WTC and European reaction to the US military action
grey
destruction has had in the US, and it's time for more commmunication.
On both sides. What happened to the WTC was not played out over and
over and over on Euro TV as it was in the US, and the deep
understanding of the 5,000 lives lost in an act of war really hasn't
sunk in in Europe as it has in the US. As a result, one sees not only
jokes about the incident in this group, and ridicule about dropping
rations that contain peanut butter (of all the petty things to find
fault with!) on Afghanistan, but also an underlying feeling that the
US has "started a war" (according to one poster) in Afghanistan,
apparently for no reason. These feelings go all the way up to the
recent large scale anti-US demonstrations in Europe, where protesters
again and again denouce what's going on as "the richest country in the
world attacking one of the poorest".
I'd like to encourage thoughtful Europeans to consider the depth of
the WTC tragedy in the US, and not to simply respond in the
time-honored jingoistic America-is-wrong way. I'd like them to think
what it means to have the flagship of New York City destroyed in that
way, and to imagine what it would have felt like if the same had
happened in London or Paris or Berlin or Rome. Most of them have, of
course, given this tragedy serious thought, but in very few cases has
it sunk in as it has in America.
So I'd like to encourage a little more understanding on this issue.
Even if you don't agree with the present military action, make
yourself an American for a moment--just a moment, perhaps--and let
that tragedy sink in as it has here every day since it occurred. Then
perhaps you'll understand a little better. I'm not asking you to agree
with the military actions going on, or their target--those decisions
and your opinions are up to you--just to let the whole issue sink in,
and to come closer in that understanding. Because what we need now is
clarity and communication; no longer will the usual knee-jerk
reactions and tired cliches suffice.
Jim Ley
>I think very few Europeans truly understand the impact the WTC
>destruction has had in the US, and it's time for more commmunication.
>On both sides. What happened to the WTC was not played out over and
>over and over on Euro TV as it was in the US,
It certainly was in the UK, although I get the impression that the UK
media is more aligned in the style of news coverage with the US than
the rest of Europe, but I have little reason to believe there's much
difference in the amount of coverage, the type of coverage yes, there
are distinct differences (in the first hours/days after US news seemed
to talk up the technical needs, UK seemed to talk down for example.)
but there's been a lot of it.
I see more of a situation, that many posters from America, take
criticism and comment too seriously, and seem to have a view that any
negative comment, or criticism is a criticism of the whole.
I've been calling the food drop a PR stunt, and commenting on the
innaccuracy of the weaponry, you could take this as "an attack on
America" yet I believe everything is entirely justified, support it
fully, and don't believe anything has been done wrong. PR stunts are
essential, and warfare isn't surgery, and I think it's important to
know that, otherwise there can easily be future situations where
warfare is chosen as a solution due to its accuracy etc. when it's not
borne out by the evidence.
Jim.
grey
>On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:53:26 -0400, grey <n...@available.com> wrote:
>
>>I think very few Europeans truly understand the impact the WTC
>>destruction has had in the US, and it's time for more commmunication.
>>On both sides. What happened to the WTC was not played out over and
>>over and over on Euro TV as it was in the US,
>
>It certainly was in the UK, although I get the impression that the UK
>media is more aligned in the style of news coverage with the US than
>the rest of Europe, but I have little reason to believe there's much
>difference in the amount of coverage, the type of coverage yes, there
>are distinct differences (in the first hours/days after US news seemed
>to talk up the technical needs, UK seemed to talk down for example.)
>but there's been a lot of it.
I have to disagree--you may think it's been covered in the UK as in
the US, but that's not so, judging from the UK papers I read. Nor has
the populace been glued to their TVs daily as they have here. The
coverage in the US still shows the WTC going down, every day. How many
days have you seen the streets in town after town utterly clear
because people were at home watching news coverage?
>I see more of a situation, that many posters from America, take
>criticism and comment too seriously, and seem to have a view that any
>negative comment, or criticism is a criticism of the whole.
You're correct in that many Americans seem less willing to tolerate
uninformed criticisms now. I've seen that too. In fact, I've seen that
in this group, with posters responding to jokes in poor taste by
saying, politely, that they are not ready for jokes about it.
>I've been calling the food drop a PR stunt, and commenting on the
>innaccuracy of the weaponry, you could take this as "an attack on
>America" yet I believe everything is entirely justified, support it
>fully, and don't believe anything has been done wrong. PR stunts are
>essential, and warfare isn't surgery, and I think it's important to
>know that, otherwise there can easily be future situations where
>warfare is chosen as a solution due to its accuracy etc. when it's not
>borne out by the evidence.
Jim, I'm not attacking you personally, or your comments. I'm not
telling you what to say or what not to say. But it's clear that this
hasn't sunk in for you to the same depth that it has people in the US.
And that's what I'm saying--not whether what's happening is right or
wrong--but simply that it's worth knowing how deep, how very deep,
this is in the US; that's something very few Europeans seem to
understand right now.
>Jim.
>
>
>
Jim Ley
>I have to disagree--you may think it's been covered in the UK as in
>the US, but that's not so, judging from the UK papers I read. Nor has
>the populace been glued to their TVs daily as they have here. The
>coverage in the US still shows the WTC going down, every day.
And here, Fox news is available 24/7 and other bulletins also, I think
I have a reasonable appreciation of some of the US coverage, the UK
newspapers aren't the same as our 24 hour news stations, certainly
more than you would have of our news services, where there are no UK
domestic stations available.
>>I see more of a situation, that many posters from America, take
>>criticism and comment too seriously, and seem to have a view that any
>>negative comment, or criticism is a criticism of the whole.
>
>You're correct in that many Americans seem less willing to tolerate
>uninformed criticisms now.
Or informed criticism, or indeed comment that isn't criticism.
>Jim, I'm not attacking you personally, or your comments. I'm not
>telling you what to say or what not to say. But it's clear that this
>hasn't sunk in for you to the same depth that it has people in the US.
You are over generalising, at least that is how it seems to me, many
people act differently they are pefectly capable of still thinking in
any situation.
What real difference do you see between how it's affected the average
man in Surrey, and the average man in Orange County, both are far from
the real area, probably as likely to know as many people involved, see
similar media, the countries are very similar both in history, media
etc. Why should it have touched one more than the other.
>And that's what I'm saying--not whether what's happening is right or
>wrong--but simply that it's worth knowing how deep, how very deep,
>this is in the US.
That is still no reason to censor views, or stop criticism, or
comment, it's essential, balance and criticism is essential to both
general democracy and coming to good individual decisions. No matter
how "deep this is in the US", it doesn't change how much I believe
debate, comment and criticism is.
As to "sick jokes" I've not actually seen many in the group, but
humour in such situations is a common human response, military humour
is often extremely black and can understand why.
Jim.
Go Fig
wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 15:25:13 -0400, grey <n...@available.com> wrote:
>
> >I have to disagree--you may think it's been covered in the UK as in
> >the US, but that's not so, judging from the UK papers I read. Nor has
> >the populace been glued to their TVs daily as they have here. The
> >coverage in the US still shows the WTC going down, every day.
>
> And here, Fox news is available 24/7 and other bulletins also, I think
> I have a reasonable appreciation of some of the US coverage, the UK
> newspapers aren't the same as our 24 hour news stations, certainly
> more than you would have of our news services, where there are no UK
> domestic stations available.
Some 12 million DSS households have access to BBC America... which during crisis
times takes the direct feed from BBC's UK primary feed. Further... CSPAN2 covers
Parliaments Thursday's questions for the PM, in full, as well as other featured
debates.
jay
Tue, Oct 16, 2001
mailto:go...@mac.com
--
Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."
grey
>And here, Fox news is available 24/7 and other bulletins also, I think
>I have a reasonable appreciation of some of the US coverage, the UK
>newspapers aren't the same as our 24 hour news stations, certainly
>more than you would have of our news services, where there are no UK
>domestic stations available.
Nope, no unless you've been watching that coverage as much as the
average American has.
>>>I see more of a situation, that many posters from America, take
>>>criticism and comment too seriously, and seem to have a view that any
>>>negative comment, or criticism is a criticism of the whole.
>>
>>You're correct in that many Americans seem less willing to tolerate
>>uninformed criticisms now.
>
>Or informed criticism, or indeed comment that isn't criticism.
Once again you seem determined to take a suggestion for understanding
as a personal affront.
>>Jim, I'm not attacking you personally, or your comments. I'm not
>>telling you what to say or what not to say. But it's clear that this
>>hasn't sunk in for you to the same depth that it has people in the US.
>
>You are over generalising, at least that is how it seems to me, many
>people act differently they are pefectly capable of still thinking in
>any situation.
>
>What real difference do you see between how it's affected the average
>man in Surrey, and the average man in Orange County, both are far from
>the real area, probably as likely to know as many people involved, see
>similar media, the countries are very similar both in history, media
>etc. Why should it have touched one more than the other.
This shows an inabilty to put yourself in others' shoes. America feels
very substantially under attack, it's not a question of "distances".
>>And that's what I'm saying--not whether what's happening is right or
>>wrong--but simply that it's worth knowing how deep, how very deep,
>>this is in the US.
>
>That is still no reason to censor views, or stop criticism, or
>comment, it's essential, balance and criticism is essential to both
>general democracy and coming to good individual decisions.
Off topic. If I had been talking about censorship, etc, that might
have been relevant. So far, you've accused me of censorship,
over-generalizing, claiming that everything on the topic is an "Attack
against America" and etc, while what I have in fact done is to suggest
that each side try to understand each other better, and that's it.
I'm afraid I no longer have time for petty self-centered sophistry and
intentional misunderstanding like that. This conversation is over; go
to someone else to handle the chip on your shoulder. No more games
like that, Jim. It's become time to grow up.
Decobabe
"grey" <n...@available.com> wrote in message
news:7ruosts2npsr1ndic...@4ax.com...
> I think very few Europeans truly understand the impact the WTC destruction
has had in the US, and it's time for more commmunication.
> On both sides. What happened to the WTC was not played out over and
> over and over on Euro TV as it was in the US, and the deep
> understanding of the 5,000 lives lost in an act of war really hasn't
> sunk in in Europe as it has in the US.
Do you want to bet? It is on every night, night after night here in Italy.
And they show some things that were passed over on some networks, really
horrible shots that make me turn away and wince.
As a result, one sees not only
> jokes about the incident in this group, and ridicule about dropping
rations that contain peanut butter (of all the petty things to find fault
with!) on Afghanistan, but also an underlying feeling that the US has
"started a war" (according to one poster) in Afghanistan,
> apparently for no reason. These feelings go all the way up to the
> recent large scale anti-US demonstrations in Europe, where protesters
> again and again denouce what's going on as "the richest country in the
> world attacking one of the poorest".
I'm thinking I've seen anti-war demonstrations. Not anti-US, other than in
MidEast countries. I could be wrong.
>
> I'd like to encourage thoughtful Europeans to consider the depth of
> the WTC tragedy in the US, and not to simply respond in the
> time-honored jingoistic America-is-wrong way. I'd like them to think
> what it means to have the flagship of New York City destroyed in that
> way, and to imagine what it would have felt like if the same had
> happened in London or Paris or Berlin or Rome. Most of them have, of
> course, given this tragedy serious thought, but in very few cases has
> it sunk in as it has in America.
I think you are wrong. Terrorism has a history in Europe. The jokes I've
seen, not funny to me, have been American jokes. Europeans for the most
part have experienced bombings, machine guns, many forms of terrorism,
although not as huge as Sept 11. I find people here are perfectly aware
that it could have been the Eiffel tower or the Vatican.
>
> So I'd like to encourage a little more understanding on this issue.
> Even if you don't agree with the present military action, make
> yourself an American for a moment--just a moment, perhaps--and let
> that tragedy sink in as it has here every day since it occurred. Then
> perhaps you'll understand a little better. I'm not asking you to agree
> with the military actions going on, or their target--those decisions
> and your opinions are up to you--just to let the whole issue sink in,
> and to come closer in that understanding. Because what we need now is
> clarity and communication; no longer will the usual knee-jerk
> reactions and tired cliches suffice.
I've experienced more supportive feeling and actions from Europeans after
this terrible passage than I ever heard expressed in the US when another
bomb went off in the London tube, or when the Brigato Rosso shot up an
airport. Then I remember only hearing that Americans would not travel where
such things happen. Now we know, they happen everywhere.
Go Fig
"Decobabe" <deco...@libero.it> wrote:
> I think you are wrong. Terrorism has a history in Europe. The jokes I've
> seen, not funny to me, have been American jokes. Europeans for the most
> part have experienced bombings, machine guns, many forms of terrorism,
> although not as huge as Sept 11. I find people here are perfectly aware
> that it could have been the Eiffel tower or the Vatican.
The Eiffel tower was in fact already targeted... it was an Air France flight from
Algeria about 7 years ago... The French would have no part of that and stormed the
plane when it refueled in the south of France.
sjoerd
Hundreds of Europeans have died in the New York attacks. I have seen
those planes fly into the WTC as well as the buildings collapse perhaps
a hundred times on TV. Most Europeans are very aware of what happened in
the USA. But you may be right, everybody, all over the world, is more
interested in what's happening in their village as compared to what's
happening in the next village.
