It was said earlier that:

Dune is fiction, created whole cloth out of the mind of one man. However, great truths often lie buried in fiction - as they are the
result of how a society or a segment of society views itself.

Who seeks to draw the dialogue of the turnings of history from western civilization to the past 100 years of middle east history - all in an attempt to discover fact-based patterns of history and prevent future mistakes?

I guess for now, its me.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-12-31 23:34 ]</font>

Delsyn:

Quoting you, you said:

You seem to be approaching this discussion as though human beings are rational and do things dictated only by facts that can be verified as objective reality. This is false.

Again I'm confused, for yes, I do believe that human beings are rational, and although we cannot objectively verify every reality, trying is a whole lot better than forgeting the legacy of reason that has brought us this far in the world.

I can't suggest another method to bring us closer to a solution and avoid another terror attack.

I intend my postings to be history based, for that is what the book the Fourth Turning is also based on. In that light, we cannot forget or cover up the history of the middle east.

It seems like that has been done.

It seems amazing how little we independently know of a region in the world that has received billions of dollars of our federal aid, and billions from from other countries as well.

There seems no clarity in vision of a resolved conflict to these peoples. Is there no one that ventures to apply rational thought to an area thas has no shortage of orthodox opinion, but few clear minds?

Every citizen should study the details of this region of the world, and not demonize any group of people. I fear for the thousands that may be killed unnecessarily in the days ahead. Surely they warrant our rational thought.

Lastly, as I said before, I really like Dune and have no problem with it as an example of genocide amongst competing factions. But it seems trivial in light of real people in the face of real death.. If Frank Herbert was alive, I'd suggest he write a documentary.

Hopeful Cynic said:

Nobody is behind the wheel. That's the whole essence of the late 3T, and even if we are in
early 4T, we're not far enough into it yet that anybody can be said to be in control of
anything.
For that matter, I would submit that even in late 4T periods, the perception of control on the part of the Gray Champion just might be an illusion.

That's a very interesting suggestion; that the entire crisis cycle is a cyclic occurance that isn't driven by any deliberate means. I wonder what our hosts think of that idea?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-12-31 23:35 ]</font>

On 2001-10-06 00:08, sv81 wrote (in response to HopefulCynic:
That's a very interesting suggestion; that the entire crisis cycle is a cyclic occurance that isn't driven by any deliberate means. I wonder what our hosts think of that idea? That also connects with the idea that the second world war certainly got away from German control.

There's a difference between the collective cause-and-effect element of the generational cycles and the direct cause-and-effect consequences of a particular act (or policy, etc.) For example, the "butterfly" illustration of chaos theory -- that the flap of a butterfly's wings in Central Park will eventually cause a hurricane in Mexico -- is an interesting but ultimately misleading concept. Conversely, the notion that there are <u>no</u> external factors at work in S&H's theories is also misleading. There are patterns in the cycles because the reactions are collective ones, even though the initial act is individual. And it's our reactions to events that drive the cycles, not the events themselves. Hence, if tomorrow Vladimir Putin went suddenly insane and threw Russia's nuclear arsenal behind Osama bin Laden (an individual act), our reaction (collective) to that act would likely depend upon what T we're in.

Personally, I think the arabs are in control today. They stall for western rage to cool, with full capability to retaliate within this country for any attack to their host country.

As we have become more (one hopes) knowledgeable about the Middle East, we realize that there are groups within groups -- ethnic, racial, religious, social, etc. By "arabs" whom are you referring to? Saudis? Jordanian? Kuwaitis?

As I've said before anybody who is willing to give their life in protest (such as a monk lighting himself on fire with gasoline), (or a hijacker), has a serious point to get across.

My thought is what brought them to this point?

