are we really afraid? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

philosophy -> are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 7:07:12 AM)

Straight after the London bombings, within a few hours in fact, a web site appeared called 'we are not afraid'. The intent was to show the terrorists and those who supported them, that they had not succeeded......we were not afraid.
Last night, on BBC tv, we saw Dan Rather (i believe he is a well known broadcaster on US tv).....he made an interesting point. whereas during the cold war there was a bipartisan approach in US politics, since 9/11 for several reasons, such an approach was missing.
Reading through the various 9/11 threads that have appeared in the last few days i must say i am struck by how partisan it has been. Democrats and Republicans both blaming each other, both sets of supporters suggesting the other side has the greatest blame.
Have the terrorists actually won? By eschewing a unified approach, have we given them the victory?
To take two regular posters as examples (i hope they can both forgive me for pointing the spotlight, there are others, but these two are possibly more prominant) crappy dom and sir kenin. It has seemed to me sometimes that you are both more interested in scoring points off the other than in examining causes and effects dispassionately. By behaving in such a way, are you fulfilling the terrorists desire to divide our culture?



CrappyDom -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 7:33:30 AM)

We were united after 9/11.  Then Bush wanted to invade Iraq and when we asked to see the plan we were called traitors by Republicans.  When we questioned attacks on our liberties, we were called traitors by Republicans.  When Democrats vote their conscience, Cheney announces Democrats are emboldening the terrorists.

So uh, yeah, we ain't united...



StrongButKind -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 7:58:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

We were united after 9/11.  Then Bush wanted to invade Iraq and when we asked to see the plan we were called traitors by Republicans.  When we questioned attacks on our liberties, we were called traitors by Republicans.  When Democrats vote their conscience, Cheney announces Democrats are emboldening the terrorists.

So uh, yeah, we ain't united...


George Bush acts on his conscience all day long, and so it gets harder to conduct stem cell research. I would like a lot less voting of politician's questionable consciences, and a lot more voting some intellect and reason. People on the reactionary extremes of both parties (read: GWB and CrappyDom) are the biggest part of the problem. It would be nice if you would all pipe down and let reason have a go at things for a while. Any chance we can have four years?



KenDckey -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 8:06:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

We were united after 9/11.  Then Bush wanted to invade Iraq and when we asked to see the plan we were called traitors by Republicans.  When we questioned attacks on our liberties, we were called traitors by Republicans.  When Democrats vote their conscience, Cheney announces Democrats are emboldening the terrorists.

So uh, yeah, we ain't united...


Crappy   You are a huge fucking liar.   I have never called you a traitor.  I have never called liberals traitors.   Only Jane Fonda



juliaoceania -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 8:15:30 AM)

The terrorist "win" if we do not behave as we always have... Americans fought bitterly before 9-11 over politics, and I see no reason for them to stop now that we have had 9-11.

I have little desire to be "united" with many Americans that are what I term The American Taliban (Christian Fundamentalists).. I see diversity of thought as America's strength, not its weakness.



KenDckey -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 8:17:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

The terrorist "win" if we do not behave as we always have... Americans fought bitterly before 9-11 over politics, and I see no reason for them to stop now that we have had 9-11.

I have little desire to be "united" with many Americans that are what I term The American Taliban (Christian Fundamentalists).. I see diversity of thought as America's strength, not its weakness.


I agree.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 8:25:56 AM)

FR:  Terrorists don't want to divide our culture, they want it destroyed and to have their doctrine reign supreme.

The best part about free speech is that you don't have to justify motivation (avoiding sticky areas like libel and false alarms).  While unity is always stronger than dissension, I won't sacrifice necessary rights for some short term unity in exchange for long term repression of freedom.

If we can't win and stand strong on the rights and freedoms we claim to hold imperative to our lives, then it's not worth winning.

Even if America as we know it doesn't survive, the concepts of freedom and ability to disagree and argue aren't going to just go away. 



philosophy -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 8:28:58 AM)

sorry to labour a point........but in response to this part of juliaoceania's post......

"The terrorist "win" if we do not behave as we always have... Americans fought bitterly before 9-11 over politics, and I see no reason for them to stop now that we have had 9-11."

......was Dan Rather wrong when he said that in the Cold War, although domestic politics carried on as normal, there was a bipartisan approach to an external threat (real or imagined).........is there any functional difference between domestic politics and foreign policy?



Rule -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 8:33:10 AM)

No, I am not really afraid of islamic terrorists. They have all been financed by western governments and financiers to provide an excuse to attack islam and islamic countries. The next step in this strategy may be to mindfuck some muslims and to provide them with nuclear material to make a dirty atom bomb and to mindfuck them some more to make them explode it in a European city.
I do not fear that either. We all die and most of us suffer; therefore these very minor, negligible acts of terrorism are not to be feared. Being on the streets is far more dangerous. Any idea how many die in traffic accidents? A lot.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: StrongButKind
George Bush acts on his conscience all day long
He has no conscience. He does not give a fuck. He sat in that school on 9/11 with a brick stone face, but behind the stones was the anticipation. Would his minions do as he had commanded? Would his plans be executed without a hitch? He was in that school to provide himself with an alibi.
 



StrongButKind -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 8:34:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

sorry to labour a point........but in response to this part of juliaoceania's post......

"The terrorist "win" if we do not behave as we always have... Americans fought bitterly before 9-11 over politics, and I see no reason for them to stop now that we have had 9-11."

......was Dan Rather wrong when he said that in the Cold War, although domestic politics carried on as normal, there was a bipartisan approach to an external threat (real or imagined).........is there any functional difference between domestic politics and foreign policy?