The protests are against the war. While everybody in his/her right mind
has condemned the attacks of Sept 11, many people also condemn the
American/British reaction. It started to go wrong when Bush used a
Hollywood scenario to decribe the world: good guys and bad guys, with us
or against us, black or white. There are in fact many shades of grey
between black and white. Yes, we are all against terrorist attacks, but
a critical analysis of past Western policies in the Middle East (Israel,
Saudi Arabia, etc.) is also needed.
Sjoerd
Go Fig
> Hundreds of Europeans have died in the New York attacks. I have seen
> those planes fly into the WTC as well as the buildings collapse perhaps
> a hundred times on TV. Most Europeans are very aware of what happened in
> the USA. But you may be right, everybody, all over the world, is more
> interested in what's happening in their village as compared to what's
> happening in the next village.
>
> The protests are against the war. While everybody in his/her right mind
> has condemned the attacks of Sept 11, many people also condemn the
> American/British reaction. It started to go wrong when Bush used a
> Hollywood scenario to decribe the world: good guys and bad guys, with us
> or against us, black or white. There are in fact many shades of grey
> between black and white. Yes, we are all against terrorist attacks,
> but a critical analysis of past Western policies in the Middle East (Israel,
> Saudi Arabia, etc.) is also needed.
What the heck does it have to do with past policies... it is about freedom and
secular goverments... what part of those are you willing to give up?
jay
Tue, Oct 16, 2001
mailto:go...@mac.com
>
> Sjoerd
Bill Rossi
"sjoerd" <sjoerd...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:3BCD1F98...@xs4all.nl...
>
> The protests are against the war. While everybody in his/her right mind
> has condemned the attacks of Sept 11, many people also condemn the
> American/British reaction. It started to go wrong when Bush used a
> Hollywood scenario to decribe the world: good guys and bad guys, with us
> or against us, black or white. There are in fact many shades of grey
> between black and white. Yes, we are all against terrorist attacks, but
> a critical analysis of past Western policies in the Middle East (Israel,
> Saudi Arabia, etc.) is also needed.
So your belief is that you can be in agreement with the killing of 6,000+
innocent civilians and still be a 'good guy'?
When you say that a 'critical analysis of past Western policies in
the Middle East' is needed, it skims awfully close to saying that
killing those people may in fact be partly excusable.
Given that no government in the world is guiltless, that pretty much
amounts to an open season on civilians.
Nightjar
> what it means to have the flagship of New York City destroyed in that
> way, and to imagine what it would have felt like if the same had
> happened in London or Paris or Berlin or Rome.
I don't think that anyone over here is in any doubt that the IRA would have
loved to acheive such a level of devastation when they lorry-bombed Canary
Wharf or when they devastated part of London's financial area. We are,
perhaps, lucky that their bombers want to escape to attack again, which
tends to limit the sort of attack they can mount.
Colin Bignell
Yves Bellefeuille
> What the heck does it have to do with past policies...
The recent events have *everything* to do with past policies, of course.
That's why they happened in the USA and not in Canada, for example.
"It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign
policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a
humble nation but strong, they’ll welcome us." -- George W. Bush.
Follow-ups set to misc.headlines.
--
Yves Bellefeuille <y...@storm.ca>, Ottawa, Canada
Francais / English / Esperanto
Esperanto FAQ: http://www.esperanto.net/veb/faq.html
Rec.travel.europe FAQ: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq
Go Fig
wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Go Fig <go...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > What the heck does it have to do with past policies...
For someone who makes every attempt to enforce NG guidelines... how the heck could
you 'cut' such relevant text to my thought... your explanation (credibility) ?
Further what the fuck gives you the right to redirect replies to a thread ?
jay
Wed, Oct 17, 2001
mailto:go...@mac.com
> What the heck does it have to do with past policies... it is about freedom
> and
> secular goverments... what part of those are you willing to give up?
>
> The recent events have *everything* to do with past policies, of course.
> That's why they happened in the USA and not in Canada, for example.
>
> "It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign
> policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a
> humble nation but strong, they’ll welcome us." -- George W. Bush.
>
> Follow-ups set to misc.headlines.
--
Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Jim Ley
>On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:30:42 GMT, j...@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:
>
>>Or informed criticism, or indeed comment that isn't criticism.
>
>Once again you seem determined to take a suggestion for understanding
>as a personal affront.
I've taken no affront, from any of your comments, as you are asking
for "understanding" of your own impressions, I'm giving and asking for
understanding of my mine.
>>That is still no reason to censor views, or stop criticism, or
>>comment, it's essential, balance and criticism is essential to both
>>general democracy and coming to good individual decisions.
>
>Off topic. If I had been talking about censorship, etc, that might
>have been relevant. So far, you've accused me of censorship,
>over-generalizing, claiming that everything on the topic is an "Attack
>against America" and etc, while what I have in fact done is to suggest
>that each side try to understand each other better, and that's it.
I didn't accuse you of censorship, yet you were asking for it, (self
censorship, you're doing it now, asking me to to stop commenting) not
forcing me, just asking, and the tone of your post, was whilst trying
to give understanding, was doing so in an attempt to decrease comment,
why?
Jim.
me
> > Yes, we are all against terrorist attacks, but
> > a critical analysis of past Western policies in the Middle East (Israel,
> > Saudi Arabia, etc.) is also needed.
>
> So your belief is that you can be in agreement with the killing of 6,000+
> innocent civilians and still be a 'good guy'?
>
> When you say that a 'critical analysis of past Western policies in
> the Middle East' is needed, it skims awfully close to saying that
> killing those people may in fact be partly excusable.
>
> Given that no government in the world is guiltless, that pretty much
> amounts to an open season on civilians.
This is my primary problem with much of the commentary about post
9/11 actions of the American/British alliance. I understand that the
official policies of this government aren't popular around the world.
God knows the current appointee got off to a really arrogant and
unfriendly start. But there is no way to avoid describing not only
the events of 9/11, but also the USS Cole, the embassy bombings,
and in reality, the Lockerbie bombings as well, as anything other
than attacks and basically direct attacks on the US. Each of these
has had some small or measured level of response. The response now,
although not necessarily "perfect" would seem to be being made in
proportional context.
I hate to use the word "justified", but really, do you suppose
that if any other country, with the military and finacial capacity
of the US, had been similarly attacked, especially over a period of
10 years or more, that they would not react similarly? I understand
that often our foreign policy, especially in the middle east, can
appear to be heavy handed. I do wonder if it often occurs to folks
however that this action is often conducted with the private or
silent consent of the governments of many of the countries whose
citizens then openly criticize it.
Cliff
I was in Russia and Switzerland during the hijackings, and I can
assure you that everyone I met was very sympathetic towards
the USA. A few people, after realizing that I was an American,
told me that they were very sorry for the incident and wished to
express their sympathies towards the American people. The
amount of flowers in front of the American embassy in Moscow
was far greater than the number of Americans in the city. One
of the hotels I stayed at, the Belgrade in Moscow, even went so
far as to place a letter on my door expressing the same feelings
(this was on September 12). Remember, this was in a city that
saw fairly large demonstrations against the bombings in the old
Yugoslavian territory.
Don't confuse the small number of panty-brained pacifists with
the general European population. Most people are appalled
at the September 11 events. Lots of European hotels have
CNN, so do not assume that they have not seen the same TV
coverage.
Cliff
sjoerd
> So your belief is that you can be in agreement with the killing of
> 6,000+
> innocent civilians and still be a 'good guy'?
No. But I belief I can be against the bombs which are currently dropped
on Afghanistan and still be a good guy.
> When you say that a 'critical analysis of past Western policies in
> the Middle East' is needed, it skims awfully close to saying that
> killing those people may in fact be partly excusable.
These are two seperate issues. The Sept 11 attacks were horrible and
inexcusable. The guilty have to be found and brought to justice. Bombing
Afghanistan and killing innocent civilians there is another issue.
> Given that no government in the world is guiltless, that pretty much
> amounts to an open season on civilians.
Why?
Sjoerd
sjoerd
> Don't confuse the small number of panty-brained pacifists with
> the general European population. Most people are appalled
> at the September 11 events. Lots of European hotels have
> CNN, so do not assume that they have not seen the same TV
> coverage.
You seem to exclude the possibility that some people are "appalled
at the September 11 events" and also are against the bombs which are
currently being dropped on Afghanistan. These are two different issues.
Everybody in his right mind agrees that the Sept 11 attacks were
terrible and that the guilty should be found and punished. Not everybody
in his right mind is convinced that the current War against Afghanistan
will 1) result in the guilty being killed or arrested and 2) will not
make matters worse for the Western world and 3) will not result in
hundreds or thousands of innocent dead Afghans.
Sjoerd
grey
wrote:
>In article <7ruosts2npsr1ndic...@4ax.com>,
>n...@available.com wrote...
>> I think very few Europeans truly understand the impact the WTC
>> destruction has had in the US, and it's time for more commmunication.
>> On both sides.
><snip>
>Don't insult me by telling me because I am not American I can't
>appreciate the magnitude of the tragedy.
I have no plans to. I can see you're about to make all kinds of
assumptions about what I suggested, which is mutual understanding, and
work yourself up to be offended by things I've never said.
><snip>
>> I'm not asking you to agree
>> with the military actions going on, or their target--those decisions
>> and your opinions are up to you
>
>Don't you mean, "those decisions are NOT up to you"? I certainly did
>not get a say in this action. I didn't get to vote for Dubya (as if I
>would have :P), and yet, his decisions in this might affect my country
>as much as the US, as a close ally. It was announced we will be sending
>troops to fight.
Your decisions and opinions are up to you, as I've said.
>> --just to let the whole issue sink in,
>> and to come closer in that understanding. Because what we need now is
>> clarity and communication; no longer will the usual knee-jerk
>> reactions and tired cliches suffice.
>
>You want an example of a knee-jerk reaction? Look at your president
>since this has happenned. Not since Day 1 (when I must conclude he was
>in shock, since his subsequent behaviour has been so different) has he
>looked to me like a statesman who considers the consequences of his
>words before he blurts them out.
Actually, no, I don't want an example of a knee-jerk reaction, thank
you. That was the point of my post.
>You want a summary of George Bush's reaction? He's playing it like a
>John Wayne movie. Only it's real, and it's scary, and I don't think he
>has the intelligence to realise the consequences of his actions.
>Whenever he invokes Ghod in a speech, it scares me. The Taliban believe
>Ghod is on their side as well.
>
>I just want to open up your mind to the possibility that your leaders
>may not be all you think they are. Are these decisions and their
>consequences well thought-out? When I make a bad decision, it generally
>only affects me. A bad decision on Bush's part might bring down the
>whole world.
??? I took no sides on this issue, just suggested mutual
understanding, and that this hasn't sunk in for most Europeans as it
has most Americans.
>And will someone *please* explain to me the morality of making an
>already miserable and suffering people suffer even more? "Might is
>right" is not the sort of thing I am looking for here. Last year, when
>a huge terrorist bomb went off in Israel, the US counselled against
>revenge attacks, suggesting it was better for the Israelis to take the
>high moral ground by remaining stoic. Was their grief any less real or
>significant? Or is the high moral ground just too high for Americans?
Whoa.
>Please note that in saying all this *I DO NOT CONDONE THE SEPT 11
>ATTACKS ON THE US*. I just feel that the response is inappropriate.
>And the longer it goes on, the stronger my feelings get. And I expect
>that a lot of the rest of the planet is thinking similar thoughts.
Looks like you better start your own thread for this soapbox; has
nothing to do with the original post.
>Just Joan
Lennart Petersen
"grey" <n...@available.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:7ruosts2npsr1ndic...@4ax.com...
> I think very few Europeans truly understand the impact the WTC
> destruction has had in the US, and it's time for more commmunication.
> On both sides. What happened to the WTC was not played out over and
> over and over on Euro TV as it was in the US,
the events about ½ hour after it actually happened. There were extra news
here in the Swedish TV already before the first tower collapsed and it was
from then continuous cover from the events throughout 24 h ? I can't
remember a single event ever been so thorough covered in every little
possible detail. And it continued for weeks and we know the towers
construction details, the planes schedules to the minute and so on....
And the understanding couldn't be better as WCT also for Europeans was a
very wellknown and familiar place being one of the no1 tourist places in NY.
I would guess several millions Europeans have been up to the observation
deck.
and the deep
> understanding of the 5,000 lives lost in an act of war really hasn't
> sunk in in Europe as it has in the US. As a result, one sees not only
> jokes about the incident in this group, and ridicule about dropping
> rations that contain peanut butter (of all the petty things to find
> fault with!) on Afghanistan,
After an event of horror you'll always after the first sadness and mourning
find some humour. Could be more or less tasteful indeed but nevertheless I
think joking is a way to cope with the horror. Remember how the inmates in
Auschwits used humour and joking for survival.
L.P
Jim Ley
>??? I took no sides on this issue, just suggested mutual
>understanding, and that this hasn't sunk in for most Europeans as it
>has most Americans.