Oscar Wilde once said, "A thing is not necessarily true just because someone dies for it." You are certainly correct that we need to educate ourselves with regard to the myriad factors at work in the vast Middle East, but that is not the same as assigning the legitimate concerns of a nation or of a peoples to the acts of an individual. The logic behind connecting the two appears to be sound on the surface, but it is a faulty logic. Evidence right now indicates that large percentages of people in that area do not support the acts of 911, therefore events in those lands have not exactly led to a legitimization (in their minds) of what happened in NYC. Can we ignore what drove those individuals to their acts? No. But assigning them a political or religious or cultural motive rather than a psychological one will lead us down a slippery slope.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin1952 on 2001-10-06 09:24 ]</font>

Let me also add that in 1963, when Buddhist monks were engaging in self-immolation, what American policy makers missed what <u>not</u> what drove the monks to commit suicide (lack of power-sharing in a purportedly Catholic regime) -- of that they were profoundly aware. Rather, they were much too long in realizing the degree of distance between President Diem and his people. This was an issue that also concerned Catholics...so what drove the monks to suicide was only nominally connected to what led to Diem's ouster and assassination.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin1952 on 2001-10-06 10:30 ]</font>

Kevin:

I liked the Oscar Wilde quote and I will remember what you said. I agree with most of your post, except one clause:

"Can we ignore what drove those individuals to their acts? No. But assigning them a political or religious or cultural motive rather than a psychological one will lead us down a slippery slope."

My response is that we can apply political, religious and cultural motives. Not because they are masses of faceless humanity, but because we can't individually psychoanalyze every one of them, groups of them,or even the myriad number of their leaders.

Hitler was off balance, wouldn't you agree? and we have hundreds of books to analyze him. None however explains how he became so successful in what he did. He lead his people with a vision that took shape over the duration of the war. The political, religious and cultural situation in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's had far more to do with the war than just one guy.

Perhaps any number of leaders could have been a Hitler, or Bin Laden.

Now, what the millions who stand behind the leaders believe, and are motivated by, well, that's a lot more important than just one person. Bin Laden is a harbinger of the future, an agent, a channel to pass the tone of the people. If we focus on him being a mastermind, and kill him for justice, you can be sure another will step into his place. He, and his followers stand ready to die for their cause. Albeit not necessarily a good cause, but their cause nonetheless. Until we address "their cause" the killing won't end.

Its true that President Bush speaks for the U.S. He though, is powerless without the support of our, (basically noninformed) masses, to stand behind him.

To understand the peoples of the middle east from a psychological basis could also fail for another reason. We would be looking at the issue from our box of reality. To the extent there are different rules that these people play by, and think by, we could do a great job of analysis, and then find that nothing we try really works. In that light, think of Freud. His ideas revolutionized mental health, and started an entire industry. Modernly, we know that he was wrong in so many ways, but the legacy of his thought remains. Does it work? It does but only in his box, not the greater universe.

If we are to analyze the people, I suggest Reality Therapy, by William Glassner. It's a more effective method, and with respect to the criminality of the middle east actors, The Criminal Mind, by Stanton Sammenow. These two guys did more to uncover and deal with mental health than anybody up to this point, and their books lay open the dirction of how to treat your run-of-the-mill terrorist.

Lastly, I leave you with a quote that rivals Wilde:

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil, for one who strikes at the root.
by Thoreau


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-12-31 23:37 ]</font>

On 2001-10-06 10:37, sv81 wrote:
Hitler was off balance, wouldn't you agree? and we have hundreds of books to analyze him. None however explains how he became so successful in what he did...Perhaps any number of leaders could have been a Hitler, or Bin Laden.

Yes, which is why we have to conclude that there is a gulf between the acts of the terrorists and the grievances of the various middle east groups. If what drives the terrorists is a different set of motives (as I believe) than the political, religious and social underpinnings of the rest of the area, then prior events (Soviet invasion, oil prices, Israel v. Palestine, etc.) only provide a cosmetic connection.

