On 2001-10-03 06:22, Marc Lamb wrote:
BIN LADEN HAS WON!

According to Joseph Farah

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/pr...TICLE_ID=24766

Mr. Lamb, it looks like a sign of 4T to me. Now, old alliances count for little, and it is possible that the alliance between Israel and America might be broken soon. Plus, if Bush makes a Palenstinian state, I am fully behind this decision.

The situation in Israel is a very complicated one. Generally I, too, stand behind the creation of a Palestinian state, although I also believe that Israel must remain as a state, too. From an evangelical Christian perspective, I believe the final solution to this conflict is when Muslims and Jews both become Christians and the conflict is left behind; but from my interpretation of Scripture I don't think this is going to happen any time soon. I don't think that this will be a catalyst for a 4T (although I could be speaking too soon!), but it could be a real headache for the Bush administration...

i mentioned to a new friend recently that i found it rather interesting noticing the parallels between the hunt for bin laden today and the hunt that woodrow wilson sent general "blackjack" pershing on for pancho villa back in the early 20th century. i guess in their day pancho villa was considered a "terrorist" as well and that was their own version of the "war on terrorism."

i still maintain that bin laden is a foreshadowing, or a forerunner of a more sinister kind of leader that is still likely to emerge from the muslim world. to me he looks a lot like what che guevara was to fidel castro, lenin to stalin. his capture or death, i maintain, will indeed make him a true hero and martyr to many in the muslim world and, if there is a battle for his capture, that could well turn out to be a rallying cry for radical muslims in much the same way that the alamo was for texans in their battle with mexico. but the u.s. is left with few options but to do that. capturing or killing him makes him a hero or martyr; letting him go is not an acceptable option and even if we did it makes us look weak. there does not seem to be any good way for this to come out in the longer term.

the monarchies and dictatorships in the arab world are becoming increasingly fragile with each passing day and the radical elements in their populations are only growing stronger whether we like it or not. all that is needed is a leader of sufficient intelligence and charisma to galvanize these currently disparate elements into one force and one mind.

i fear that it is only a matter of time now before what happened to the shah of iran back in the 70s turns out to have been another foreshadowing of what we could be facing in the second decade of the 21st century and is what hurls us headlong down the path to the next 4rth turning crisis.

On 2001-10-02 12:18, JustinLong wrote:
...And another issue to throw in the mix will be gun control and home-grown terrorists, particularly those who have a radical religious streak. Will they remind us of bin Laden? How will we react to that? ...

They will remind me of Bin Laden if they claim religious authority for the United States and the entire Christian world, go on to fly a plane of Muslims into the holy stone during a crowded Hajj in Mecca, deny responsibility, yet then declare that all Christians are to kill any Afghani or Indonesian (etc.) civilians whom they can find, should the Muslim world seek to bring them to justice. The U.S. government would harbor these religious fanatics from the rest of the world.

How would we react to that? Well, I guarantee you there will be no leftist protests that the Muslim world should "give peace a chance", "make love not war", "forgive and love one another", and make the Muslims out to be the warmongers.

I am reacting not to Justin's context (good comments, Justin), but to use this as a way to explain why "I'm getting pissed off lately" (to paraphrase Kevin Spacey, albeit sarcastically) at how many Americans and Europeans are recasting what is happening.

(P.S. If John Lennon were alive today, I have a hunch he would not be living in 1980 anymore, but would have evolved into a moralistic hawkish voice at this time, so the "Words and Music of John Lennon" show last night was a disservice to him, I think.

The article by Hitchens, like many complaints against the nascent peace movement, misses the point and attacks positions that are not held by those he targets for complaint.


Let me clarify a couple of things.


1. Absolutely nobody has seriously suggested trying to appease, make a deal with, come to terms with, or in any way, shape or form, treat Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network as anything other than criminals. The only approach to fanatics such as these is to bring them to justice.


2. Very few have seriously suggested the kind of impotent hand-wringing to which Hitchens refers with such scorn, or that the Taliban should be left in power.