You've assumed there's not understanding from "Europeans" yet have no
reason to assume that, please explain why there's no understanding
from "Europeans".
At the moment it seems the reason you believe this is because of the
comments aboutt killing Afghans...
Jim.
--
"Individuals have been able to talk nonsense
to an international audience as never before". BBC
Bill Rossi
> Bill Rossi wrote:
>
> > So your belief is that you can be in agreement with the killing of
> > 6,000+
> > innocent civilians and still be a 'good guy'?
>
> No. But I belief I can be against the bombs which are currently dropped
> on Afghanistan and still be a good guy.
>
> > When you say that a 'critical analysis of past Western policies in
> > the Middle East' is needed, it skims awfully close to saying that
> > killing those people may in fact be partly excusable.
>
> These are two seperate issues. The Sept 11 attacks were horrible and
> inexcusable. The guilty have to be found and brought to justice. Bombing
> Afghanistan and killing innocent civilians there is another issue.
Yes, everyone says the guilty need to be brought to justice. Who exactly
do you think is going to do this? The UN? Maybe we should wait
around for a few years while the UN debates the issue? In meantime
of course someone is attacking our country with biological weapons.
Hey, maybe we should get everyone together for a big UN conference
about how nasty and bad biological weapons are? I'm sure we can
get a really harsh resolution passed! Won't that scare them.
This is an act of war, and it's the US government's job to protect it's
citizens. The government of Afghanistan has been a silent, if not
active, partner in this attack. There is no need to sit around while
they kill more of our countrymen.
Go Fig
You good at pointing out problems... but short at solutions:
The Talaban has refused a standing U.S. Federal indictment (1998) for the murderer.
On Sept 12, they were informed that they must now turn over the murderer and his
accomplices as well as destroy the bases.
This was outright rejected by the Talaban.
On Oct. 13, the murderer's spokesperson warned all Muslims not to travel by plane
or go in high rise buildings.
On Oct 15, a 'weaponised' version of Anthrax was delivered to the top U.S.
Senator... some 31 people have been exposed to this weapon... so far.
What would you do... send the FBI over in some Bermuda Shorts and 'tour'
Afgahnistan and see if they could get him to defend himself in a court of law.
No wait... you'll propose sanctions out of one side of your mouth and from the
other be screaming how these very sanctions are hurting the innocent....
Your posting host country was among the first in Europe to demand individual
freedoms (1780s), while that first attempt failed, the people persisted. NL's
prosperity and incredible contributions to the world community are a direct result
of this freedom.
Make no mistake about it... your freedoms are on the radar scope of the murders.
jay
Wed, Oct 17, 2001
mailto:go...@mac.com
--
Bill Rossi
"Just Joan" <mys...@woman.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.163833261...@news.m.iinet.net.au...
> already miserable and suffering people suffer even more? "Might is
> right" is not the sort of thing I am looking for here. Last year, when
> a huge terrorist bomb went off in Israel, the US counselled against
> revenge attacks, suggesting it was better for the Israelis to take the
> high moral ground by remaining stoic. Was their grief any less real or
> significant? Or is the high moral ground just too high for Americans?
Because those unfortunate suffering people have the misfortune to
have a government which is a silent partner in the attacks against the
US. Because the US government's first responsibility is to it's citizens,
and sitting around waiting for the UN or some other government body
to 'do something' isn't responsible or realistic.
Throughout history people have suffered for the mistakes of their
government, and I'm afraid this is another one.
grey
<lennart....@swipnet.se> wrote:
>Well you haven't watched European TV have you ?
Well, I have.
>I could see the news from
>the events about ½ hour after it actually happened. There were extra news
>here in the Swedish TV already before the first tower collapsed and it was
>from then continuous cover from the events throughout 24 h ? I can't
>remember a single event ever been so thorough covered in every little
>possible detail. And it continued for weeks and we know the towers
>construction details, the planes schedules to the minute and so on....
>And the understanding couldn't be better as WCT also for Europeans was a
>very wellknown and familiar place being one of the no1 tourist places in NY.
>I would guess several millions Europeans have been up to the observation
>deck.
I'm afraid I still don't think most Europeans know how much this has
sunk in over here. From a nation fragmented and always bickering with
itself to suddenly *all* your neighbors and half the vehicles you see
on the road are flying American flags. My point is not that Europeans
are incapable of understanding, but that from what I've read, many
don't understand the depth and long term consequences in the American
psyche. Even the smallest details here are studied over and over,
which people in Europe have little reason to study and to get right
before they lecture others about it. Which reminds me, it's WTC, not
WCT.
> and the deep
>> understanding of the 5,000 lives lost in an act of war really hasn't
>> sunk in in Europe as it has in the US. As a result, one sees not only
>> jokes about the incident in this group, and ridicule about dropping
>> rations that contain peanut butter (of all the petty things to find
>> fault with!) on Afghanistan,
>After an event of horror you'll always after the first sadness and mourning
>find some humour. Could be more or less tasteful indeed but nevertheless I
>think joking is a way to cope with the horror. Remember how the inmates in
>Auschwits used humour and joking for survival.
Yes, I know, I didn't say anything against humor per se. In fact,
that's part of my point--I don't see jokes about the WTC incident in
the US at all. The only jokes I've seen have come from European
sources, I've seen them on this group in fact. When they pop up
Americans have been saying they're not ready for jokes yet. It doesn't
seem like Americans are ready for jokes yet in general on these
issues, and the fact that you find Europeans telling them indicates a
difference in point of view.
> L.P
>
Juliana L Holm
> You seem to exclude the possibility that some people are "appalled
> at the September 11 events" and also are against the bombs which are
> currently being dropped on Afghanistan. These are two different issues.
> Everybody in his right mind agrees that the Sept 11 attacks were
> terrible and that the guilty should be found and punished. Not everybody
> in his right mind is convinced that the current War against Afghanistan
> will 1) result in the guilty being killed or arrested and 2) will not
> make matters worse for the Western world and 3) will not result in
> hundreds or thousands of innocent dead Afghans.
ndeed there are even loyal, Patriotic, Americans who are concerned.
Julie
(A loyal, patriotic, American panty-brained pacifist)
Bill Rossi
"Juliana L Holm" <jh...@mason2.gmu.edu> wrote in message
news:9qkg1s$h...@portal.gmu.edu...
I think it's fine to be concerned about the military response in
Afghanistan.
But the one thing that has been missing from much of the pacifist objection
to the US action is any realistic suggestion of what they think we should be
doing.
Does anyone realistically think the Taliban care if the UN pass resolution
ordering them to turn over terrorists? Keep in mind that until recently
they had
diplomatic relations with just 3 other countries. Doesn't sound to me like
they
have much interest in what the world community has to say. In fact, their
entire worldview seems to be built around the idea that most of the world
is evil and bad.
grey
>I was in Russia and Switzerland during the hijackings, and I can
>assure you that everyone I met was very sympathetic towards
>the USA. A few people, after realizing that I was an American,
>told me that they were very sorry for the incident and wished to
>express their sympathies towards the American people. The
>amount of flowers in front of the American embassy in Moscow
>was far greater than the number of Americans in the city. One
>of the hotels I stayed at, the Belgrade in Moscow, even went so
>far as to place a letter on my door expressing the same feelings
>(this was on September 12). Remember, this was in a city that
>saw fairly large demonstrations against the bombings in the old
>Yugoslavian territory.
I didn't mean that there wasn't sympathy--there certainly was and is,
and I certainly didn't mean to ask for more at all. I didn't mean to
address the issue of sympathy, but thank you very much for posting.
I was just saying that among the Americans and Europeans I know and
interact with daily, there seems to be little understanding on the
European's part of how deep this has all become in the American mind,
that's all. I can't remember another issue like it in this regard. The
many people who seem to believe that the US is bombing Afghanistan for
no apparent reason should understand that that's not the motivation,
nor is imperialism. I'm not saying the attacks are good or bad here,
I'm just saying that often, people in other countries have little
conception of how this has become issue number 1 in the US.
>Don't confuse the small number of panty-brained pacifists with
>the general European population.
Thank you for that; to see demonstrator after demonstrator throughout
Europe (perhaps the US news only chose the worst cases?) decrying the
bombings as simply "the richest country in the world attacking one of
the poorest" and seeing it only in those terms really misses the
point. Whether you agree with the bombings or not (I am not expressing
an opinion on them here), that's not what they're about.
keitha...@bsuk.fsbusiness.co.uk
wrote:
And can a similarly panty-brained Brit, appalled at both the Sept 11th
events and the US/British response, also express his concern?
Keith
Bristol
UK
Yves Bellefeuille
> The Talaban has refused a standing U.S. Federal indictment (1998) for
> the murderer.
Surely you must realize that US law and US indictments don't apply in
other countries.
If you think that other countries are "anti-American", perhaps one cause
is this assumption that US rules should apply to the entire world. The
rest of the world gets tired of having to remind the US that other
countries do exist.
Cliff
Sorry, I meant what I said. Pacifists are ignorant of history.
Ignore the terrorists at your own peril.
Besides, what alternative do you propose? Just ignore the
events of September 11? Not likely. Institute an embargo
against Afghanistan? Sorry, embargoes only hurt the innocent
people, because the Taliban will grab its food first. and then
let the ordinary citizen starve.
Also, you are naive concerning current events. The anthrax
incidents have shown that the terrorists are not finished yet.
Should we just wait until they devise another scheme that
kills thousands of civilians?
Cliff
keitha...@bsuk.fsbusiness.co.uk
>
>
>> > Don't confuse the small number of panty-brained pacifists with
>> > the general European population. Most people are appalled
>> > at the September 11 events. Lots of European hotels have
>> > CNN, so do not assume that they have not seen the same TV
>> > coverage.
>>
>> You seem to exclude the possibility that some people are "appalled
>> at the September 11 events" and also are against the bombs which are
>> currently being dropped on Afghanistan. These are two different issues.
>> Everybody in his right mind agrees that the Sept 11 attacks were
>> terrible and that the guilty should be found and punished. Not everybody
>> in his right mind is convinced that the current War against Afghanistan
>> will 1) result in the guilty being killed or arrested and 2) will not
>> make matters worse for the Western world and 3) will not result in
>> hundreds or thousands of innocent dead Afghans.
>
>Sorry, I meant what I said. Pacifists are ignorant of history.
Bit of a blanket assertion there, old boy - I'd say that "violence
begets violence (which in turn begets yet more violence) is a lesson
throughout history, wherever you look. Treaty of Versailles didn't
exactly stop WW2, did it? Communism was overthrown largely by peaceful
means, not by nuking Moscow.
>Ignore the terrorists at your own peril.
Who said ignore them, for Chrissake??? One school of thought in the
currently extremely pro-US news media here was to wait for the Islamic
Foreign Ministers Conference, due to convene 2 days after the bombing
of Afghanistan commenced - one headline suggested that enough Moslems
were appalled enough by the Sep 11th events to go and get Bin Laden
themselves - an opportunity which could at least have been explored.
Action through the UN (which the US and Britain arrogantly ignore)
might have brought Iran "on-side". Iran, BTW, loathes the Taliban.
>Besides, what alternative do you propose?
A few suggestions above.....
>Just ignore the
>events of September 11? Not likely. Institute an embargo
>against Afghanistan? Sorry, embargoes only hurt the innocent
>people,
Bombs, of course, do not????
>because the Taliban will grab its food first. and then
>let the ordinary citizen starve.
History again, old boy - ever known a truly altruistic government
anywhere?
>
>Also, you are naive concerning current events. The anthrax
>incidents have shown that the terrorists are not finished yet.
>Should we just wait until they devise another scheme that
>kills thousands of civilians?
No, go ahead with the bombs - and the retribution will come as sure as
day follows night. Where will the escalation end?
Keith
Bristol
UK
>
>
>Cliff
>
>
Bjorn Olsson
Do you have a problem with people disagreeing with their governments?
Also, I do wonder if it often occurs to folks that the US is often
conducting its actions with the consent of governments which are not
democratically elected.
Bjorn
D.
> destruction has had in the US, and it's time for more commmunication.
> On both sides. What happened to the WTC was not played out over and
> understanding of the 5,000 lives lost in an act of war really hasn't
> sunk in in Europe as it has in the US.
Are you in Europe or the US? How are you familiar with what has and
hasn't been seen? Folks in Europe say the opposite. I am in the US but
read BBC online daily and the constant coverage has not stopped
(though that's not surprising, as the UK is quite heavily involved).
To suggest that Europeans don't understand the depth of this tragedy
is incredibly arrogant. As a USAian, I'm warmed by the depth of
support and understanding from Europeans.
>These feelings go all the way up to the
> recent large scale anti-US demonstrations in Europe, where protesters
> again and again denouce what's going on as "the richest country in the
> world attacking one of the poorest".
>
Anti-*war* protests, at least in most of Europe. I know the protests
in Pakistan and the Middle East are more Anti-US, but that's not
surprising. The problem in the US right now is that *any* dissent is
seen as being uncaring, un-patriotic. Anti-war protests, if civil, are
a basic right in a healthy democracy. This situation is not black and
white. We can not be John Wayne out to whip the bad guys - and this is
extremely obvious when one looks at the "collaborations" the US/UK (I
hesistate to say "The Allies") must make.
