World's most dangerous terrorist...?

My problem is that I realize that much of my way of life is only possible because of those who are willing to defend it. When I think about the cost of sustaining the wealth of the USA, including my little portion of it...the ability to go to college, own a car and home, raise my children in relative peace and security, have all that I want to read and eat...for me this is a moral dilemma.

lunamoth
 
I agree, lunamoth. It is a constant moral dilemma for me as well. If everyone in the world had the US standard of living (and I mean average, not rich, standard of living)- we'd need 4.5 earths to support it. The US way of life is simply not sustainable. The first world uses 80% of the world's energy resources. Doesn't leave a whole lot for the rest, especially considering half the world's population resides in India and China.

A lot of the violence and terrorism issues, the instability of governments, etc. around the world is based in the poverty of those areas. Too many desperate people who feel the only way they can survive and thrive is to take from others.

It's an issue with no easy answers for me. I work professionally to try to solve environmental problems and (peripherally) social justice issues, but is it even enough to offset my participation in the very system that causes so much poverty and environmental degradation worldwide? How do we solve problems that are so far beyond the individual and seem insurmountable?

I suggest that we start with the decisions we can easily control- how we vote, what we buy, and what we invest in. Then we gradually try to build from there until our lifestyle is more sustainable. I refuse to buy a big house, for example, although many in So Cal feel that any house less than 2000 square feet is "too small." 1,000 square feet is HUGE compared to world-wide averages! After I save some more, I eventually plan to run my house "green"- on solar, and to have more and more efficient water use systems. I do organic gardening and buy from local organic farmers when at all possible to cut down on the amount of fossil fuel and pesticide consumption. If someone has a lawn, they could have a garden that supplies a lot of their veggies and fruits. I try to drive as little as possible. All small things- drops in an enormous bucket- but we have to start somewhere. And you never know who will notice your actions and start their own journey into living in a socially and environmentally responsible manner...

All the problems of the world- war, poverty, environmental degradation, health issues- they are all interconnected. We have many places in the cycle that we can try to break the links that keep humanity spiraling downwards.
 
Hi path of one,

Been feeling quite down all day, starting my day out with that post. Every one of these threads on war, terrorism, etc. lead me back to the Sermon on the Mount, the first line of the beattitudes:

Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. (Luke 6:20b)

And then there's this:

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'


46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

(Matthew 25)

I agree with your post, the choices we each make every day count. But, we are living in a petri dish and no one is talking anymore about energy conservation or controlling population growth. My area of reasearch has been in plant biology, studying effects of pollutants and environmental stress on plants and crops, and working to increase food productivity. I've always felt it was a worthwhile goal, but if I had to start over again I would go into alternative feuls research. Wonder if there's any funding for that these days...

I gotta lighten up, :)
lunamoth

(believe it or not I removed some the the most depressing part of this post)
 
I think the most dangerous terrorist in the world is the Man/Woman who imposes their will over others, regardless of what the others' will is. This "terrorist" does not destroy thousands. The true terrorist kills one and frightens 10,000 (a Tsun Zau philosophy) (sp) into submission.

Effective, only until the 10,000 decide to refuse to be terrorized. Then the terrorist becomes the target.

Pappa Doc, and Baby Doc, Eddy Amine (sp), haung Choo Pou (sp), come to mind...

my two cents.

v/r

Q
 
USA Created Bin Laden and Saddam? The USA did not create these men. They are a direct result of the cultures they were born in. Their upbringing caused their evil. Bin Laden is a son of the Sadi royal family. He is born of a later wife than his many older brothers and had little chance of power within his normal life. Saddam is the result of deep power struggles in his own country. Our political leaders naively supported him in earlier struggles. Bin Laden is not a product of our country in the least. Our culture may have influnced him but did not create him. These are both men after their own greed and power. To blame the USA for these men is silly. The real problem here and every where in the world are the real wealthy and they are from all over the world not just the USA. The standard of living in this country is alright for most now but if the worlds wealthy have their way it won't be for long. The division of the left and the right in this country is frightning. Both sides are afraid of the others control. In this fight we are losing control of our own freedoms. The terrorists are the result of the countries they are born in. They have Rich and poor. The rich control the poor. The rich fight with each other for control and use the poor in their struggles. Old storie, yes that is really scary. It scares me for my children. I just have to pray and trust in God. God Bless
 