3. It remains the case that America's actions have contributed to this problem by creating a very wide base of very angry people, who are angry not for the kind of extreme fundamentalist Muslim reasons with which we can't come to terms, but for ordinary reasons of economic misery and political brutality. Those members of this very large group of angry people who are Muslim provide a fertile recruiting ground for al-Qaeda, because the human mind is not an altogether rational and compartmentalized thing. A Muslim who is angry at non-Muslims for non-religious reasons can easily, with a bit of prodding, become angry for religious reasons as well, and join the cause. If he were not angry for those non-religious reasons, that would be much more difficult. I might add that Hitchens himself points out a few of our actions that contribute to the problem, and rightly criticizes them, but somehow fails to connect the dots. Two conclusions properly follow from this point:


4. While we are bringing bin Laden and crew to justice and (probably) toppling the Taliban, we must be very careful not to engage in indiscriminate slaughter, because that will make the underlying problem worse; and


5. We must at the same time do some soul-searching and correct the abuses that our country has engaged in, which create so many Muslims angry for non-religious reasons. This goes far beyond support for Israel, by the way.

Brian writes?

3. It remains the case that America's actions have contributed to this problem by creating a very wide base of very angry people, who are angry not for the kind of extreme fundamentalist Muslim reasons with which we can't come to terms, but for ordinary reasons of economic misery and political brutality. Those members of this very large group of angry people who are Muslim provide a fertile recruiting ground for al-Qaeda, because the human mind is not an altogether rational and compartmentalized thing. A Muslim who is angry at non-Muslims for non-religious reasons can easily, with a bit of prodding, become angry for religious reasons as well, and join the cause.

A quibble. Theirs is a primarily religious culture. Ours is more mixed. While we would address certain problems using economic or political language and values, others might view the same problems in religious terms. If one can perceive an injustice, surely Allah sees the injustice too, wishes it removed, and wishes his followers to act to remove it. If Lincoln acted ?with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right,? does Lincoln have a monopoly on projecting his values on God, thus claiming God?s stature and authority in advocating a secular cause?

Being a devout agnostic, I am dubious about those claiming to know God?s will better than others. I would prefer to stick with secular language and values. However, asking a devout individual to please ignore religious values seems impractical. I would simply make an effort to translate a complaint made by a religious individual from another culture into secular language before dismissing it.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2001-10-03 11:03 ]</font>

For those interested in my earlier comments about bleedover, etc., I have begun doing an assessment of the various "voices" in American society. I am starting with Political voices, namely the US Governors (followed by Senators, Congressmen, etc.) You can see the results of this dynamically updated at

http://www.justinlong.org/gen/index.php?page=summary

Comments are welcome. You can post them either here I guess or send them to me via email at justinlong@strategicnetwork.org

Edit: The data is current for all the Governors as of 2001. It goes back to 1998. Any % before AD 1998 is off because not all the data is present.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JustinLong on 2001-10-03 15:04 ]</font>

I've been reading and contributing since page 8, and rarely do I see any talk directed towards why the Arabs are so angry. Don't you know why? Don't any of you know that this isn't the first time the arabs have hijacked four airliners. They did it in 1970, In part, toward the U.S. support of Israel.
I don't admire the arab tactics, but I wouldn't ever call them cowards. Every hijacker was willing to give his life for his cause, and did so. Are we willing to make the same committment?
I suggest that everyone that follows the postings on this forum read up on the facts of this region. In that light, check out:
Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, by Ahmed Rashid
It's available at amazon and other bookstores. Before posturing for a "measured response", a little understanding of the dynamics of this area is in order.
Read and understand, then judge the situation.

Justin, someone has already done that for US Senators and Representatives on some other thread. I'm not sure which other thread but perhaps someone else does.

A few questions concerning your site, Mr. Long.

1. Exactly what political offices are included in your numbers for each year? Do they include all governors, all members of the U.S. Congress? Any Cabinet folks?

2. What were your sources? Are they reliable?

3. You are aware of the thread called Generations and Turnings by the Numbers. Why not post your numbers (website) and answer over there. It would be great to look at them in context of the present events.

Great work, Mr. Long. See you at the Numbers thread! :smile:

Is September 11 the beginning of the fourth
turning?
When events are in the saddle, it is very difficult to establish key pattern to say
that a fourth turning is in progress.
The 11th of September, however, is the
most significant turning point in American
history since Pearl Harbor.
Just by the goals of the American government
we know that this is a long twilight struggle
year in and year. It is a time of maximum
danger. Everyone should now read JFK's Inaugural address, because it applies now.
It is time to ask what we can do for our country.