> I'd like them to think
> what it means to have the flagship of New York City destroyed in that
> way, and to imagine what it would have felt like if the same had
> happened in London or Paris or Berlin or Rome.
Huh? The people of London and Paris are all too accustomed to
terrorism. Ever wonder why you don't see trash bins in the Tube? or
the Metro? No, not on the level of 6000+, but regular threats yes. I
don't think people live in fear daily, but it's always there. I can't
quite recall specific terrorist attacks in Berlin and Rome, but all
these cities have been bombed at one time or another. What happens
after a terrorist attack in NI? It get's one day front page in NY
Times, perhaps the LA Times, maybe a note in the smaller papers, and
then it disappears. Try finding *any* European news in most US papers
on any given day. Even the attacks on the US embassies in Africa were
covered on the BBC news at least as much if not moreso than in the US
media. By the very suggestion that the people of Europe *have not
understood*, you are revealing that you have not understood the
position Europeans have been in for many many years.
What I found instead, was a certain knowing understanding. The type of
response one gets one a child dies, for example, and another parent
who's lost a child can't say much, just nods and offers a hand of
support, because he *knows* and *understands* the depths of the sorrow
that parent must feel. THAT was the type of response I garnered from
European media coverage as well as comments from Europeans both IRL
and on the 'net.
> So I'd like to encourage a little more understanding on this issue.
Yes, on all sides. Perhaps some USAians should be a little less
self-centered and recognise that we've now become part of the world
community. We can no longer stand alone, proclaiming our might. We
must be humble. We must turn to our friends around the world and say
"we need you."
CD - who displays a UN flag rather than a US one, because that's the
closest I could get to a "world" flag, and this tragedy affected more
than just one nation.
David Lewis
writes
>Don't confuse the small number of panty-brained pacifists with
>the general European population. Most people are appalled
>at the September 11 events.
To be against bombing of innocent civilians is not to be "panty-
brained." On this, I am with my Amish friends.
Marie
--
Ma...@nodanw.demon.co.uk
David Lewis
events on the radio as I did so, aghast and appalled.
French TV had endless hours of it every evening. I cannot speak for the
daytime because I was at a quilt show. I was attending classes and
there were many Americans there, mostly wives of servicemen, doing the
classes. In fact not one person in 5 days (including the Americans)
referred to the events (in my presence).
On the Friday, when we had the 3 minutes' silence all over Europe, our
(American) teacher forgot about it. So did the American wives of
servicemen. When I reminded them, we Europeans (French, Swiss, Dutch ,
British and Belgian)stood for the 3 minutes in silence and reflection
and the American ladies carried on quilting.
You may make of that what you will.
Marie
--
Ma...@nodanw.demon.co.uk
David Lewis
writes
>Besides, what alternative do you propose? Just ignore the
>events of September 11? Not likely. Institute an embargo
>against Afghanistan? Sorry, embargoes only hurt the innocent
>people, because the Taliban will grab its food first. and then
>let the ordinary citizen starve.
As opposed to killing them with bombs?
David Lewis
<n...@available.com> writes
>I was just saying that among the Americans and Europeans I know and
>interact with daily, there seems to be little understanding on the
>European's part of how deep this has all become in the American mind,
>that's all. I can't remember another issue like it in this regard.
felt totally safe. Now they do not and have joined the rest of the
human race.
siena
"D." <dt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7b35e4c4.01101...@posting.google.com...
Thank you very much for a wonderful response. I tried for over an hour
to write something that did not go over the edge in anger towards the
original poster but I failed so I just read other responses. You hit
the nail on the head of what I and others who live in Europe know and
feel.
Again, thank you for a wonderful post.
Cristina
Bill Rossi
"Yves Bellefeuille" <y...@storm.ca> wrote in message
news:3bcdcdac...@news.storm.ca...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Go Fig <go...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > The Talaban has refused a standing U.S. Federal indictment (1998) for
> > the murderer.
>
> Surely you must realize that US law and US indictments don't apply in
> other countries.
>
> If you think that other countries are "anti-American", perhaps one cause
> is this assumption that US rules should apply to the entire world. The
> rest of the world gets tired of having to remind the US that other
> countries do exist.
The UN passed resolution 1267 that required the Taliban to turn
over Bin Laden to be tried for the embassy bombings in Africa.
The Taliban made it clear that they had no interest in doing any
such thing. Does anyone honestly think that they care about
world opinion?
Bill Rossi
<keitha...@bsuk.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3bcdd5cd...@news.freeserve.net...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 12:37:26 -0600, Cliff <cl...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Who said ignore them, for Chrissake??? One school of thought in the
> currently extremely pro-US news media here was to wait for the Islamic
> Foreign Ministers Conference, due to convene 2 days after the bombing
> of Afghanistan commenced - one headline suggested that enough Moslems
> were appalled enough by the Sep 11th events to go and get Bin Laden
> themselves - an opportunity which could at least have been explored.
> Action through the UN (which the US and Britain arrogantly ignore)
> might have brought Iran "on-side". Iran, BTW, loathes the Taliban.
And everyone knows that when the UN talks the Taliban listens.
Seriously, do you honestly believe the things you're saying?
Only 3 Arab countries even had diplomatic relations with
the Taliban before the attack. You really think the Taliban
care what the Foreign Ministers have to say? As for
Moslems going to get Bin Laden themselves, you'd
have to be an idiot to believe that would ever happen.
BT
"grey" <n...@available.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:30:42 GMT, j...@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:
>
[snip]
> This shows an inabilty to put yourself in others' shoes.
Americans have my deepest sympathy on these truly
unbelievable catastrophic events, but
my impression is as a central European living in
a small country that this inability you mentioned
was after all an American phenomena for decades.
BT
Cliff
> >Besides, what alternative do you propose? Just ignore the
> >events of September 11? Not likely. Institute an embargo
> >against Afghanistan? Sorry, embargoes only hurt the innocent
> >people, because the Taliban will grab its food first. and then
> >let the ordinary citizen starve.
>
> As opposed to killing them with bombs?
Non sequitor. The bombing is killing very few civilians. An
embargo would kill ONLY civilians. Viva la difference!
But then again, you probably prefer that Americans die .....
Cliff
Bill Rossi
> in Pakistan and the Middle East are more Anti-US, but that's not
> surprising. The problem in the US right now is that *any* dissent is
> seen as being uncaring, un-patriotic. Anti-war protests, if civil, are
> a basic right in a healthy democracy. This situation is not black and
> white. We can not be John Wayne out to whip the bad guys - and this is
> extremely obvious when one looks at the "collaborations" the US/UK (I
> hesistate to say "The Allies") must make.
You mean the anti-war protests in London featuring the word 'terrorist'
plasted on the British flag? Or the activists in Greece burning US and
British flags? These protests go far beyond simply being anti-war.
Cliff
> >Don't confuse the small number of panty-brained pacifists with
> >the general European population. Most people are appalled
> >at the September 11 events.
>
> To be against bombing of innocent civilians is not to be "panty-
> brained." On this, I am with my Amish friends.
I am also against bombing of innocent civilians, starting with
those in the USA. I guess those 300 UK citizens who died
in the WTC don't matter, huh?
Besides, your logic is strained. If we really wanted to
kill Afghan civilians, we'd just nuke their cities, the moral
equivalent of the WTC hijackings. If you'd follow the news
more closely, whether on BBC or CNN, you'd see that we
are targeting military installations, not civilians.
But it's time for you to put up or shut up. What is your
alternative? Embargo, nothing, etc? Anyone can criticize,
but solutions are another story entirely.
Cliff
devil
>
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Go Fig <go...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > The Talaban has refused a standing U.S. Federal indictment (1998) for
> > the murderer.
>
> Surely you must realize that US law and US indictments don't apply in
> other countries.
I suspect not.
The US has no respect for other countries sovereignty. They do claim
that US laws apply.
D.
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:15:54 GMT, "Lennart Petersen"
> <lennart....@swipnet.se> wrote:
>
> >Well you haven't watched European TV have you ?
>
> Well, I have.
>
How so? You're in the US right? Do you have a special satellite feed
from each European country? Very interesting!
FWIW - I am in the US and after the first week have not been glued to
the TV. In fact, I try to avoid news of it at all costs. I *read*
about it, and also rely on NPR, but media saturation is *not* a good
thing. On the Friday following 11 Sept I went to a video store. It was
*packed.* No doubt everyone with the same idea "I want to see
something, anything else." What happens with this saturation is that
the media says incredibly irresponsible, often incorrect things to
create a ratings boom. If you haven't seen as much on European TV,
it's because the TV is not the center of European society the way it
is in the US.
> I'm afraid I still don't think most Europeans know how much this has
> sunk in over here. From a nation fragmented and always bickering with
> itself to suddenly *all* your neighbors and half the vehicles you see
> on the road are flying American flags.
Actually, you can have that point. It's common knowledge that the US
pretty much leads the world in flag-waving, and such patriotic fervor
in normal times seems odd to many outside the US. (I base this on
multiple conversations over the years with Europeans)
You know what I also saw in the US though? Many of those rallying
around the flag were shouting racial epithets. They were terrifying
people with their jingoistic mob mentality threats. Amidst them were
many good people, but I must say that I saw the flag waving with very
mixed emotions (also why I would not fly a US flag, I was about to,
and when I saw a group of college-aged 'boys' flying their flags,
driving around shouting slurs, I decided I could not do it). Your
banding together looks mightly like mob-rule.
I'll tell you another thing I saw in this USA that you seem to think
is so banded together - my favourite Middle Eastern restaurant
attacked not once, but *twice* - first by a shot through the window,
next by a truck. I saw neighbors who are "Arabic looking" afraid to go
out of their homes for fear of attack by their fellow Americans.
And you know those demonstrations in Europe you're decrying so much?
In this, a very significant military town (4 bases, some very high
level), anti-war protests much like those seen in Europe. And guess
what? They are as good to see as the flag waving. I have the utmost
respect for any American willing to brave the backlash of the mob
we've become. Frankly, the >95% support for the John Wayne wannabe in
the White House is terrifying. Do you know what happens when mobs
rule?
> My point is not that Europeans
> are incapable of understanding, but that from what I've read, many
> don't understand the depth and long term consequences in the American
> psyche.
Try to open your mind a bit and understand where they've been.
No, they may not understand the long term consequences on the American
psyche unless they've lived in the US long enough to grasp it. But
that's no worse than we USAians failing to understand the long term
effects on the European psyche from these and other events. We were
selfish and spoiled, and now we're in deep sh*t. And unfortunately,
whatever we do, whomever we kill will not change that. This is no
doubt only the beginning, and any American who thinks we can go back
to normal once the "evil one" is killed is still the naive fool we've
been for the past century. And no, I do not in any way shape or form
support or condone the actions of Sept 11. Like all I was shocked and
horrified, but for many reasons, among them the certain knowledge that
this will never be over.
> Even the smallest details here are studied over and over,
> which people in Europe have little reason to study and to get right
> before they lecture others about it.
Get what right? I *hope* the leaders are studying things over and
over, because anyone knows bombing a country isn't going to do much
good at stopping the deep-rooted hate that cultivates terrorism. In
the process, we will be creating a martyr.
> Which reminds me, it's WTC, not
> WCT.
I presumed this poster's first language was not English, and perhaps
in his language (Swedish?) it's WCT, ("world trade center" are English
words, and some language do not use the same word order). In the
spirit of shared understanding, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.
CD
Kamm2MacD
>conducting its actions with the consent of governments which are not
>democratically elected.
The US oftten conducts it's 'actions' with third world nations with huge oil
interests.... which does not occur to many here in the US except for those
willing to see our governments monsters and warts. Watch for that big old
pipeline from Tajikistan through Afghanistan in the not so distant
future.......
Eleanore,
An American, in mourning for those who died, but who is more in support of
justice served to the dastardly perps but not in support of our 'war with the
Flinstones' as it escalates with the devastation of an already devastated
country and the deaths of countless innocent civilians in Afghanistan. Our
country has been terroristic in the past - that in NO WAY justifies the actions
of the WTC/Pentagon/Anthrax terrorists, BUT it is time for us to face the fact
that our sh*t indeed DOES stink and hope to find the means to change our ways
so that this needen't continue to be an cycle of violence.... culminating in
the *really* big bang.....
Eleanore
Paul Kamm & Eleanore MacDonald
neo impressionist folk music
http://www.kammmac.com
Go Fig
Hmmm....
On thing is for sure... you are now going to understand something about 'terms of
surrender' that you, to date, failed to comprehend.
jay
Wed, Oct 17, 2001
mailto:go...@mac.com
--
Legend insists that as he finished his abject...
Galileo muttered under his breath: "Nevertheless, it does move."
John Bermont
Slow down and think. The issue is pretty simple and has been repeated by
President Bush many times. If the Taliban turn over all the criminals
the bombing will end. Period.
Put the blame in the proper corner for your own rationality. The United
States has no interest in killing anyone. We are defending ourselves
because of the continuing threats to our lives. Thousands of innocent
Americans were murdered in moments on 9/11 and the criminals persist
with their threats and thrusts.