Perhaps the issue is not why Hitler was able to lead an entire nation into total war, but why Osama bin Laden has not. He commands but a few hundred fellow terrorists. That he may have captured the hearts and minds of a larger number of Muslims is still not in the same league as Hitler's leading a nation into total war (nor can they be analyzed with the same tools). As you infer, for all the difficulties of post-hoc psychiatry, Hitler is far easier to analyze than the German peoples at mid-century. Daniel Goldhagen's book, <u>Hitler's Willing Executioners</u>, is an interesting, but extremely controversial, attempt at doing so. What drove the Germans to war was likely decidedly different than what drove Hitler to war.

Now, what the millions who stand behind the leaders believe, and are motivated by, well, that's a lot more important than just one person. Bin Laden is a harbinger of the future, an agent, a channel to pass the tone of the people. If we focus on him being a mastermind, and kill him for justice, you can be sure another will step into his place. He, and his followers stand ready to die for their cause.

I'm still not certain that I'm seeing this trend. I doubt that bin Laden does or will command "millions" of followers. In the Gulf War, for instance, the elite Republican Guard was indeed a formidable foe, but they comprised but a tiny fraction of the forces Iraq sent into that war. Most of the army was made up of unwilling conscripts who gratefully surrendered at the first opportunity. Several nations in the region have been at war off and on for the past 20 years. Has any amassed a huge, truly jihad-like force?

Until we address "their cause" the killing won't end.

Because this "cause" is psychological, the killing won't> end, as it hasn't for the Northern Irish. Ireland is an economic heaven right now -- yet a handful of IRA cells continue to operate, because what drives them is not economic justice, just terror.

The men who crashed all those planes succeeded in doing what they set out to do. People died, the WTC collapsed, America was dealt a huge blow. It was an endgame, not the first step in a complex series of moves designed to gain a particular end. They might chant the mantra of a master plan in some form, but these are acts that are complete unto themselves.

However, in case you noticed, it is the religious doctrines and cultural intollerance that drives the engine of terrorism - not personality of the leaders.

Actually, this is what recent events have indicated are <u>not</u> driving terrorism. Time and again, Muslim leaders have quoted the Qur'an as being explicitly opposed to terrorism. The Wahhabist, Shi'ite, and Sunni sects -- all of which profess varying degrees of fundamentalism -- have officially condemned the acts of 911. If there are followers in these camps, then they are in direct opposition to the stated position of the sects.

To understand the peoples of the middle east from a psychological basis could also fail for another reason.

True, but we can only "understand" the specific acts of specfic terrorists from a psychological point of view, which I why I believe there is a major disconnect between the acts of Mohammed Atta and the grievances of whatever peoples one discusses (Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians, Afghanis).


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin1952 on 2001-10-06 13:09 ]</font>

i find it interesting that there seems to be a general assumption that adolf hitler was supposedly "off balance" or "mentally ill" to have been able to perpetrate the crimes against humanity that he did. i would beg to differ. hitler was no more off balance or crazed than any other political leader which is was makes his deeds even more horrifying.

one has to remember that when hitler and the nazi party rose to power there was almost complete chaos in germany at the time. they had just lost a major war and were being punished by the allied powers through onerous reparations. inflation was running wild to the point that to buy a loaf of bread entailed pushing a wheelbarrow full of currency to your local grocer while all the while hoping that no one would rob you (and steal your wheelbarrow!) or that there would even be bread to purchase. law and order had completely broken down and gangs roamed the streets raping, robbing and killing almost at will. germans were looking for scapegoats blaming jewish bankers, communists and anyone else they could come up with for their plight.

hitler used the apparatus of the nazi party to play on these fears and to gain political power. he instituted procedures that got inflation and the german economy back under control and spoke to the fears of the german people giving them a sense of pride in themselves once again. be brought stability and a sense that past wrongs would soon be righted for the german people. and this is why they supported him. i would suggest that hitler knew EXACTLY what he was doing the entire time. it may be that he began to break down at the end due to the stress of conducting a losing war on several fronts but, for his time and circumstances, i would suggest that he was coldly rational up to that point.