He was wrong. The divisiveness may be greater now (I suspect so.), but VietNam, Iran-Contra, Hostage Crisis, etc. demonstrated decided contention and division on foreign policy and perceived enemies.



juliaoceania -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 8:39:44 AM)

He was wrong, he forgot Vietnam...ooooops on his part since he covered that war.



philosophy -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 8:41:07 AM)

"He was wrong. The divisiveness may be greater now (I suspect so.), but VietNam, Iran-Contra, Hostage Crisis, etc. demonstrated decided contention and division on foreign policy and perceived enemies."



thanks for that.......at this range it's sometimes hard to figure out what's going on over the pond and so it's too easy to believe what we hear on TV. Luckily all you nice people can verify stuff for me :)




juliaoceania -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 8:45:57 AM)

I think we were far more divided during Vietnam. The debate in this country takes place in an echo chamber designed by corporations. It is not covering what is really happening. The same happened back in the Vietnam era, but once questioning and real dissent started it became a firestorm that erupted into Kent State Massacre... if you are unfamiliar with Kent State Philosophy.... please go google it, I think it will illustrate how wrong Rather was in what he stated.



philosophy -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 8:56:29 AM)

thanks for the search suggestion Julia.........after a quick read of the wikipedia entry it seems clear that Mr Rather was a tad misleading. However, most of the examples cited have been dissent over the Vietnam war.........was there an equivilant amount of dissent over the Cold War with Russia? Or did McCarthy manage to squelch it? Or was there no dissent to squelch?
i suppose i am trying to find out if there has ever been a time when America had what we in Britain might call the spirit of the Blitz........



juliaoceania -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 9:00:18 AM)

There were university professors that were fired, lost tenure, were followed and so on because they taught dangerous ideas (Marxism). The Cold War was not questioned as much in the 1950s, in the 60s there were many intellectuals that were socialists or communists. The FBI kept files on people, my parents had files on them for their anti-Vietnam stance. I think there was a lot of suppression, and it still exists within mainstream media today. This is not a Cold War issue, it is an issue of corporate powers controlling the flow of information and the power structure.

On edit, I think that the Russia thing was a boogieman in some ways, just like the terrorist threat is used



caitlyn -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 9:27:10 AM)

Obviously, terrorists (for lack of a better term) haven't won, nor have the countries that support them.
 
These thoughts about "a divided society" and "unity", make wonderful sound bites, but are not worth more than words. They can make you feel that you're stronger than you really are ... they can make you feel that you are disconcerting to your enemies. It's all an illusion.
 
Strength is a measurable, tangible thing. Intangibles only bolster what is measurable, they don't act or gain a result of their own accord.



meatcleaver -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 9:37:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

On edit, I think that the Russia thing was a boogieman in some ways, just like the terrorist threat is used


There is enough info now in the public domain to see that the USSR was responding to a western threat rather than the other way round as our governments would have us believe. The USSR wanting to place missiles in Cuba was a direct response to the US placing missiles in Turkey. France never truely believed the USSR was a threat and Germany was unconvinced as well but it was tied into the post war settlement and felt unable to have an independent policy. Italy was completely divided. It was only Britain that was 100% behind US policy in the cold war. Most Europeans never thought the USSR could attack because they thought it couldn't rely on its allies to not turn their guns round and fight the Russians in a war, the Russians were so disliked in the east.



philosophy -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 9:37:28 AM)

"Strength is a measurable, tangible thing. Intangibles only bolster what is measurable, they don't act or gain a result of their own accord."
 
not sure i agree with you on that specific point Caitlyn........surely propaganda is a powerful intangible........it has also been argued and accepted widely that the Spirit of the Blitz had a tangible effect on things.  If we rule such things out as irrelevant or of minimal importance don't we simply cede the ground?
 
i know in other threads you have argued that basically temporal might is the only factor worth considering, and we have cordially disagreed about that. Which is cool. But when you state that the terrorists havent won.......well, what is it they were hoping to achieve? Knocking down the WTC clearly was never going to bring down Western Civilisation......so maybe that wasn't their aim. Maybe it was to create what we have now.........a situation where political parties see it as merely a chance for partisan advancement. A few years of this and they wont need to bring any more buildings down, we'll be setting fire to them ourselves........



KenDckey -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 9:51:51 AM)

Actually I believe that diversity in thought is what makes this country great.  The declaration of war against the US was to bring us into lockstep with the islamic (and one particular sect at that) way.

Has anyone ever noticed that I don't attack anyone who says that they belive or think or most or something to that effect?   There is a reason.   Diversity in thought.   I get real personal when people try to lump everyone into a particular box ("Republicans, Democrats, etc").  That is not diversity in my humble opinion.   that is being dictitorial or whatever you call it where you are singling out a single group or train of thought and applying it to everyone who may lean toward that direction.

Do I support war?   Hell no.  I am a soldier and know what the taste, smell and sounds of it are.

Do I support public policy?   Yes.  because I believe that every single one of us that vote created it, whether we agreed with it or not.

Do I agree with all of the public policy?   Hell no, but I voted so I input my two cents where it counts.

Do I demand proof?  Yes

So what does this all mean?   That we have a right to our beliefs.  that I am willing to die for those beliefs.  but, to be lumped into a box because of some (not necessarily all) of my beliefs I take a hard line.   I believe we should all be that way.  that is what makes us strong.



LadyEllen -> RE: are we really afraid? (9/12/2006 9:58:17 AM)

We could all be as one, if the policies made any damned sense. I dont think many dissented from the Afghanistan invasion - thats where AQ were, so there we went. All the problems and disunity only started with the invasion of Iraq, which regardless of the dodgy intelligence dossiers flying about to justify it, we all knew was not where the AQ threat was - although regrettably and all too predictably, thats where it is now.
E



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.736328E-02