Had the United States stopped bombing Germany in 1944 you would still be
living(?) in Nazi occupied Holland. Our fathers came over to save your
country from Hitler. Would you ever think of doing the same for the
United States?
The actions of free nations around the world, including the NL, are in
full support. Until the criminals are dead or in jail we are all in
danger.
John Bermont
http://www.enjoy-europe.com
sjoerd wrote:
>
> Bill Rossi wrote:
>
> > So your belief is that you can be in agreement with the killing of
> > 6,000+
> > innocent civilians and still be a 'good guy'?
>
> No. But I belief I can be against the bombs which are currently dropped
> on Afghanistan and still be a good guy.
>
Gordon Forbess
wrote:
>Seems to me that Americans think anything is okay in this world as long
>as they are not affected by it.
Hardly unique to (I suppose you mean) USAans.
>Had the Sept 11 attacks not happenned, the US would not have cared about
>the Taliban and what is happenning to the Afghani people.
According to numerous things I've read, the US has been the largest
single contributor to Afghan relief. Odds are that aid will increase.
>My boss summed it up (appallingly, to my mind), by saying that might
>will be right in this case, the strong will always oppress the weak and
>that we should just be thankful that it doesn't really affect us.
Talking about the Taliban's treatment of their own people
(particularly women), no doubt.
>Take free trade, for example. The US is swift to punish any country
>that puts up tariffs to protect their producers, but they will not
>remove the tariffs protecting their own farmers. Where's the free trade
>in that? Oh that's right, it's only the US citizens who deserve free
>trade - the rest of the world can suffer, and is forced to put up with
>it simply because they can't afford to turn their back on the US market
>as it is too big. Where's the justice in that? Oh, I forgot, it's okay
>as long as it doesn't hurt Americans and their interests.
I have a relative who grows rice in the southern US. Ask him about
Japanese trade policy regarding this commodity and then climb down
from the soapbox.
Gordon
BTC/TAK on ACK
Grief and shock are what I "make of it".
"David Lewis" <Da...@nodanw.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kOBu5YAB...@nodanw.com...
Go Fig
Just Joan <mys...@woman.org> wrote:
> In article <3BCDFE40...@nospam.com>, cl...@nospam.com wrote...
> Seems to me that Americans think anything is okay in this world as long
> as they are not affected by it.
>
> Had the Sept 11 attacks not happenned, the US would not have cared about
> the Taliban and what is happenning to the Afghani people.
Direct Governmental aid transfers amounted to about 120 million dollars in 2000.
This is in ADDITION to the aid that the UN provides (w/ USAs contribution to
General Fund). Further there is the private contributions from U.S. nationals via
organizations like the Red Cross and others.
What does it take for you to acknowledge this charity?
>
> My boss summed it up (appallingly, to my mind), by saying that might
> will be right in this case, the strong will always oppress the weak and
> that we should just be thankful that it doesn't really affect us.
You are, of course, talking about how the Taliban treats in own... and your boss
is terrible naive... its about freedom and secular goverments... you willing to
give that up?
>
> Take free trade, for example. The US is swift to punish any country
> that puts up tariffs to protect their producers, but they will not
> remove the tariffs protecting their own farmers.
Which specifically are you talking about... you may find it is in fact the EU that
is causing the protectionism battle.
> Where's the free trade
> in that? Oh that's right, it's only the US citizens who deserve free
> trade - the rest of the world can suffer, and is forced to put up with
> it simply because they can't afford to turn their back on the US market
> as it is too big. Where's the justice in that? Oh, I forgot, it's okay
> as long as it doesn't hurt Americans and their interests.
Some specifics please....
jay
Wed, Oct 17, 2001
mailto:go...@mac.com
>
> Just Joan
Lennart Petersen
"D." <dt...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet > >
> > Which reminds me, it's WTC, not
> > WCT.
>
> I presumed this poster's first language was not English, and perhaps
> in his language (Swedish?) it's WCT, ("world trade center" are English
> words, and some language do not use the same word order). In the
> spirit of shared understanding, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.
> CD
hopefully most did understand.
L.P
devil
>
> In article <3BCE132E...@attglobal.net>, devil <de...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Yves Bellefeuille wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Go Fig <go...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Talaban has refused a standing U.S. Federal indictment (1998) for
> > > > the murderer.
> > >
> > > Surely you must realize that US law and US indictments don't apply in
> > > other countries.
> >
> > I suspect not.
> >
> > The US has no respect for other countries sovereignty. They do claim
> > that US laws apply.
>
> Hmmm....
>
> On thing is for sure... you are now going to understand something about 'terms of
> surrender' that you, to date, failed to comprehend.
Itchy? What does that have to do with the issue of sovereignty,
territorial basis of laws, vs. the US view that their laws also apply on
the territory of other countries?
Is that not equivalent to a failure to respect these countries
sovereignty? (And no, I am not talking about Afghanistan here, but
countries such as Canada or the UK.)
Yves Bellefeuille
> The UN passed resolution 1267 that required the Taliban to turn
> over Bin Laden to be tried for the embassy bombings in Africa.
> The Taliban made it clear that they had no interest in doing any
> such thing. Does anyone honestly think that they care about
> world opinion?
I'm not sure what this had to do with whether or not a US indictment is
valid in other countries, but I do expect all countries, including the
US, to respect international law and due process, whether or not the
Taliban care about world opinion.
I also think that the US is probably the last country in the world that
is entitled to complain about other countries not respecting the UN, the
International Court of Justice, and so one, but again I expect other
countries to respect them, whether or not the US cares about world
opinion.
--
Yves Bellefeuille <y...@storm.ca>, Ottawa, Canada
Francais / English / Esperanto
Esperanto FAQ: http://www.esperanto.net/veb/faq.html
Rec.travel.europe FAQ: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/travel/europe/faq
Bill Rossi
"Just Joan" <mys...@woman.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1638a0b2c...@news.m.iinet.net.au...
> as they are not affected by it.
>
> Had the Sept 11 attacks not happenned, the US would not have cared about
> the Taliban and what is happenning to the Afghani people.
That's nonsense. There were many people very concerned about the situation
in Afghanistan. For that matter, what countries do you think were doing
enough?
Bill Rossi
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, "Bill Rossi" <bill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The UN passed resolution 1267 that required the Taliban to turn
> > over Bin Laden to be tried for the embassy bombings in Africa.
> > The Taliban made it clear that they had no interest in doing any
> > such thing. Does anyone honestly think that they care about
> > world opinion?
>
> I'm not sure what this had to do with whether or not a US indictment is
> valid in other countries, but I do expect all countries, including the
> US, to respect international law and due process, whether or not the
> Taliban care about world opinion.
What is has to do with is the fact that the US HAS persued other
methods to get try Bin Laden for his previous crimes. We've jumped
through the various hoops, gotten the UN resolutions. And nothing
came of them. But I keep hearing how the US should have
tried to get justice through the UN.
What was your solution to bringing the people involved in this
crime to justice?
Yves Bellefeuille
> Slow down and think. The issue is pretty simple and has been repeated by
> President Bush many times. If the Taliban turn over all the criminals
> the bombing will end. Period.
Let's try this picture. The Netherlands has asked the US to hand over
someone called John Bermont. The US has refused to do so, so The
Netherlands are now bombing New York State. If the Americans turn over
John Bermont to The Netherlands, the bombing will end. Period.
If you think there's something wrong with this idea, I'm happy to hear
so.
Bill Rossi
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, John Bermont <ber...@enjoy-europe.com> wrote:
>
> > Slow down and think. The issue is pretty simple and has been repeated by
> > President Bush many times. If the Taliban turn over all the criminals
> > the bombing will end. Period.
>
> Let's try this picture. The Netherlands has asked the US to hand over
> someone called John Bermont. The US has refused to do so, so The
> Netherlands are now bombing New York State. If the Americans turn over
> John Bermont to The Netherlands, the bombing will end. Period.
>
> If you think there's something wrong with this idea, I'm happy to hear
> so.
It's not a good analogy. Let's say this John Bermont has killed thousands
of Dutch people. And the US government not only refuses to hand him over,
but gives him an active role in the government. In fact, they name him
minister of defense. He also provides major funding for the US
government. Oh, and John's daughter marries the president.
And John Bermont says that he will continue to terrorize the
people of the Netherlands, killing every man, woman and child
he can get his hands on.
If this very unlikely event occured, would the Dutch be justified
in bombing military bases in the US? I think so.
Yves Bellefeuille
> What is has to do with is the fact that the US HAS persued other
> methods to get try Bin Laden for his previous crimes. We've jumped
> through the various hoops, gotten the UN resolutions. And nothing
> came of them. But I keep hearing how the US should have
> tried to get justice through the UN.
>
> What was your solution to bringing the people involved in this
> crime to justice?
Here's a hint. The US currently owes the UN $ 1 billion in dues. Perhaps
if the US paid up, that would make the UN more efficient. What do you
think?
Perhaps the US would also look less dishonest if it accepted to be bound
by decisions of the International Court of Justice. Believe it or not,
some other countries would like to bring the *US* to justice through the
UN, and would be quite happy to have a neutral international court (not
their own courts) settle the issues. What do you think?
Go Fig
wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, "Bill Rossi" <bill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What is has to do with is the fact that the US HAS persued other
> > methods to get try Bin Laden for his previous crimes. We've jumped
> > through the various hoops, gotten the UN resolutions. And nothing
> > came of them. But I keep hearing how the US should have
> > tried to get justice through the UN.
> >
> > What was your solution to bringing the people involved in this
> > crime to justice?
>
> Here's a hint. The US currently owes the UN $ 1 billion in dues. Perhaps
> if the US paid up, that would make the UN more efficient. What do you
> think?
No impact what so ever. The U.S. should pay thier tab and depart from this
crippled body... and ask them to leave NYC at the end of the month.
Then the rest of the world w/ their 'per capita' and 'per capita GNP' contribution
can have the sandbox to themselves.
>
> Perhaps the US would also look less dishonest if it accepted to be bound
> by decisions of the International Court of Justice. Believe it or not,
> some other countries would like to bring the *US* to justice through the
> UN, and would be quite happy to have a neutral international court (not
> their own courts) settle the issues. What do you think?
No... it is the obligation of the U.S. Gov. to resolve this in their system....
the jurisdiction of the act of war.
jay
Wed, Oct 17, 2001
mailto:go...@mac.com
--
Bill Rossi
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, "Bill Rossi" <bill...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What is has to do with is the fact that the US HAS persued other
> > methods to get try Bin Laden for his previous crimes. We've jumped
> > through the various hoops, gotten the UN resolutions. And nothing
> > came of them. But I keep hearing how the US should have
> > tried to get justice through the UN.
> >
> > What was your solution to bringing the people involved in this
> > crime to justice?
>
> Here's a hint. The US currently owes the UN $ 1 billion in dues. Perhaps
> if the US paid up, that would make the UN more efficient. What do you
> think?
So you honestly believe that if the US paid the $1 billion owned the UN
would suddely become an efficient machine? How exactly would that
cause the Taliban to listen to them? This of course being the same UN
that sat back and watched hundreds of thousands of people being
slaughtered in Rwanda.
> Perhaps the US would also look less dishonest if it accepted to be bound
> by decisions of the International Court of Justice. Believe it or not,
> some other countries would like to bring the *US* to justice through the
> UN, and would be quite happy to have a neutral international court (not
> their own courts) settle the issues. What do you think?
How exactly would that work in this case? You believe that if the
US accepted the ICJ decisions that the Taliban would start caring
about them as well?
Frankly, your arguments are laughable.
Aadi Remmik
Bill Rossi wrote in message ...
>
>You mean the anti-war protests in London featuring the word 'terrorist'
>plasted on the British flag? Or the activists in Greece burning US and
>British flags? These protests go far beyond simply being anti-war.
>
>
You can find at least some idiots everywhere. Europe's no different.
But the point in the case is: do you want the attacks like 9/11 to stop or
do you want just retaliation? The latter is the easiest thing to do, but it
will effectively prevent the first one from being achieved *ever*. It's
quite obvious to me that kamikazes do not fear death...on the contrary,
bombing and destruction will encourage them.
Many people in Europe remember WWII and Nazi occupation as a *personal*
experience. In Eastern Europe all people, except for the youngest, remember
50 (as fif-ty) years of Communist regime, when a human life was more or less
worthless. Add up very recent Balkan wars.
Now, we were all in horror, watching these terrible events on every TV
channel. I think we know what you feel. But you should also understand that
the attitude towards war is very different here. It's not about flag-waving,
it's mostly about horror and despair on a very personal level.
Aadi
from Estonia
Jim Ley
wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, John Bermont <ber...@enjoy-europe.com> wrote:
>
>> Slow down and think. The issue is pretty simple and has been repeated by
>> President Bush many times. If the Taliban turn over all the criminals
>> the bombing will end. Period.
>
>Let's try this picture. The Netherlands has asked the US to hand over
>someone called John Bermont. The US has refused to do so, so The
>Netherlands are now bombing New York State. If the Americans turn over
>John Bermont to The Netherlands, the bombing will end. Period.