people think that the nazi party rounded up jews because of some racist tendencies, and certainly that was part of it. but you have to remember that at the time jewish merchants and entrepreneurs were considered to be part of the conspiracy that had impoverished much of the german people at the time. many of the leaders of the communist party were also jewish.

the german people knew what was going on in the concentration camps but they turned a blind eye to it because the majority felt that in some way these people had indeed been responsible for their past troubles and this was "just" punishment. and this was only accentuated by the propaganda and rhetoric of hitler and the nazi party.

likewise, many people in the muslim world may not say publicly that they condone what bin laden and his crew have done. but if you read between the lines of what they are saying and read what the media in that part of the world say, there is a deep sense that the united states is very responsible for foisting a grave injustice upon them through its policies there. there is indeed a sense of satisfaction that at last someone has stepped forward to show that the mighty american superpower is not as mighty as many had once thought, that muslims do not have to labor under the corrupt monarchies and dictatorships that rule much of their world, and they can indeed take control of their political and economic lives again and make for themselves the kind of world that THEY want.

osama bin laden's real goal has not been to do any real harm to the u.s., not now at least, but to just wound it. he knows he can not win a war against america. but in the process if he can destabilize the monarchy in saudi arabia in particular he can perhaps create a domino effect that will eventually unite the muslim world into one mind and one force. i sincerely doubt if the man really cares if their religous beliefs are puritanical wahhabism or not. just as long as his people unite to bring much needed prosperity to the masses through more equal distribution of the oil wealth and then to unite under the banner of destroying israel and its great ally, the united states.

bin laden suffers from a debilitating and eventually fatal kidney ailment. i sincerely doubt if he cares much at this point whether he dies of natural causes or by u.s hands. in fact he would probably prefer the latter as it would only enhance his legacy and legend to those people that do indeed consider him to be a hero.

meanwhile, u.s policies in the region are leaving us with no good alternatives. if we continue to support the dictatorships and monarchies in the region then unrest will only continue to grow until it ultimately boils over into revolution. if we don't support these regimes then we risk disruptions in the oil supply that we need from the region and will still be faced with new "democracies", whether secular or theocratic, that are likely to be extremely hostile to us because of those past policies.

and if such a scenario were indeed to take place one can only imagine the potential harm it could do to the still oil-dependent u.s. economy. the resultant commodity inflation and potential shock to the world financial system through a loss of faith in the fiat currency system we now have, since it is now primarily based on faith in the u.s. dollar, could easily set off a hyperinflationary period that could spread globally. and it is such periods, with the ensuing social and political chaos that they produce, that usually give rise to strong, often dictatorial, leaders such as napoleon, stalin, mao, and hitler.

if such a scenario does indeed take place, or even something relatively close to it, then we could find ourselves with our own version of "hitler" in this country.

We seen back to the start of this web site. Is the 911 event an isolated, and complete endgame (Kevin1952), or the first in a sequence of actions to unite the middle east region into a force that, perhaps, could cause a 'final solution' for the western world (enjolras).

I hope neither.

I think the terrorism will continue, here as well as throughout the world, until a critical evaluation of group beliefs (that justify a holy war) are understood.

With the greatest potential to understand the injustices of the world, and participate in the cure of those injustices, we could be part of the solution. Instead, the American way has been, to this point in our development, (over several saculum)to not care to even know the facts. We don't even challenge our media to see that what is reported approximates the truth.

We have been lied to about the middle east for decades.

We rely on a 16th century method of appointing our political leaders and abandon accountability of them or ourselves. We also, as a civilization, have abandoned self help in most social situations, and instead have been conditioned to call 911 for any crisis. This time, someone else dialed 911, and we need to answer the phone.