Is September 11 the beginning of the fourth
turning?
When events are in the saddle, it is very difficult to establish key pattern to say
that a fourth turning is in progress.
The 11th of September, however, is the
most significant turning point in American
history since Pearl Harbor.
Just by the goals of the American government
we know that this is a long twilight struggle
year in and year. It is a time of maximum
danger. Everyone should now read JFK's Inaugural address, because it applies now.
It is time to ask what we can do for our country.

On 2001-10-03 16:13, sv81 wrote:
I've been reading and contributing since page 8, and rarely do I see any talk directed towards why the Arabs are so angry. Don't you know why? Don't any of you know that this isn't the first time the arabs have hijacked four airliners. They did it in 1970, In part, toward the U.S. support of Israel.
I don't admire the arab tactics, but I wouldn't ever call them cowards. Every hijacker was willing to give his life for his cause, and did so. Are we willing to make the same committment?
I suggest that everyone that follows the postings on this forum read up on the facts of this region. In that light, check out:
Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia, by Ahmed Rashid
It's available at amazon and other bookstores. Before posturing for a "measured response", a little understanding of the dynamics of this area is in order.
Read and understand, then judge the situation.

First of all, your use of the word "Arab" is a bit broad-brush. Also, I wouldn't refer to murder thousands of people as a "tactic", I'd call it an act of war.

Bob Butler, Brian Rush and others have written plenty about why the Arab world is angry. Did you expect that that should be the main issue here?

Don't you know why Americans are so angry?

I look at it like this. Every hijacker (murderer, spy) was not only willing to give his life, but willing to give the lives of fellow Muslims (killed in the WTC) and civilians of many countries of the world. I agree that the term "coward" doesn't accurately describe them, but that doesn't make them "brave", just fanatical and completely uncaring of human life. Thus, they merit zero respect. I hardly admire them for giving their life to their cause.

And of course there are plenty of Americans who will indeed give their lives to their cause, namely of preserving a society that grants to you and me the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. What makes you think Americans are less committed to their ideals than terrorist killers? Do we have to kill "Arabs" to prove it?

Rather than "cowards", the hijackers were abusers of the very freedom they attack. It is a testimony to American liberty and tolerance being "good", in that it permits enemies to take advantage of it. We have, "loved our enemies", in that sense -- we allowed them to have freedom to do evil here.

I don't get your bottom line: because the Arab world has some complaints, major and minor, perhaps justified and perhaps not, it is now our duty to make that our top priority? No -- it is our top priority to eliminate the groups who attacked us, who declared war on us, who continue to advocate the killing of American civilians (that means YOU, if you were to go to one of many countries around the world and say "Peace").

Regarding sv81's comments about Arab motivations, not to sound callous but that's off-topic. This forum is not about the reasons behind what extremists do. This forum is about the Fourth Turning and whether America is in one or not.

In answer to some questions posted about the website...

A few questions concerning your site, Mr. Long.

1. Exactly what political offices are included in your numbers for each year? Do they include all governors, all members of the U.S. Congress? Any Cabinet folks?

Right now, just the governors. I'll be adding all members of US Congress as I have the time :smile:. Also, not just political, but I envision adding media and religious leaders too...

2. What were your sources? Are they reliable?

Political almanacs published from a variety of sources: one is by the national journal and I forget where the other one is. Basically they are large books that document all of the governors, senators, representatives in a given year. I'm not including rankings, just the fact that X person served as governor from X year to X year, and they were born in X year. I am assuming they are reliable :smile:

3. You are aware of the thread called Generations and Turnings by the Numbers. Why not post your numbers (website) and answer over there. It would be great to look at them in context of the present events.

I'll have to take a look for that forum, i wasn't aware it was there.

Great work, Mr. Long. See you at the Numbers thread!

Thanks!

Perhaps here, Mr. Long?

Click here:
http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...um=6&start=160

I don't get your bottom line: because the Arab world has some complaints, major and minor, perhaps justified and perhaps not, it is now our duty to make that our top priority?

No.


Because the entire world outside the developed west has serious complaints that are absolutely justified, no "perhaps" about it whatsoever, it is now our duty to make rectifying those matters our top priority -- along with wiping out the al-Qaeda network.


Unless we do, this is going to go on forever. And, perhaps more importantly, until we do we will be nothing more than another imperial power, unworthy of our own ideals upon which this country was supposedly founded.