>
>If you think there's something wrong with this idea, I'm happy to hear
>so.
Indeed, if you look at such bills as is described here: (I first read
of it in the Economist, there are probably better urls.)
http://www.hri.ca/doccentre/docs/ilaw/usnicc.htm
then parts of US are very adamant that International courts should not
be able to get their hands on Americans.
Jim.
--
"Individuals have been able to talk nonsense
to an international audience as never before". BBC
me
[snip]
> Eleanore,
> An American, in mourning for those who died, but who is more in support of
> justice served to the dastardly perps but not in support of our 'war with the
> Flinstones' as it escalates with the devastation of an already devastated
> country and the deaths of countless innocent civilians in Afghanistan.
"Countless" might just be a tad of an over statement. To some extent,
we will probably know, within reasonable levels of certianty, just
how many. I'd probably place a small bet that it will be less than
the innocents who have died in the Cole, the Embassy bombings, the
First WTC bombing, the second attack on the WTC, the attack on the Pentagon,
the crashed plane in Pennsylvania...
> Our
> country has been terroristic in the past - that in NO WAY justifies the actions
> of the WTC/Pentagon/Anthrax terrorists, BUT it is time for us to face the fact
> that our sh*t indeed DOES stink and hope to find the means to change our ways
> so that this needen't continue to be an cycle of violence....
An underlying assumption here is that any change in US behavior
would prevent terrorist attacks upon their, or any other, country. An
assumption one would be hard pressed to demonstrate. It would would
virtually require that a country be "sinless" or perfect and that
just ain't gonna happen anywhere.
As someone suggested, I believe in this very thread, if the only
acceptable method for avoiding terrorist attacks is for a country
to be perfect in it's foreign and domestic policy, then we are all
in trouble. A far more achieveable approach would seem to be that
all countries demand that all governments and peoples NOT participate,
nor support terrorist activities. That demand, it would seem,
needs to be backed up by the combined effort of the worlds nations
to find, and punish such peoples, groups and nations. It would
also seem necessary to terminate the future ability of any nation,
group, or person to perpatrate such acts.
You can be at peace with yourself. All other forms require
two sides to agree to be at peace. It cannot be unilateral.
to
grey
grey
<Da...@nodanw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I was driving across France on September 11th and followed the dreadful
>events on the radio as I did so, aghast and appalled.
>
>French TV had endless hours of it every evening. I cannot speak for the
>daytime because I was at a quilt show. I was attending classes and
>there were many Americans there, mostly wives of servicemen, doing the
>classes. In fact not one person in 5 days (including the Americans)
>referred to the events (in my presence).
Sorry, but despite this media coverage, the impact has been quite
different; seems to be the difference between your country being
attacked and 5,000 dead or someone else's. As far as I can tell,
Europeans are sympathetic but certainly "getting on with life" while
in the US, that life is quite different--the whole nature of music
played on the radio is different, for example. See:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,36727,00.html
All I've said in the original post, and continue to believe, is that
this has not been as life-altering for Europeans and for Americans.
That's not to fault Europeans and their show of sympathy, or anything
like that, just to get communication going when I see EU citizens not
understanding what's going on in the US.
D.
And I am sure they speak for the people of Europe as much as the
hate-mongering idiots in the US who have killed fellow Americans who
happen to have an Arabic/Middle Eastern looking face. The idiot who
drove a truck through the restaurant here, and the idiots who attacked
a local mosque do not speak for me as a fellow American. Similarly, I
can not presume that the activities of those in Europe who believe the
US attacks are wrong and state so represent all Europeans. That said,
the US attacks are not universally approved, even *in* the US.
btw - beware American media coverage. By its very nature it is biased.
We saw far more footage of Palestinians celebrating than of those who
shared our horror. But believe me, even there there were many
Palestinians who were just as horrified at said "celebrations." I have
no doubt there are anti-US demonstrations around the world, I also
have no doubt there are more anti-war demonstrations. But hey, it gets
boring in the media to only show the good. Better to sow seeds of
hate.
cd
grey
<Da...@nodanw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3BCDA562...@nospam.com>, Cliff <cl...@nospam.com>
>writes
>>Don't confuse the small number of panty-brained pacifists with
>>the general European population. Most people are appalled
>>at the September 11 events.
>
>To be against bombing of innocent civilians is not to be "panty-
>brained." On this, I am with my Amish friends.
I think the original "panty-brained" comment was in response to this
comment of mine, not "against bombing of innocent civilians":
>These feelings go all the way up to the
> recent large scale anti-US demonstrations in Europe, where protesters
> again and again denouce what's going on as "the richest country in the
> world attacking one of the poorest".
And I had been pointing out that either way, the attacks are not
simply about "the richest country in the world attacking one of the
poorest"
grey
And I apologize for the comment!--it was rather petty of me. No
offense taken, I hope.
grey
>grey <n...@available.com> wrote in message news:<7ruosts2npsr1ndic...@4ax.com>...
>> I think very few Europeans truly understand the impact the WTC
>> destruction has had in the US, and it's time for more commmunication.
>> On both sides. What happened to the WTC was not played out over and
>> over and over on Euro TV as it was in the US, and the deep
>> understanding of the 5,000 lives lost in an act of war really hasn't
>> sunk in in Europe as it has in the US.
>
>Are you in Europe or the US? How are you familiar with what has and
>hasn't been seen? Folks in Europe say the opposite. I am in the US but
>read BBC online daily and the constant coverage has not stopped
>(though that's not surprising, as the UK is quite heavily involved).
>To suggest that Europeans don't understand the depth of this tragedy
>is incredibly arrogant. As a USAian, I'm warmed by the depth of
>support and understanding from Europeans.
Why is it that to say that everyday life hasn't changed in the EU as
it has in the US after all this is "incredibly arrogant". No, I didn't
say that Europeans "don't understand", I said it hasn't sunk in and
altered their lives in the same way. I still see that when EU citizens
are surprised at American discussions.
>>These feelings go all the way up to the
>> recent large scale anti-US demonstrations in Europe, where protesters
>> again and again denouce what's going on as "the richest country in the
>> world attacking one of the poorest".
>>
>
>Anti-*war* protests, at least in most of Europe. I know the protests
>in Pakistan and the Middle East are more Anti-US, but that's not
>surprising. The problem in the US right now is that *any* dissent is
>seen as being uncaring, un-patriotic. Anti-war protests, if civil, are
>a basic right in a healthy democracy. This situation is not black and
>white. We can not be John Wayne out to whip the bad guys - and this is
>extremely obvious when one looks at the "collaborations" the US/UK (I
>hesistate to say "The Allies") must make.
You're missing the point, intentionally or not. I'm saying that to
cast the events simply in terms of "the richest country in the
world attacking one of the poorest" is to show an underlying
misunderstanding and omits the 5,000 dead. As before, I'm not saying
the military action is justified or not, just that many for many
demonstrators, the actual events behind all this clearly hadn't sunk
in to the same depth as in the US.
>> I'd like them to think
>> what it means to have the flagship of New York City destroyed in that
>> way, and to imagine what it would have felt like if the same had
>> happened in London or Paris or Berlin or Rome.
>
>> So I'd like to encourage a little more understanding on this issue.
>
>Yes, on all sides. Perhaps some USAians should be a little less
>self-centered and recognise that we've now become part of the world
>community. We can no longer stand alone, proclaiming our might. We
>must be humble. We must turn to our friends around the world and say
>"we need you."
Oh yeah. You sound very understanding and willing to put aside
differences. Well done.
grey
>FWIW - I am in the US and after the first week have not been glued to
>the TV. In fact, I try to avoid news of it at all costs. I *read*
>about it, and also rely on NPR, but media saturation is *not* a good
>thing. On the Friday following 11 Sept I went to a video store. It was
>*packed.* No doubt everyone with the same idea "I want to see
>something, anything else." What happens with this saturation is that
>the media says incredibly irresponsible, often incorrect things to
>create a ratings boom. If you haven't seen as much on European TV,
>it's because the TV is not the center of European society the way it
>is in the US.
>
>> I'm afraid I still don't think most Europeans know how much this has
>> sunk in over here. From a nation fragmented and always bickering with
>> itself to suddenly *all* your neighbors and half the vehicles you see
>> on the road are flying American flags.
>
>Actually, you can have that point. It's common knowledge that the US
>pretty much leads the world in flag-waving, and such patriotic fervor
>in normal times seems odd to many outside the US. (I base this on
>multiple conversations over the years with Europeans)
Eh? "the US pretty much leads the world in flag-waving"? "patriotic
fervor in normal times"? If you think that, you don't know the
US--there has been very little flag-waving until recently.
>You know what I also saw in the US though? Many of those rallying
>around the flag were shouting racial epithets. They were terrifying
>people with their jingoistic mob mentality threats. Amidst them were
>many good people, but I must say that I saw the flag waving with very
>mixed emotions (also why I would not fly a US flag, I was about to,
>and when I saw a group of college-aged 'boys' flying their flags,
>driving around shouting slurs, I decided I could not do it). Your
>banding together looks mightly like mob-rule.
And your associating me and everyone else in the US that way looks
mighty like mob-think, which thinks only in terms of unified groups
and enemies. I don't take an active part in this; in fact, I'm an EU
citizen as well as a US citizen, and I've spent time in Afghanistan,
learning to admire and respect the Afghan people. I posted because I
wanted to let people in the EU appreciate how much everyday life in
the US has changed, something I've realized many don't know, based on
their comments.
>I'll tell you another thing I saw in this USA that you seem to think
>is so banded together - my favourite Middle Eastern restaurant
>attacked not once, but *twice* - first by a shot through the window,
>next by a truck. I saw neighbors who are "Arabic looking" afraid to go
>out of their homes for fear of attack by their fellow Americans.
Why are you assuming that I'm for or against any of this? Is it
because you're assuming I'm American that I'm for the criminal acts
you're mentioning? Again, my only purpose was to indicate that the
tenor of life in the US has really changed, something that some EU
citizens I know have not yet seen, leading to misunderstandings. Other
than that, I'm apolitical.
>And you know those demonstrations in Europe you're decrying so much?
>In this, a very significant military town (4 bases, some very high
>level), anti-war protests much like those seen in Europe. And guess
>what? They are as good to see as the flag waving. I have the utmost
>respect for any American willing to brave the backlash of the mob
>we've become. Frankly, the >95% support for the John Wayne wannabe in
>the White House is terrifying. Do you know what happens when mobs
>rule?
*sigh* Thanks for the lecture. Please don't assume I'm taking sides
here and then attack me for things I never said.
>> My point is not that Europeans
>> are incapable of understanding, but that from what I've read, many
>> don't understand the depth and long term consequences in the American
>> psyche.
>
>Try to open your mind a bit and understand where they've been.
>No, they may not understand the long term consequences on the American
>psyche unless they've lived in the US long enough to grasp it. But
>that's no worse than we USAians failing to understand the long term
>effects on the European psyche from these and other events. We were
>selfish and spoiled, and now we're in deep sh*t.
For pete's sake; I am not condemning anyone, or saying that anyone is
better or worse than anyone else. To reply with "But that's no worse
than" implies that I was blaming someone for something, but of course
I was not. All I was discussing was a rift in understanding. But it
looks as though you're not going to be very open to that, would rather
try to lash out at all kinds of things that seem to be bothering you.
Perhaps I should wait until you get some of that cleared out yourself.
grey
>Thank you very much for a wonderful response. I tried for over an hour
>to write something that did not go over the edge in anger towards the
>original poster but I failed so I just read other responses. You hit
>the nail on the head of what I and others who live in Europe know and
>feel.
I'm curious to know what in my original post you think verged on
needing to respond in anger. I was not finding fault with anyone,
especially not with the outpouring of sympathy from the EU, or with
their ability to understand terrorism and how it feels. My point was
how the tenor of everyday life in America has changed, and that, from
my interactions with the EU, it seems to me that many in the EU have
not seen that yet, and it's led to some misunderstandings. There was
no fault-finding involved, no support or non-support of military
action, none of that was even the topic of discussion. The issue was
simply that life has changed a great deal in the US, and for the sake
of communication, I wanted to bring that up.
However, the automatic responses I have been getting have been very
disturbing. The first presumption is that I was finding fault with the
EU, the second was that I was somehow in favor of mob rule (!). And
the anti-US feeling I see is also disturbing (no comments on whether
or not that's "justified", please--my point is that the original post
has been used over and over as a base for anti-US responses when the
intent was just to facilitate communication, and I find that jingoism
disturbing).
John Bermont
Yves Bellefeuille wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, John Bermont <ber...@enjoy-europe.com> wrote:
>
> > Slow down and think. The issue is pretty simple and has been repeated by
> > President Bush many times. If the Taliban turn over all the criminals
> > the bombing will end. Period.
>
> Let's try this picture. The Netherlands has asked the US to hand over
> someone called John Bermont. The US has refused to do so, so The
> Netherlands are now bombing New York State. If the Americans turn over
> John Bermont to The Netherlands, the bombing will end. Period.
>
> If you think there's something wrong with this idea, I'm happy to hear
> so.
>
Yves,
That's not an "idea" - that's an absurdity.