Quahom1 said:
I think the most dangerous terrorist in the world is the Man/Woman who imposes their will over others, regardless of what the others' will is. This "terrorist" does not destroy thousands. The true terrorist kills one and frightens 10,000 (a Tsun Zau philosophy) (sp) into submission.

Effective, only until the 10,000 decide to refuse to be terrorized. Then the terrorist becomes the target.

Pappa Doc, and Baby Doc, Eddy Amine (sp), haung Choo Pou (sp), come to mind...

my two cents.

v/r

Q
Sorry i submitted a reply without respondong. I agree with you completely! The world needs to stand up and say enough is enough. If everyone would spend their time, inventiveness, creativity and energy in positive ways trying to help one another the world would be a better place. Wasn't this sort of Jesus' message?:)
 
VLreal said:
Sorry i submitted a reply without respondong. I agree with you completely! The world needs to stand up and say enough is enough. If everyone would spend their time, inventiveness, creativity and energy in positive ways trying to help one another the world would be a better place. Wasn't this sort of Jesus' message?:)
It's at least a basically moral message. But we will always have someone who wants to be the king of the hill. Until, there is no king, and no hill...

v/r

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
It's at least a basically moral message. But we will always have someone who wants to be the king of the hill. Until, there is no king, and no hill...

v/r

Q
Exactly! What were those lyrics that Luna had? two Kings who wanted a war and nobody came. and nobody came...and nobody came (or something like that) I thought it was funny anyway.:)
 
As much as people hate the ones that voted Bush in the second time.. leads me to say that I regard any supporter of embryonic stem cell research as a terrorist. I also regard supporters of partial birth abortions as terrorists.. I also regard supporters of abortion as a means of birth control a terrorist. Babies are the only true innocents in this world as far as Im concerned.
 
Some of us are in the difficult position of believing all life is sacred, and are against all anti-life actions: war, abortion, capital punishment, exploitation of the poor, etc. as well as needless exploitation of the environment. We end up in the unfortunate position of having to decide which leaders will cause the least total loss of life, rather than having any choice on the ballot that represents a completely pro-life ethic in all the forms it would take: supporting better adoption systems, promoting world peace, ensuring adequate health care and financial security to all our nation's residents, conserving our natural resources. It disgusts me at every election that I have to pick and choose among my various morals as I try to figure out which leader will cause the least amount of suffering and death. It's pretty depressing.

As for innocence, I believe all children everywhere in the world are innocent. I don't see myself as an American. I see myself as a human being, and I am concerned with social injustice and suffering throughout the world. My morals are thus firmly against war, because it harms children and statistically causes more deaths of children than soldiers. I am also against our nation's lack of national health care- 25% of our nation is without any health care, and we have some of the highest infant and mother mortality rates in the first world because of this. Children should be protected from deaths caused by poverty and disease too, but this need often gets lost in the conflict over abortion. Bush talks a lot about abortion, but quite frankly he hasn't helped at all in ensuring the health and well-being of the working class and working poor women who end up having these babies. The poverty line is pitifully low, and health care is horrifically expensive. I rarely hear about protests and marches for the many children in our nation that live in poverty (50% of our nation's poor are under the age of 18, and approximately 25% of our nation is poor), even though this causes deaths too. I spent six months when I was about five years old homeless with my mother, who was working two jobs and still couldn't afford rent and the cost of commuting to work. She almost died from an illness because we had no health care. That's what being working poor is like, and I've yet to see a big religious or social movement protecting these kids from these sufferings after they're born. Understandably, I'm quite passionate about these issues.