Are we ready for biological war?

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/ne...04/ixhome.html

[quote]
On 2001-10-03 20:58, JustinLong wrote:
Regarding sv81's comments about Arab motivations, not to sound callous but that's off-topic. This forum is not about the reasons behind what extremists do. This forum is about the Fourth Turning and whether America is in one or not.


Justin, i would have to disagree with you on this statement. i think a stong case can be made that it has been the actions of these "extremists" that has provided the necessary catalyst for the "fourth turning" to finally begin. and i also believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that what is going on now with radical islam will play a large role in just how the fourth turning here in the u.s plays out.

personally, i think sv81's comments are very appropo. if you do not understand the motivations your enemy then how can you hope to effectively combat them? i think it is vital that we all come to an understanding of exactly why these people are so willing to give their lives for such a cause, killing so many innocent people in the name of a religion that espouses peace and brotherhood. i would suggest that "radical islam" is really a cover for political dissent because the countries that these people come from do not tolerate a great deal, if any, political dissent. it is perhaps only in the mosques that such dissent can even be voiced without fear of reprisal.

how would we as americans feel if it seemed that some outside superpower was preventing us from having the kind of government that we wanted and instead was propping up some oppressive dictatorship or monarchy? or allow an outside group of people to come in, dispossess other americans from their land in the name of God, without compensation of any sort, and then use that power to keep us from taking back our land? would we not want to strike back, using any means necessary, as well? did we not actually do this when we broke away from england and began our own revolution back in the 18th century? i would suggest that the british government considered our own founding fathers to be terrorists at the time as well.

as i write this post i realize that considering the tenor of current events it may be somewhat controversial to even suggest these things. in no way do i condone what these people did in bombing the world trade center. but i do ask myself from time to time since the event, if we were in their shoes, feeling that kind of frustration, what would we be willing to do to win what we thought was our concept of freedom? how far would we be willing to go?

Strauss and Howe ask the wrong question. The cycles are historic as well as cultural. The attacks have been generally accepted as marking a historic transition. What is interesting is to see close up in time the transition from one cycle to the next. It is remarkable to watch the silents (Powell...) efforts to find clever ways to live with a problem no matter how terrible. At the same time boomers (Bush, Blare...) are calling for actions that will eliminate the trouble no matter how high the cost. The meaningful question is how will this inevitable struggle resolve itself over the next generation. The outcome of this struggle is predictable the greater question however is less certain.

On 2001-09-27 21:43, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

The Baron, a Hero? What is your basis for that assessment? Somehow he always struck me more as the very worst sort of Nomad/Reactive, the type that reacts by making himself the absolute center of the universe.

Why was the Baron a Hero? Consider the Baron's ultimate goals - he wasn't out to claim power merely for himself, indeed, throughout the book he points out that he very likely will NOT be able to become Emperor himself, rather he will have to settle for being the power behind the throne for Emperor Feyd-Rautha - the progenitor of a long dynasty of Harkonnen Emperors.

The Baron sought to re-build society in the image, not of himself, but along the perverted Darwinian principles that his family and his planet espoused. In his own mind, he was doing what was right for the universe, attempting to build a new society where they strong take their rightful place - as overlords and predators among the weak.

I thought of something else, too. Suppose the generational cycle went on throughout Leto's Peace, all those thousands of years. Every lifetime or so, a Prophet generation would come along.

I guess what I'm asking is what the reaction would be if a Prophet generation rose up for its Awakening, bounced, and knew that no matter how hard they tried, they could NEVER overcome the Establishment, that it would outlast them to the last member. I wonder what the generational reaction would be?

I thought about this too. It seems to me that what Leto was doing was holding humanity in a transitional moment for untold thousands of years between Paul's Awakening and the inevitable Unravelling (Imagine if 1975 had lasted for 4,000 years). Basically, Paul's Awakening was so disastrous, had unleashed forces of such magnitude, that Leto knew that shifting too fast into an disastrous Unravelling would result in the end of the human race. Leto's Peace and his actions allowed him to shape and guide the forces of the Awakening and prepare humanity for an Unravelling that would be positive for humanity - and it was, it resulted in the Scattering, where humanity finally left our home galaxy.