All this terrorism stuff should shake us out of our confort, but if it doesn't, and we continue to be isolationist in the vast world of antagonist thought, then, the 911 attack was a total defeat for everyone on the planet. Nothing learned, nothing gained.

sv81,

i agree with you on just about all the points you make.

i agree that it will take a critical evaluation, understanding and general acceptance of key group beliefs before any large part of the muslim world does indeed unite for a greater "jihad."it may even be that we see the totally unexpected take place, which is for some muslim leader to emerge who actually advocates a non-violent approach to political dissent in the region. sort of like a muslim version of ghandi perhaps. i kind of doubt this considering the history of the area, but i can certainly see the potential power that someone could wield if they took this course and were able to gather a large enough following to back them up.

when i said that we could end up with our own version of "hitler" in this country i did not mean a leader who would start rounding people up and carting them off to concentration camps. what i was trying to say was that if such a scenario did unfold we could find this country in such a state of political, social, and economic disarray that we could also be in the same position as pre world war II berlin yearning for a strong leader to take us back to the perceived glory of the past. and this is indeed the pattern of history whenever key social, political and economic systems begin to break down due to some outside event. we have seen it in pre-revolutionary france, russia, and china. it has happened repeatedly throughout history in other major world powers as well. is there some reason to think that the united states is immune to such forces when they finally coalesce? i don't think so.

at the moment we are opening up the monetary spigot full blast to try and engineer a new economic recovery. this will probably work for the next few years but, if i am correct that a more serious shooting war is likely to break out in the early part of the next decade, we would find ourselves involved in the classic "unpopular war" scenario during a period of prosperity which usually does not end well. if such a war were to take place in the middle east, and ended badly for us, that could easily be the catalyst there for such radical forces to unite. that, coupled with a weakened u.s military and economy slouching back home to lick its wounds and to deal with more pressing problems on the homefront just when the economy is entering the most serious decline it has experienced in decades due to the aging of the baby boomers. if the aging of the boomers were coupled with outside events exacerbating that problem such as a war that went badly, political and social disarray caused by inflation, that would seem to me to fit the pattern that typically leads up to a fourth turning crisis period almost to a T.

but, like you, i also hope that such a scenario does not unfold and that america can indeed be a force for bringing about better understanding and eventual peace in the region. but the rush of current events is not bolstering my optimism in that regard at the moment.

i think that over the next 2 or 3 decades, or perhaps even sooner, this country will face a crossroads that will determine whether it will continue on as one of the world's great powers or if it will begin to fade from the world stage in the same way that france, great britain, the ottoman and roman empires, etc. did in the past. and i do believe that the 911 tragedy and how we react to it will determine to a great extent which path, for good or ill, this country will find itself on in the future.

enjolras:

Apologies. I never meant to encapsulate Hitler as simply "off balance" (nor do I think that sv81 meant to); I simply let it go as a kind of shorthand, misleading though it may be. I have kept coming back to the notion that we should be less inclined to analyze the acts of 911 politically than psychologically for a number of reasons.

Whatever motives may initially draw individuals to bin Laden's camps, surely he differentiates between those who will be his foot soldiers and those who will be his operatives. One presumes that he recruits and screens these individuals for particular qualities. What he needs in these people, of course, is not hatred, but dispassion -- the opposite of hatred. The object of his search for operatives is not religious fanaticism, which would be counterproductive, but cold calculation.

In a book about concentration camp guards (the title eludes me), the author noted that guards were screened for these very same qualities. Hatred for Jews was not at the top of the list; they looked at those who performed their "job" most efficiently. These men considered mass execution a task, not a purpose.

I don't dismiss any of these men as "lunatics," (especially if doing so only conjures up images of pathetic babblers who just happen to be in charge) whether it's Atta, bin Laden, Hitler or Klaus Barbie. But that is not to say that there isn't a psychological component to "understanding" their actions. My sense is that none of their motives are truly political except in the most cosmetic of ways.

sv81:

I don't think that 911 is an isolated event that has <u>no</u> roots in Middle Eastern politics. Rather, I was questioning the notion that a terrorist's level of commitment is a accurate indication of the depth (and source) of the problem. If political, social and religious concerns were the sole motivating factors in a terrorist's act, then your thesis would be correct. But I firmly believe that terrorism provides its own justification...its object is terror, not change.

