. She is Shiite while her husband is Sunni, a mixed marriage. They both were appalled by the terrorism but claimed that it was a reality that force is respected in the Mideast. She even understood the "necessity" for destroying Hama--the seat of resistence to Assad., even though she lost 5ooo of her own clan members. My point is that unless we charge that the USA is gratuitously killing people, we have an imperative obligation to use force. A joke that circulated around the Mideast was that, if the US were attacked, our response would be to sue. Sadly, I think war inevitably leads to civilian damage, but there is a huge difference between Hama, Halabja, and the WTC and our going after Al Qaida. If I knew a less damaging way, I would support it.
fred |