Leto's Peace is much like the four or five years of shifting seasons I believe we are in now as our Thid Turning turns to a Fourth. Humans need that transition time to settle the old argumants of the previous turning and begin framing the questions and challenges that face them in the next. We didn't just magically go to bed on December 31, 1975 in Love Beads and wake up on January 1, 1976 in disco shoes -it took time. After 911, we're not just going to trade in our Gucci loafers for combat boots in a day or a week - but trade them in we will.

As for the individual generations who lived under Leto's Peace, I would imagine that in essence there were no generations during that time period - as time was essentially frozen. If you remember, Leto channelled generational passions into unchanging clockwork institutions he controlled: The Bene Gesserit (Heroes), Ix and the Fish Speakers (Artists), The Museum Fremen (Prophets), and the general populace (Nomads forever waiting for their Unravelling). Upon Leto's death, time started moving forward again and I would imagine each of those institutions filled their necessary generational roles until enough time had passed that real generations were once again born.

Interestingly, the Dune books eerily presage our own era, as Herbert's books detail an intrafaith struggle in which different factions of a futuristic Muslim society attempt to wrest dominance from one another in an attempt to steer the future of that society, rather like what seems to be happening in the Islamic world now. Even the descriptions and actions of the Tlielaxu are remarkably close to those of the Taliban (though I believe the Tlielaxu are Sufi and the Taliban are Sunni).



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-10-04 03:44 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-10-04 15:03 ]</font>

how would we as americans feel if it seemed that some outside superpower was preventing us from having the kind of government that we wanted and instead was propping up some oppressive dictatorship or monarchy? or allow an outside group of people to come in, dispossess other americans from their land in the name of God, without compensation of any sort, and then use that power to keep us from taking back our land? would we not want to strike back, using any means necessary, as well?

I see this argumant used all too often by what I call the "Blame America" faction, who's reaction to this atrocity is to say "we're getting what we deserve" and appeal for "tolerance" and "understanding". Unfortunately, what the "Blame America" faction would like us to do is get stuck in a paroxysm of self-loathing, sit back, take our lumps and not do what is necessary to clean out this nest of vipers, all because in their politically correct moral relativism they can't understand the difference between a nation that has high ideals that they sometimes fail to live up to and a group of people that don't even pretend to live on the same moral planet we do.

I am the last person to claim that America's hands are clean - we did fund the Mujahadeen in the '80's that gave birth to the Taliban and we have propped up monsters and dictators in this region only to later have them turn on us (which gave birth to Al Qaeda). What this tragedy has done is give us the opportunity to look at our past mistakes, not for the purpose of excoriating ourselves, but for the purposes of cleaning them up. Helping to create the Taliban was a mistake, I think we can all admit that - the morally correct action now isn't to "negotiate" with these monsters or to wallow in self-loathing (that's so 3T) - it's to wipe them out and correct many of our other mistakes as well (including our dependence of foreign oil), and I'm willing to bet that when we do, there will be a whole lot of celebrating by ordinary oppressed folks in Kabul that the lunatic Left claims to care about.

did we not actually do this when we broke away from england and began our own revolution back in the 18th century? i would suggest that the british government considered our own founding fathers to be terrorists at the time as well.

Not even close. Nobody got hurt at the Boston Tea Party. We officially declared our rebellion to the King in a lovely document you may have heard of called the Declaration of Independence. During the war we focused on military targets and objectives - nobody ever took a clipper ship to England in 1778 and set off black powder charges in random London pubs and haberdasheries (like the IRA has done). And, despite individual acts against them, there was never a concerted official action taken by the Patriots against the Tories as there has been by Al Qaeda against other Muslim targets in Egypt and Afghanistan.

as i write this post i realize that considering the tenor of current events it may be somewhat controversial to even suggest these things. in no way do i condone what these people did in bombing the world trade center. but i do ask myself from time to time since the event, if we were in their shoes, feeling that kind of frustration, what would we be willing to do to win what we thought was our concept of freedom? how far would we be willing to go?

Not that far. That's the difference between a people with high moral ideals and those who preach what is essentially immoral and evil. Those we fight have NO concept of freedom - the very thought is utterly alien to them. I'm sorry to those moral and cultural relativists out there, but the brutal 6th century theocracy preached by fanatics like Al Qaeda and the Taliban is VASTLY morally inferior to the pluralistic worldview espoused by the United States and Western Democracies.