That is not to say that the Middle East doesn't have enormous problems to which we should have been attentive for decades. In fact, when people here or on TV talk about the problem with "America's foreign policy," my initial response is "what foreign policy"? We have an obligation to understand and to bring these nations into the global community...acknowledging their needs and their concerns about the impact (negative or otherwise) of American culture (our primary export)on theirs.

But if we look to the motives of the terrorists for instruction in Middle East concerns, we will find their agendas are markedly different from the needs of the people they supposedly represent...in fact, if those needs are ever met (particularly by us), then those two agendas will be diametrically opposed.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin1952 on 2001-10-06 17:06 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin1952 on 2001-10-06 17:06 ]</font>

On 2001-10-06 00:08, sv81 wrote:
Hopeful Cynic said:

For that matter, I would submit that even in late 4T periods, the perception of control on the part of the Gray Champion just might be an illusion.

That's a very interesting suggestion; that the entire crisis cycle is a cyclic occurance that isn't driven by any deliberate means. I wonder what our hosts think of that idea? That also connects with the idea that the second world war certainly got away from German control. It took on a life of its own, like a stock market crash or a pivotal election that was so close to call, that nobody knew the outcome.

I'm not saying that there can be no control at all, but I do think that the even at the height of the Crisis periods, even the Gray Champion(s) have only limited options.

I found it interesting to discover, when I read some of the accounts of people who were involved in the New Deal and WW II, that many of the New Deal players considered the outcome of the last 4T to be disappointing.

We tend to think of Roosevelt's plans as having been mostly successful, but compared to what the New Deal planners and post-war planners were hoping for, what actually occured seemed to them to be quite insufficient. Some of the New Deal people believed that Roosevelt sold out too much to the capitalists in order to win the war. Some of the UN planners thought that Roosevelt traded off too much to the nationalist/conservative factions to get the UN up and running.

To the rest of the world, it seemed almost revolutionary, but some Missionaries were deeply unsatisfied.

I have a hunch that even if this 4T ends in a large success, a lot of Boomers even on the successful sides will find the final resolution to be somewhat disappointing, simply because they want more than the other generations are prepared to grant.

It's WAR!!!!

http://www.msnbc.com/news/627086.asp

HopefulCynic writes...

I found it interesting to discover, when I read some of the accounts of people who were involved in the New Deal and WW II, that many of the New Deal players considered the outcome of the last 4T to be disappointing.

We tend to think of Roosevelt's plans as having been mostly successful, but compared to what the New Deal planners and post-war planners were hoping for, what actually occured seemed to them to be quite insufficient. Some of the New Deal people believed that Roosevelt sold out too much to the capitalists in order to win the war. Some of the UN planners thought that Roosevelt traded off too much to the nationalist/conservative factions to get the UN up and running.

To the rest of the world, it seemed almost revolutionary, but some Missionaries were deeply unsatisfied.

And the more idealistic of the Boomers will have to pick up where the more idealistic of the Missionaries left the task. I still find the Four Freedoms speech defines the goals for our Fourth as well as the prior crisis. However, the old generations gave as much in blood, toil, tears and sweat as one could expect. I fault them far less than I fault us. The current generations are not deeply unsatisfied enough.

The troubling element I find in the Four Freedom speech is when FDR claims the Freedoms are an achievable goal for his own generations, not the dream for some future millennium. I wish he were wrong. We badly need some dreams just now.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bob Butler 54 on 2001-10-07 17:04 ]</font>

Couldn't Osama bin Laden and his Mideastern have-nots trigger a move toward the Fourth Turning by stressing the Anglo_American control of their most important resource...oil? The imbalance of wealth? The destruction of their environmemnt? Instead they focus on hate.