Face it, the United States was attacked. This is war. It is as black and
white as you can get.
John Bermont
http://www.enjoy-europe.com
Jim Ley
<ber...@enjoy-europe.com> wrote:
>Yves Bellefeuille wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, John Bermont <ber...@enjoy-europe.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Slow down and think. The issue is pretty simple and has been repeated by
>> > President Bush many times. If the Taliban turn over all the criminals
>> > the bombing will end. Period.
>>
>> Let's try this picture. The Netherlands has asked the US to hand over
>> someone called John Bermont. The US has refused to do so, so The
>> Netherlands are now bombing New York State. If the Americans turn over
>> John Bermont to The Netherlands, the bombing will end. Period.
>>
>> If you think there's something wrong with this idea, I'm happy to hear
>> so.
>
>That's not an "idea" - that's an absurdity.
Why, the US has already said it wouldn't respect the right of the
court in the Hague for US servicemen.
>Face it, the United States was attacked. This is war. It is as black and
>white as you can get.
If it's war, they weren't terrorists...
Kamm2MacD
No matter... no innocents should die.
>An underlying assumption here is that any change in US behavior
>would prevent terrorist attacks upon their, or any other, country.
No, not just any change, but a big change in our dealings with third world and
developing nations.... A Big Change. It is time. No one will ever be perfect,
but it is high time that global conflict was worked out diplomatically rather
than simply by blasting the crap out of people. "We want that. Oh, you don't
want us to have it??? Well, let us then bomb you even further into oblivion...
he he he."
The perps of the terroristic events in the US need to be found. They need to
be dealt with. This faceless evil has no place on this planet. But then, we
must insitute change. Or we will simply be to the world what Russia was for so
long. We're really close now.
Eleanore
Paul Kamm & Eleanore MacDonald
neo impressionist folk music
http://www.kammmac.com
Alan Thomas Harrison
Bill Rossi wrote:
>
> Yes, everyone says the guilty need to be brought to justice. Who exactly
> do you think is going to do this? The UN? Maybe we should wait
> around for a few years while the UN debates the issue?
The UN _has_ debated the issues you raise, and in those debates the
United States has steadfastly rejected a ban on biological weapons.
The casus belli here is the unwillingness of the Afghan government to
extradite Osama bin Laden to a state which demands that extradition
without the normal production of a case to a court in the country from
which extradition is requested. Furthermore, the head of government and
head of state (a combined role in this case) of the country demanding
extradition has publicly proclaimed bin Laden to be guilty, obviating
any possibility of a fair trial.
The Taliban are a vicious shower of barbarian thugs, who have hanged
prostitutes, knocked down walls on gays, flogged a visiting Pakistani
football team for wearing "immodest" football kit (at a "friendly"
game!) and so on. Not a squeak from the civilised world. They now behave
like model liberal democrats in response to a dodgy demand for
extradition, and get bombed. Ironic or what?
I can appreciate American anger at the scale and enormity of the murder
in New York, but I was only last week talking to my friend and former
colleague, Sergio, who had been active in the campaign to get a mass
murderer extradited. In requesting the extradition of Augusto Pinochet,
Spain pursued its case through the British courts, and did not threaten
bombing even when the Home Secretary found a way to let him out.
Pinochet has at least as much blood on his hands as bin Laden. I would
welcome a trial for bin Laden, and would be especially interested in his
answer to the question, "Who trained you to be a terrorist, Mr bin
Laden?"
Bill, many of us have tremendous sympathy for the innocent people of New
York - I made a point of throwing as much as I could afford in the local
fire brigade's collection for the lads in the FDNY - but just as I see
no reason for bin Laden (allegedly) to take out his grudge on the
American working class, neither do I see any reason for Bush to take
revenge on ordinary people in Afghanistan.
Alan Harrison
Alan Thomas Harrison
Bill Rossi wrote:
>
> Only 3 Arab countries even had diplomatic relations with
> the Taliban before the attack.
I understood that only three countries in the world had relations with
the Taliban. One of them, Pakistan, is not Arab.
Alan Harrison
sjoerd
> I still see that when EU citizens are surprised at American
> discussions.
I was VERY surprised when on Wednesday 12 September (the day after), two
American couples in the breakfast room of the hotel in Bucharest where I
was staying at the time, had two topics to talk about for approximately
30 minutes:
1) how will the stock market react;
2) who are they gonna sue?
I am not saying that all Americans have reacted like that, but at least
this proves that different Americans have reacted in different ways.
Sjoerd
grey
wrote:
*smile* Yes, it's true, many Americans are still asking these things..
gregory....@ntlworld.com
Official relations, quite a few countries had fairly friendly
intercourse with them. Pakistan would be their number one ally closely
followed by Saudi Arabia. At least one central Asian republic was on
good terms with them. This might be off topic for rec.travel.europe.
--
Respectfully submitted
Gregory
Go Fig
Alan Thomas Harrison <cbs...@brunel.ac.uk> wrote:
> Bill Rossi wrote:
> >
> > Yes, everyone says the guilty need to be brought to justice. Who exactly
> > do you think is going to do this? The UN? Maybe we should wait
> > around for a few years while the UN debates the issue?
>
> The UN _has_ debated the issues you raise, and in those debates the
> United States has steadfastly rejected a ban on biological weapons.
>
> The casus belli here is the unwillingness of the Afghan government to
> extradite Osama bin Laden to a state which demands that extradition
> without the normal production of a case to a court in the country from
> which extradition is requested.
Are you saying the Taliban does not have a copy of the official U.S.
Federal Indictment/Arrest Warrant or the UN mandate ?
Is this what you are saying ?
jay
Thu, Oct 18, 2001
mailto:go...@mac.com
--
Go Fig
sjoerd <sjoerd...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Or perhaps you werent as good of a snoop as you thought you were...
jay
Thu, Oct 18, 2001
mailto:go...@mac.com
--
gregory....@ntlworld.com
John Bermont wrote:
>
> Yves Bellefeuille wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, John Bermont <ber...@enjoy-europe.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Slow down and think. The issue is pretty simple and has been repeated by
> > > President Bush many times. If the Taliban turn over all the criminals
> > > the bombing will end. Period.
> >
> > Let's try this picture. The Netherlands has asked the US to hand over
> > someone called John Bermont. The US has refused to do so, so The
> > Netherlands are now bombing New York State. If the Americans turn over
> > John Bermont to The Netherlands, the bombing will end. Period.
> >
> > If you think there's something wrong with this idea, I'm happy to hear
> > so.
> >
>
> Yves,
>
> That's not an "idea" - that's an absurdity.
BBC News | MIDDLE EAST | Sharon 'preparing war crimes ...
... Mr Sharon cancelled a planned visit to Belgium during a trip to
Europe
earlier in July for what his office called "calendar reasons". ...
Actually it isn't, the Taliban have went through the motions of legal
compliances. What they are asking for is in conformity with legal
precedent and international law. America has decided it doesn't want to
do it that way.
Can Beligium bomb Israel if Sharon isn't handed over? Can Sharon go on a
tourist trip to Belgium without being charged with crimes very similar
to those crimes that Osama Bin Laden is being confronted with? I think
if the Israeli Premier goes to Belgium he might be charged with crimes
against humanity.
Amnesty International Urges Investigation of Ariel Sharon
AI Index: MDE 15/089/2001
Publish date: 03/10/2001
A court in Brussels will today (3 October 2001) begin to consider
arguments about whether Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon may be
investigated in Belgium for alleged war crimes committed in Lebanon in
1982 while he was Israel's Minister of Defence.
"Amnesty International welcomes actions taken in accordance with
international law to combat impunity," said the organization. "We
support the judicial investigation into Ariel Sharon's responsibility
with regard to the Sabra and Shatila massacre."
http://www.amnesty-usa.org/news/2001/belgium10032001.html
>
> Face it, the United States was attacked. This is war. It is as black and
> white as you can get.
>
> John Bermont
> http://www.enjoy-europe.com
It is the stone age being bombed and destroyed by the space age. More
Afghan children will probably die because of American bombing than
Americans of all ages who were killed in the US outrages by the other
terrorists.
The USA is bombing Red Cross facilities and UN buildings. Six major aid
agencies have asked the USA to halt their bombing campaign to avoid a
humanitarian disaster. America is not interested in avoiding a
humanitarian disaster.
Europeans can't help but notice that one of the allies of this coalition
against terror (India) is firing shells at another member (Pakistan) and
calling it a 'war on terror'. Both powers have nuclear missiles and it
is worrying to many of us in Europe.
--
Respectfully submitted
Gregory
CBBJ
"smart bombs", nothing is said about the fact the they are also using
CLUSTER BOMBS, which have been used in past conflicts and have been
known to kill numerous civilians. Use your favorite search engine
and type "cluster bomb". Here is one web site:
http://www.mcc.org/clusterbomb/moratorium/
Cliff wrote:
>
>>>Don't confuse the small number of panty-brained pacifists with
>>>the general European population. Most people are appalled
>>>at the September 11 events.
>>>
>>To be against bombing of innocent civilians is not to be "panty-
>>brained." On this, I am with my Amish friends.
>>
>
> I am also against bombing of innocent civilians, starting with
> those in the USA. I guess those 300 UK citizens who died
> in the WTC don't matter, huh?
>
> Besides, your logic is strained. If we really wanted to
> kill Afghan civilians, we'd just nuke their cities, the moral
> equivalent of the WTC hijackings. If you'd follow the news
> more closely, whether on BBC or CNN, you'd see that we
> are targeting military installations, not civilians.
>
> But it's time for you to put up or shut up. What is your
> alternative? Embargo, nothing, etc? Anyone can criticize,
> but solutions are another story entirely.
>
>
> Cliff
>
>
>
>
Go Fig
"gregory....@ntlworld.com" <gregory....@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
> It is the stone age being bombed and destroyed by the space age. More
> Afghan children will probably die because of American bombing than
> Americans of all ages who were killed in the US outrages by the other
> terrorists.
I think I'll save this for future consideration in this group... quite a
implication....
gregory....@ntlworld.com
Alan Thomas Harrison wrote:
>
> Bill Rossi wrote:
> >
> > Yes, everyone says the guilty need to be brought to justice. Who exactly
> > do you think is going to do this? The UN? Maybe we should wait
> > around for a few years while the UN debates the issue?
>
> The UN _has_ debated the issues you raise, and in those debates the
> United States has steadfastly rejected a ban on biological weapons.
>
> The casus belli here is the unwillingness of the Afghan government to
> extradite Osama bin Laden to a state which demands that extradition
> without the normal production of a case to a court in the country from
> which extradition is requested. Furthermore, the head of government and
> head of state (a combined role in this case) of the country demanding
> extradition has publicly proclaimed bin Laden to be guilty, obviating
> any possibility of a fair trial.
George Bush issued a 'dead or alive' death Fatwa, to extradite Bin Laden
in those circumstances would be unlawful and morally reprehensible. The
Taliban have met their legal obligations by suggesting a third party
solution. I think such a solution was used for the Lockerbie atrocity.
What America is doing is patently illegal. The USA has nothing but
contempt for the rule of law and the rights of foreigners in custody in
the United States are flagrantly flouted with impunity.
>
> The Taliban are a vicious shower of barbarian thugs, who have hanged
> prostitutes, knocked down walls on gays, flogged a visiting Pakistani
> football team for wearing "immodest" football kit (at a "friendly"
> game!) and so on. Not a squeak from the civilised world. They now behave
> like model liberal democrats in response to a dodgy demand for
> extradition, and get bombed. Ironic or what?
It is very ironic, the effect on global Moslem opinion was fairly
predictable, Osama Bin laden becomes Robin Hood (bizarre or what?) and
the USA which was already disliked becomes hated in general terms. The
USA has just become the most loathed country on earth.
It was already regarded even in europe as something of a pariah as a
factor of it's xenophobia and disrespect for international treaties and
legal norms. However the number of Moslems who regarded the USA as
nakedly evil has just increased exponentially.
Anyway if we are to make this on topic what do you think the effect will
be on American tourists and Europe as a general or related item of
interest?
--
Respectfully submitted
Gregory
gregory....@ntlworld.com
CBBJ wrote:
>
> Though CNN only talks about precision-guided munitions and so-called
> "smart bombs", nothing is said about the fact the they are also using
> CLUSTER BOMBS, which have been used in past conflicts and have been
> known to kill numerous civilians. Use your favorite search engine
> and type "cluster bomb". Here is one web site:
>
> http://www.mcc.org/clusterbomb/moratorium/
>
> Cliff wrote:
Clearly off topic, with all due respect.
--
Respectfully submitted
Gregory
D.
>Sorry, but despite this media coverage, the impact has been quite
>different;
Interesting how you are so certain of that. Are you living on two
continents at one time? Fully immersed in the culture of each place
that you *know*, fully, truly appreciate the impact this has had on
the people of Britain, or of France, or of Germany (to name a few)?
>seems to be the difference between your country being
>attacked and 5,000 dead or someone else's.
Right. No country in Europe has ever been attacked by terrorists.