There is nothing wrong with following a religious tradition that requires you to wear certain clothes or act in a certain way (it hasn't hurt the Amish, the Hasidim or the Dali Lama) there is everything wrong when you force everyone else to follow your religious worldview. THAT'S the difference between us and tham, between a people who believe in freedom and those who can't understand the concept. The majority of Muslims in America understand it and believe in it with their whole hearts- that's why they CAME to America, because they can't have freedom at home.

Yes we've made mistakes, some of them horrible (Manzanar comes to mind), but in the end we've always pulled back from them, tried to make recompense where we could and tried to learn from our mistakes to become a better people who live lives closer to our ideals. Yes, America had slaves, and that was an atrocity, but America is also the only country that ever fought a civil war for the express purpose of wiping that evil stain from our land when we finally came to the realization that slavery was incompatible with what it meant to be an American.

I don't care if the Aztecs were Native Americans with "a long and noble history, advanced mathematics, a mystical connection to the land and a strong and rich religious tradition" - they were a brutal, degenerate society that made a regular practice of enslaving everyone they could get their hands on, performed human sacrifice and cheerfully ate the hearts of those they killed. That's NOT a different culture, that's just evil - and I for one am GLAD the Aztec culture is extinct. I'll be just as glad when Al Qaeda and the Taliban join them, and so, I suspect, will most of the oppressed citizens of Afghanistan.

Islamic extremists are to the true spirit of Islam what the KKK is to Christianity and the Michigan Militia is to American patriotism. If America ever reformed our society around the principles espoused by the Ku Klux Klan, we would deserve to join them in oblivion. There is NO religious tradition or history of oppression that justifies what these people proudly take credit for.

It is incumbent upon the oppressed to be morally superior to their oppressors - that is the only way to truly throw off the shackles of human misery - otherwise you just trade one group of monsters for another.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-10-04 04:46 ]</font>

enjolras wrote

i think a stong case can be made that it has been the actions of these "extremists" that has provided the necessary catalyst for the "fourth turning" to finally begin. and i also believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that what is going on now with radical islam will play a large role in just how the fourth turning here in the u.s plays out.

Yes, I agree.

personally, i think sv81's comments are very appropo. if you do not understand the motivations your enemy then how can you hope to effectively combat them?

I don't think fighting terrorists is what T4T is going to be about. It might be an early "catalyst" that will lead to responses that will create a 4T. But even if fighting terrorism is what a 4T is about, the individual motives of the terrorist do not determine our responses - their actions do...

i think it is vital that we all come to an understanding of exactly why these people are so willing to give their lives for such a cause, killing so many innocent people in the name of a religion that espouses peace and brotherhood. i would suggest that "radical islam" is really a cover for political dissent because the countries that these people come from do not tolerate a great deal, if any, political dissent. it is perhaps only in the mosques that such dissent can even be voiced without fear of reprisal.

I think it is vital that we understand these people, too. But I don't think it's vital from a 4T standpoint, just from the standpoint of someone who lives in the world and should understand it. I disagree with your perspective, although it is an interesting one. Extremist Islam enforces the status quo, it doesn't dissent from it. Dissent moves more toward a liberalized Islam. If you look at the Extremist groups you see a desire for a *more strict* theocratic government, which is already in place in many Islamic nations (Algeria, Iraq, Libya, Syria being exceptions--they are secular governments, believe it or not... and fortunately moderately open to Christianity...)

how would we as americans feel if it seemed that some outside superpower was preventing us from having the kind of government that we wanted and instead was propping up some oppressive dictatorship or monarchy? or allow an outside group of people to come in, dispossess other americans from their land in the name of God, without compensation of any sort, and then use that power to keep us from taking back our land? would we not want to strike back, using any means necessary, as well? did we not actually do this when we broke away from england and began our own revolution back in the 18th century? i would suggest that the british government considered our own founding fathers to be terrorists at the time as well.

I think these are questions that impact the Turnings within THOSE nations, not within OURS.

p.s. Hey, Delsyn - did you watch West Wing last night? :smile:

On 2001-10-02 15:19, Bob Butler 54 wrote:
Part of the basic problem is that the current world order depends on western consumers to spend frivolously, while a good part of the world lives in want.