Worldwide, the biggest sufferers of our global system of exploiting other people, of war, of the materialism this nation embraces... are innocent children. Children working in factories as young as four years old, dealing with land mines, starving and homeless. If there ever emerges a president that is truly committed to being pro-life in all its forms- to protecting the innocent lives of children everywhere- I will be first and foremost to support in any way I can. Until then, I (and so many others) are left with the dissatisfying process of trying to pick the person we think will harm people the least, and protect all life the most.
 
Faithfulservant said:
As much as people hate the ones that voted Bush in the second time.. leads me to say that I regard any supporter of embryonic stem cell research as a terrorist. I also regard supporters of partial birth abortions as terrorists.. I also regard supporters of abortion as a means of birth control a terrorist. Babies are the only true innocents in this world as far as Im concerned.
What you're talking about isnt terrorism, it's murder, and yes, it is wrong.

Terrorism is the process of using violence in order to force acceptance of a practice of philosophy.

Certain Islamic Fundamentalist groups attack the American (British, Spanish etc) people to achieve their own goals; an end to Western occupation of Iraq, an end to the American support of an oppressive isreali state etc.

Western Governments, led by America, use bombing raids, missile attacks and invasions to build a powerbase in the middle east and procure oil reserves for their 5-mile-to-the-gallon cars.

The IRA and UVF and associated groups use violence to ensure their own philosophical dominance of Northern Ireland.

ETA use violence to gain a tiny, fairly pointless independant state, a freedom from a fair, unopressive regime.

The Russian government uses extreme violence to maintain control over a relatively small area of land called chechenya.

Chechen Rebels take hostages and kill innocents to secure freedom from the Russian Federation.

Hundreds of groups are playing the same game and everyone insists that their group is right and their enemy is wrong. So while I do agree that Bush's stance on abortion is right (although he doesnt seem to do much to stop it) I do not agree with his self righteous, We're-the-good-guys-and-you're-the-bad-guys attitude.

STOP THE VIOLENCE.
 
You missed my point.. The comment was made that you were against the 51% of Americans that voted in GW Bush.. I pointed out WHY the majority of the 51% of Americans voted in President Bush and Not Kerry. President Bush was the lesser of two evils. People seem to think that every one of that 51% support every decision President Bush has made since 9-11.. thats not true.. There are laws we do not want to be made President Bush is against these laws. We have one war thats costing lives... laws made to support the above issues would costs millions of more lives in the long run.

Yes Stop the Violence.. Please do not allow young girls to become murderers.. Please do not allow our doctors to mutilate 3rd term babies... please do not allow the sacrifice of unborn babies to become the medical miracles that save other peoples lives.
 
The concept of terroism, starts at home, not in someone else's country. It starts in the family unit, not the next town over. Terrorists never listen to reason, because all others are beneath the terrorist, and they are not willing to negotiate their postition. Terrorists know only one law, theirs, or one that is superior to theirs by decimating force.

History shows that a terrorist normally will die rather than give in or comprimise. Most have no concept of comprimise. They want what they want and will stop at nothing to get it...and if they can't have it, neither will anyone else.

Terrorists do not reckognize "freedom". They understand "Rule" (their rule).

Want to stop the violence? Stop the terrorist.

Not that I am particularly for or against Mr. Bush...but the fact remains that he did not start this game. He wasn't even in office for eight months, before the serious part of this deadly game began. Nor did he make the first move.

I do however, recognize when my home, my land and my way of life is being threatened...and I have no problems taking the fight right to the heart of the matter. It's much better for you, and my family if I do so. I think Mr. Bush and the rest of America as a whole think along similar lines.

Nothing personal, but philosophy never saved a nation. So I guess I'll get back to work.

v/r

Q
 
Faithfulservant said:
I pointed out WHY the majority of the 51% of Americans voted in President Bush and Not Kerry. President Bush was the lesser of two evils. People seem to think that every one of that 51% support every decision President Bush has made since 9-11.. thats not true..
You (and the 51%) believe Pres. Bush was the lesser of two evils. I (and the other 49%) believe Kerry was the lesser of two evils. I'm sick of our choices being between two evils, as I'm sure you are. My point was that when you take a total pro-life stance, it is a difficult decision who is the lesser of two evils.