>As far as I can tell,
>Europeans are sympathetic but certainly "getting on with life" while
>in the US, that life is quite different
Perhaps you're not getting on with life, but every where I look,
people are going to work, visiting with friends, going to the movies,
shopping, whatever it is they normally do. In NYC or DC perhaps it's a
lot different because both these places are still very much physically
affected. But in this city in TX, apart from the more frequent
discussions of the local military being called, people *are* getting
on with life.
That does not mean life as normal, or life as pre-11 Sept. I sincerely
hope every USAian has a different perspective now of the world we live
in, of the very real threat of terrorism. It is so differernt for us
because we were so sheltered before. Many Americans have been living
in relative isolation for so long, and now we must face the reality
that life as we knew it will not be the same. That *we* were slow to
learn that is not the fault of Europeans who recognised this long ago
and are therefore better equipped for getting on with life. Perhaps we
can learn something from them?
Our day to day life may indeed be altered here in the US, but we still
live.
>All I've said in the original post, and continue to believe, is that
>this has not been as life-altering for Europeans and for Americans.
Has it not? Perhaps because they've adjusted in smaller increments
over the years, the intensity of this change is not so obvious to us
here in the US. It's like we've gone from innocent naive 5 year olds
to wisened shell-shocked 60 year olds overnight. Many others around
the world recognised the steps along the way which we chose to ignore.
That said, the world is not the same as it was. The terrorism threats
are so different now than any one would have imagined before. This
affects *every* country.
And remember, while US soil was attacked, it was the WORLD Trade
Center that was specifically targetted. There were citizens of so many
nations in that building who lost their lives. btw- I am not
discounting the attacks on the Pentagon, obviously the US *was* a
target, but we're the "leaders of the free world" right? Just like we
attack bin Laden because he's the so-called head of this terror
organisation, the US was attacked because it proclaims itself the
"leader."
>That's not to fault Europeans and their show of sympathy, or anything
>like that, just to get communication going when I see EU citizens not
>understanding what's going on in the US.
Um, you're not doing a very good job of it. Getting communication
going by disparaging the many people in Europe who either *do*
understand or are trying to understand is not going to work. Denying
that they feel it too merely displays more of that American arrogance.
Crying that "You just don't understand us!" sounds more like a whining
teenager complaining to his parents "You don't know what I suffer!"
when the parents don't approve of his behaviour.
I don't think Europeans can *fully* understand the American psyche
unless they were raised here (and in which case would not really be
Europeans) or spent a significant amount of time here. Similarly, I
don't think Americans can fully understand the European psyche. FWIW -
I know many Europeans who just can't grasp WHY the US has had such
isolationist policies, why Americans are so un-interested in the world
outside. I know *many* Americans who have no idea where Europe even
*is*, let alone who are the various heads of state... and don't even
get started on the people who think Africa is one country. However,
while that ignorance is frustrating to a fellow USAian, I *do*
understand the root of it, probably because I was raised in it and I
can't expect most Europeans, people who learn a second language from
childhood, people very aware of the fact that their neighbors have a
different culture, to fully comprehend that.
The fact is though, we in the US are the ones who *needed* to change.
It's a horrible shame that it took such an unspeakable act to
precipitate it.
It helps to get other people to understand you once you start trying
to understand them.
cd - a USAian with a lifelong interest in world history, geography,
and different cultures. Apparently an anomaly.
D.
>
> Why is it that to say that everyday life hasn't changed in the EU as
> it has in the US after all this is "incredibly arrogant".
Because it's presuming that you are the only one affected. It's
presuming that you *know* exactly what each European is feeling. For
that matter it's presuming you know exactly what each American is
feeling.
>
> As before, I'm not saying
> the military action is justified or not, just that many for many
> demonstrators, the actual events behind all this clearly hadn't sunk
> in to the same depth as in the US.
Any less so than the anti-war demonstrations in the US?
> > >Yes, on all sides. Perhaps some USAians should be a little less
> >self-centered and recognise that we've now become part of the world
> >community. We can no longer stand alone, proclaiming our might. We
> >must be humble. We must turn to our friends around the world and say
> >"we need you."
>
> Oh yeah. You sound very understanding and willing to put aside
> differences. Well done.
Indeed I am. Which part of "be part of the world community" is a
problem for you? Which part of "be humble and turn to our friends for
help" is a problem with understanding?
gregory....@ntlworld.com
Go Fig wrote:
>
> Are you saying the Taliban does not have a copy of the official U.S.
> Federal Indictment/Arrest Warrant or the UN mandate ?
It has a 'Dead or Alive' Fatwa (from George Bush) with lots of fatwa
leaflets posted up on walls in NYC by the police and others. Nobody has
suggested the American demands are strictly legal. As it transpires
their demands are patently and unambiguously illegal. A Western
European or a civilized country can't issue a 'Dead or Alive' fatwa
against anybody.
Civilized people do not act like that. With respect to the Lockerbie
atrocity (on topic for a change), the trial was held in Den Haag, with
Scottish judges and no possibility of the death penalty. If Osama Bin
Laden went on a tourist trip to England and was arrested in London, it
would be supremely difficult if not impossible to extradite him to the
USA.
Robert Ainsworth is the British Extradition Minister, go to the Home
Office web site and ask him. I bet he gives a very vague reply, it would
most likely be impossible for Britain to hand over Osama Bin Laden, it
would also make trade and relations with the Moslem world fraught with
difficulties. Britain will retreat from this project and leave the USA
to carry the can. The USA is generously hated in the Moslem world at
this point.
--
Respectfully submitted
Gregory
D.
>
> Eh? "the US pretty much leads the world in flag-waving"? "patriotic
> fervor in normal times"? If you think that, you don't know the
> US--there has been very little flag-waving until recently.
In comparison to Europe, yes definitely the US leads in flag-waving.
That is very well established. I have heard *many* Europeans comment
on it when visiting the US. How odd (not bad or good, just different)
to see flags flying so frequently. Drive (or better yet walk!) down
any street in the UK a year ago, or France, or pick your country in
Europe and tell me how many flags you see on non-official buildings.
Now do the same on any US street (imagine going back in time a bit
here, obviously *now* it is different). On any given day you would
have seen more US flags flying on people's homes, shopping centers,
parks, etc. Not so in most countries of Europe I've been in. How many
houses in the US already have a flag pole/holder attached to the
house? How many in Europe?
I believe the same is true in most other countries of the world, it
certainly is true in those I've visited, but obviously I shouldn't
speak for all.
I do indeed know the US. I think perhaps, if you believe the countries
of Europe had more flag waving fervor then it is clear you have not
been to Europe.
> >I'll tell you another thing I saw in this USA that you seem to think
> >is so banded together - my favourite Middle Eastern restaurant
> >attacked not once, but *twice* - first by a shot through the window,
> >next by a truck. I saw neighbors who are "Arabic looking" afraid to go
> >out of their homes for fear of attack by their fellow Americans.
>
> Why are you assuming that I'm for or against any of this? Is it
> because you're assuming I'm American that I'm for the criminal acts
> you're mentioning?
The above statement assumes nothing. It explains why I don't
necessarily think the rosy-coloured view of "banding together" is
completely accurate. Yes, USAians have indeed come closer together I
think. It's also turned some ugly Americans even uglier. You
discussed how you saw people coming together. I pointed out that I saw
people coming apart.
>
> *sigh* Thanks for the lecture.
You're welcome.
> For pete's sake; I am not condemning anyone, or saying that anyone is
> better or worse than anyone else. To reply with "But that's no worse
> than" implies that I was blaming someone for something, but of course
> I was not. All I was discussing was a rift in understanding. But it
> looks as though you're not going to be very open to that, would rather
> try to lash out at all kinds of things that seem to be bothering you.
> Perhaps I should wait until you get some of that cleared out yourself.
No lashing. I was trying to explain to you *why* I think this has
affected Americans so much, not that it's affected Europeans so
little.
Your accusations, and yes, they are accusations, that Europeans *do
not understand*, despite so much evidence to the country does
absolutely *nothing* to forge understanding between our cultures.
Please keep an open mind to perspectives which do not share your own
experience. My experience with Europeans is clearly drastically
different from yours. I actually *do* understand where you're coming
from, because I interact with Americans with that perspective
regularly, so I am not doubting your interpretation. I am trying to
*help* with this misunderstanding. If you continue to refuse that
Europeans *can* understand, *can* feel the depths of this, then there
is no overcoming such misunderstanding.
David Lewis
<ber...@enjoy-europe.com> writes
>Slow down and think. The issue is pretty simple and has been repeated by
>President Bush many times. If the Taliban turn over all the criminals
>the bombing will end. Period.
Slow down and think.
The Taliban is not *all* the Afghans. Many innocent people, with no
poer at all, are being killed. The Taliban will probably be quite safe.
David Lewis
Fig <go...@mac.com> writes
>No impact what so ever. The U.S. should pay thier tab and depart from this
>crippled body... and ask them to leave NYC at the end of the month.
>
>Then the rest of the world w/ their 'per capita' and 'per capita GNP'
>contribution
>can have the sandbox to themselves.
And this person probably wonders why Americans are not universally
loved and admired......
Marie
--
Ma...@nodanw.demon.co.uk
David Lewis
writes
> If we really wanted to
>kill Afghan civilians, we'd just nuke their cities, the moral
>equivalent of the WTC hijackings.
And you suppose wealthy Arab nations (including Pakistan which has
nuclear capability) wouldn't "nuke" you back? Do be a*little* more
sophisticated in your reasoning....
>If you'd follow the news
>more closely, whether on BBC or CNN, you'd see that we
>are targeting military installations, not civilians.
Targeting and missing. And I suppose you actually believe what you see
on the news?
>
>But it's time for you to put up or shut up.
How interesting. No-one should criticise the USA unless they have a
"solution."
"
>What is your
>alternative? Embargo, nothing, etc? Anyone can criticize,
>but solutions are another story entirely.
There is no solution. Violence will never ever stop terrorism. get Bin
Laden and thousands of others will spring up.
The answer lies (if there is an answer) in sortin out Israel and
Palestine. maybe.
One assumes, by your statements, that you are pretty high up in
government and diplomatic milieux. You, and you alone, have "a
solution."
--
David Lewis
postm...@nodanw.com
David Lewis
writes
>Non sequitor. The bombing is killing very few civilians.
So, if that is true -and you believe that only non-US sources indulge
in propaganda - it's OK to kill a "few" innocent people?
David Lewis
<dt...@yahoo.com> writes
>Are you in Europe or the US? How are you familiar with what has and
>hasn't been seen? Folks in Europe say the opposite. I am in the US but
>read BBC online daily and the constant coverage has not stopped
>(though that's not surprising, as the UK is quite heavily involved).
>To suggest that Europeans don't understand the depth of this tragedy
>is incredibly arrogant. As a USAian, I'm warmed by the depth of
>support and understanding from Europeans.
>
>Anti-*war* protests, at least in most of Europe. I know the protests
>in Pakistan and the Middle East are more Anti-US, but that's not
>surprising. The problem in the US right now is that *any* dissent is
>seen as being uncaring, un-patriotic. Anti-war protests, if civil, are
>a basic right in a healthy democracy. This situation is not black and
>white. We can not be John Wayne out to whip the bad guys - and this is
>extremely obvious when one looks at the "collaborations" the US/UK (I
>hesistate to say "The Allies") must make.
>Huh? The people of London and Paris are all too accustomed to
>terrorism. Ever wonder why you don't see trash bins in the Tube? or
>the Metro? No, not on the level of 6000+, but regular threats yes. I
>don't think people live in fear daily, but it's always there. I can't
>quite recall specific terrorist attacks in Berlin and Rome, but all
>these cities have been bombed at one time or another. What happens
>after a terrorist attack in NI? It get's one day front page in NY
>Times, perhaps the LA Times, maybe a note in the smaller papers, and
>then it disappears. Try finding *any* European news in most US papers
>on any given day. Even the attacks on the US embassies in Africa were
>covered on the BBC news at least as much if not moreso than in the US
>media. By the very suggestion that the people of Europe *have not
>understood*, you are revealing that you have not understood the
>position Europeans have been in for many many years.
>
>What I found instead, was a certain knowing understanding. The type of
>response one gets one a child dies, for example, and another parent
>who's lost a child can't say much, just nods and offers a hand of
>support, because he *knows* and *understands* the depths of the sorrow
>that parent must feel. THAT was the type of response I garnered from
>European media coverage as well as comments from Europeans both IRL
>and on the 'net.
>Yes, on all sides. Perhaps some USAians should be a little less
>self-centered and recognise that we've now become part of the world
>community. We can no longer stand alone, proclaiming our might. We
>must be humble. We must turn to our friends around the world and say
>"we need you."
>
>
>closest I could get to a "world" flag, and this tragedy affected more
>than just one nation.
Well done! But I rathe suspect that reason dosn't have much place in
the mind of the person you were amnswering....
David Lewis
, Bill Rossi <bill...@hotmail.com> writes
>You mean the anti-war protests in London featuring the word 'terrorist'
>plasted on the British flag? Or the activists in Greece burning US and
>British flags? These protests go far beyond simply being anti-war.
>
>
>
isn't it dreadful that you are not universally loved and admired?
I wonder why?