An interesting point. More and more, I?m beginning to see one point about the coming 4th Turning that wasn?t so clear before: that whatever threat we find ourselves facing, we will need to convince the poor and alienated of the world that we are not their enemy, and that we are allies in their struggle for a better life. In every other American crisis, we could claim to be defending the poor and oppressed, and we can?t afford to ignore the world?s needy now. Nor is it our natural inclination to do so. When we?re complacent about it, US power in so many areas, including economic and cultural, can appear abusive to those that are struggling to survive while we?re using up resources much faster than anyone needs to.
I?ve long felt that the coming Crisis period will be focused on ecological changes that will threaten humanity?s survival. I don?t know if that?s intuition, or just my worst nightmare. It should be a warning to us that our current administration turned it?s back on the world?s fears about global warming, and now we need them to rally in our defense.

It seems to me we must keep focused on the priority of stopping terrorism, and forming a worldwide consensus on the idea that murdering non-combatants is intolerable. This involves recruiting as many allies as possible, and those that come from the same cultural-ethnic background as most of our enemies can be the most important allies. If we support a Palestinian state, it has to be a state that actively fights terrorism ? especially terrorism against Israelis. I realize many consider Arafat criminally unacceptable, but I don?t see Sharon as any better (on that score, I?d like to refer you to Pity the Nation by Robert Fisk, but I?m sorry to see it?s out of print). And I don?t believe it serves the terrorists? purposes to build a US-backed Palestinian state; I think it?s the last thing they want. It is important, though, to score successes against terrorists at the same time, for the same reason Lincoln held back the Emancipation Proclamation until there was a significant Union victory: so it?s not taken as an act of desperation.
Of course, if we look for moral purity, I can?t think of any nationality that comes out looking very good. Delsyn?s review of our own moral history looks about right. We have a lot to live down, but we openly wrestle with it. I wish that right now, we could find a way to hold up our defense of Muslim Bosnia and Kosovo for propaganda purposes.

The terrorist groups are criminals, and it?s important to isolate them from their own populations. I harbor some hope for my fellow Boomers in the time to come, because the Vietnam experience may have taught us something of the importance of the ?hearts and minds? of the population. Saddam Hussein was successful in recruiting support from Palestinian Arabs not because he?d done anything for them, but because, as they saw it, no one else was on their side. If the poor and alienated of the world see us as acting only for our own advantage, the future is pretty grim. From their point of view, we already own most of what?s good in the world. I hope we can convince them that we want a good life for their children as well as our own. Maybe we should start by convincing ourselves.

p.s. Hey, Delsyn - did you watch West Wing last night? :smile:

Yes I did, I love that show.

I finished those posts at about 3:00 in the morning. When I woke up this morning I realized that I hadn't given proper attribution to 2 elements from that show that I appropriated to make a point in my previous post, so here we go:

- the analogy about Extremist Islam and the KKK is courtesy of Josh Lyman
- the point about the Revolutionary War is courtesy of Sam Seaborn.

And of course, all of the ideas expressed on that show spring from the head of Aaron Sorkin who's political arguments, even when I don't agree with them (for example, I don;t believe that the John Spencer character should have apologized for his comment about teaching Saudi Arabian women to drive, that's left wing moral relativism). They are always well put together, though, and well worth occasionally appropriating during a political discussion.

While I certainly don't agree with many of the things said and done on that show, by and large Sorkin's approach to politics come from a middle left and south of center. I'd describe myself as just slightly right and north of center, a cultural liberal and an economic conservative While we differ on certain aspects of what the role of government should be, we're both way closer to the radical center than the lunatics of both the left and the right that continue to squawk throughout this time.

You know, when you only have a left or a right wing, the only thing you can do is flap around in a circle.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-10-04 09:57 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-10-04 10:12 ]</font>

And of course, all of the ideas expressed on that show spring from the head of Aaron Sorkin who's political arguments, even when I don't agree with them (for example, I don;t believe that the John Spencer character should have apologized for his comment about teaching Saudi Arabian women to drive, that's left wing moral relativism). They are always well put together, though, and well worth occasionally appropriating during a political discussion.

I thought he should have apologized, not so much for the idea, but for the way in which it was said - a comment intended as a "comeback" designed to insult and put down and put in place... So I was glad he did. (OF course I think women should drive, but I don't think we should be insulting either.)