I don't think that everyone in that 51% supports Pres. Bush's subsequent decisions. My husband voted for Bush the first time round and didn't support a lot of his decisions. Second time round he withdrew his support after being upset at the way the war was handled. I know people who voted Bush both times and still disagree with him on certain issues, just as I voted Gore and then Kerry and yet disagreed with them on certain issues.

There are laws we do not want to be made President Bush is against these laws. We have one war thats costing lives... laws made to support the above issues would costs millions of more lives in the long run.
I'm honestly confused- what laws supporting what issues? And how would these cost millions of lives?
 
Perhaps because Americans haven't dealt with terrorism on a day to day basis (in the homeland). But that could change one day whether you like it or not. If you don't have the people like Bush working to keep it from happening, you may see it in your own life time.

I suspect it will become a reality anyway.

v/r

Q
 
Quahom1 said:
Terrorists do not reckognize "freedom". They understand "Rule" (their rule).
The reason a terroist becomes a dangerous leader, however, rather than simply a psychotic individual that is placed in a mental ward or prison, is the support of a bunch of disenfranchised, desperate, and generally poor ordinary people. And, oftentimes in recent history (and in the case of both Bin Laden and Hussein) the financial, political, and weapon support of the U.S. History shows this as well. If people are fulfilled in their lives, if they have their basic needs met, and feel secure, they do not support terrorist leaders.

Want to stop the violence? Stop the terrorist.
My point is that you can stop the terrorist through more violence, which doesn't address the roots of the problem and begets more violence, or you can figure out the causes of people's involvement in terrorism and work from there. Terrorists are only leaders because people support them. Why are people supporting them? Why do people get so desperate they will die before they compromise? So far, we keep having to deal with terrorists because instead of fixing the real cause of the problem, we're patching the wound with band-aids of wars. As long as we do this, we will continue to be in danger of terrorists.

Not that I am particularly for or against Mr. Bush...but the fact remains that he did not start this game. He wasn't even in office for eight months, before the serious part of this deadly game began. Nor did he make the first move.
Agreed. I don't agree with his subsequent moves, but I'm not saying he started the conflict personally. However, there are elements of the intolerance and unwillingness to compromise by which you define terrorists in various actions and statements Bush has made. He said once, "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists." That is a very dangerous statement, and indicates a dualistic view of folks that is remarkably like terrorists.

I do however, recognize when my home, my land and my way of life is being threatened...and I have no problems taking the fight right to the heart of the matter. It's much better for you, and my family if I do so. I think Mr. Bush and the rest of America as a whole think along similar lines.

Nothing personal, but philosophy never saved a nation. So I guess I'll get back to work.
I believe our soldiers, as a whole, are doing what they think is right. I don't think it's what is right, but I respect you all for what you do, because you are acting in accordance with your own beliefs. I recognize that what you do takes a lot of courage and I am sure you bear a lot of grief and pain in your job. The soldiers I know all hate war, but they feel it is necessary. I do not, or rather, I believe it is irrelevant even if it seems immediately necessary. What I believe is best for me and my family is to refuse to engage in or support violence, and I'd say America is about 50/50 split on this issue.

I know it may seem awful to some, but I don't care about nations, mine or others'. I care about people, and I really am incapable of understanding boundaries. I realize that is strange to most people. But it's the truth. I'm all about the sanctity of life and living according to my principles, and I could really care less about what happens with nations. Nations are imagined entities, lines drawn on a map. They have come and gone over the course of history. They are transient and very much of this world. The United States is a just one more player in this historical game, and a young and unsustainable one at that.

I love freedom. From what I've seen, though, our freedom has been more compromised since 9/11 from our own government (through the Patriot Act, increasing regulations on the media, etc.) than it ever was by Hussein or Bin Laden. Furthermore, no one can take the freedom of my mind and soul, and in the end, that's all that really matters. Personally, as much as I'm able, I refuse to take another life, because I believe that action stays with my soul. Death or oppression is temporary, and such suffering is transcended when we are before God, but I will have to stand with my actions before God. On that day, I know I can't be perfect, but I want to stand before Him as a soul that sought to be as loving and forgiving as possible. For me, I just can't find killing someone loving or forgiving, no matter what my justification.
 
Quahom1 said:
I suspect it will become a reality anyway.
I do too, but for different reasons. Many social scientists are alarmed that our own government is beginning to act more and more like it's heading toward a theocracy or fascist regime. These are folks that have studied such movements professionally, often for decades. It's not my area of expertise, but the trends are alarming.

I would say that some of the greatest threats to the American way of life (freedom, separation of church and state, democracy, etc.) are actually from within our own nation, ranging from the increasing problems with gangs and alienation of our youth, to the increasing apathetic and uneducated culture of Americans in general. Aside from the 50/50 split who voted in the last election and continue to hash out all these issues, you have a bunch of folks that are either feel so hopeless about everything or care so little about anything that they don't even bother to learn about the issues, vote, and discuss with others. Not exactly a population that is unified even in its desire to create a better nation and world...
 
path_of_one said:
I do too, but for different reasons. Many social scientists are alarmed that our own government is beginning to act more and more like it's heading toward a theocracy or fascist regime. These are folks that have studied such movements professionally, often for decades. It's not my area of expertise, but the trends are alarming.

I would say that some of the greatest threats to the American way of life (freedom, separation of church and state, democracy, etc.) are actually from within our own nation, ranging from the increasing problems with gangs and alienation of our youth, to the increasing apathetic and uneducated culture of Americans in general. Aside from the 50/50 split who voted in the last election and continue to hash out all these issues, you have a bunch of folks that are either feel so hopeless about everything or care so little about anything that they don't even bother to learn about the issues, vote, and discuss with others. Not exactly a population that is unified even in its desire to create a better nation and world...
What I suggest is simple, but apparently so hard...start at home, and work next with the neighbors...then see what happens...maybe then me and mine wouldn't have to put on a uniform, but until then, there are those of us that will. You think you have a large stake in world peace? My whole name sake and the potential end of my family line is at stake, today as I write (all the males are in uniform overseas, and I have no daughters). I don't like it either. But, someone has to.

Terrorists must be stopped, no matter the cost. Pacifism will not work.

v/r

Q
 
We'll have to agree to disagree about pacifism, but I do sincerely appreciate what you and yours do, the sacrifices you make, and the tough decisions with which you wrestle. Even if I am pacifist, I recognize we are all on our own paths, and though I may feel called to abstain from all violence, others may feel called to be soldiers. I think most soldiers are doing what they feel to be right, and so I am supportive of those among my friends and family who are in the military, even if I don't agree with war.

My prayers are with all soldiers and everyone hurt by war, and I pray always for peace to come...
 
path_of_one said:
We'll have to agree to disagree about pacifism, but I do sincerely appreciate what you and yours do, the sacrifices you make, and the tough decisions with which you wrestle. Even if I am pacifist, I recognize we are all on our own paths, and though I may feel called to abstain from all violence, others may feel called to be soldiers. I think most soldiers are doing what they feel to be right, and so I am supportive of those among my friends and family who are in the military, even if I don't agree with war.

My prayers are with all soldiers and everyone hurt by war, and I pray always for peace to come...
Fine, you become the nurse, the doctor, the priest/Imam/Rabbi, and let the rest of us go into the fray.

It would be a serious mistake for society to pull another "Vietnam" fiasco at home...I don't think the military members would accept it kindly. I think that would cause a crack in this country that would never mend.

You sent us there. You better bring us back (as heroes).

Anything less is unacceptable.

v/r

Q
 
Back
Top