To quote from my posting last week; I thought it the better use of our analysis on events on this planet, and show some rational thought toward the political, economic and cultural aspects, all for the people we would be killing next week. Well, it's Sunday, the next week, and we are killing people just as I anticipated.

Another thing I anticipated in my last flurry of postings is that until the injustices of the Palestinian people were addressed, there would be no conclusion to the violence.

The prerecorded videotape of Osama Bin Laden today said the same thing. "The rein of terror would not cease until their was a resolution of the Israeli-Palestine problem." Maybe Bin Laden uses the Internet as a study tool, and not only to communicate to terrorist cells. Are you watching?

In any event, some readers may deem this subject as off point to the historical analysis provided by the fourth turning webpage. I preemptively disagree with that for the following reason.

Our hosts, S & H sought input on whether or not the 911 event signals the turning point of an unraveling society, to that toward a crisis. How could the actual subject matter of the crisis be off point?
Lastly, I believe in this phrase:

Use care in the weapons you sell, for they can be used against you, as easily as used against someone else.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-12-31 23:39 ]</font>

sv81, i think you are being a bit too strident with your rhetoric concerning israel. i would hardly refer to them as a "terrorist" state or nation any more than i would refer to the u.s. as a terrorist state or nation because of the way it treated native americans. nor do i think it is true that the israeli government wants to exterminate the palestinians. granted, that certain factions of the israeli populace or government might want this to happen but that is no different that certain factions of the u.s. government or populace wanting to see certain groups in this country done away with it.

there is ample dissent within the state of israel over how the palestinians have been treated and over their government's policies. i would direct you to the following article as an example:

http://www.linguafranca.com/9708/mahler.9708.html

there is a strong group within the state of israel that is open to some sort of compromise with the palestinians over the long simmering disputes between them and israel. but the cycle of violence and revenge that has been perpetrated throughout the years has only served to bolster the right wing, anti-peace segments of both the israeli and palestinian-arab populations. its hard to negotiate peace with an enemy when both sides are still lobbing bombs at each other's citizens!

personally, i don't see a problem with the way the u.s. is currently responding in afghanistan. i belive that in this case there has to be a mix of force and diplomacy used. force does need to be used on those who would resort to violence and they do need to learn that there is a severe penalty for doing so. and this should apply to both arabs and israelis equally. but i also believe it is true that it is absolutely necessary for diplomacy to begin with full force and a renewed urgency to try and bring an end to the violence and try to somehow reach some kind of resolution that will put the region on the first steps to a path of peace.

in accomplishing this task we would likely be doing far more than bringing a semblance of peace to the middle east but would also be serving to extend our own lifespan as the leading nation in the world today.

Cbailey writes? Couldn't Osama bin Laden and his Mideastern have-nots trigger a move toward the Fourth Turning by stressing the Anglo_American control of their most important resource...oil? The imbalance of wealth? The destruction of their environmemnt? Instead they focus on hate.

The gap between the Arab establishment and the Arab people is becoming clearer. The wealthy and the politicians are thinking more in the capitalist western mindset than the People. Their corrupt establishment and our corrupt establishment can work together. Bush is getting their political leaders to sign on to his programs far more than the people. Short term, this implies no recruitment problems for the opposition. Long term, we have to watch the stability of our allies. Iran is the example. If the people rebel against their leaders, they are apt to embrace the ?Islamism? fanatic political-religious mix, and reject the capitalist (and generally undemocratic) establishment. In much of the Middle East, the west is supporting undemocratic feudal and dictatorial governments. This policy could result in revolution and a new generation of rogue nations.

In the west, I have been hoping that a split might develop in the traditional alliance between the wealthy industrial elite and the liberal democratic idealists. This is not happening yet to speak of. This split is far more visible in the Arab world. In their more religious culture, the opposition to the wealthy elite is religious rather than secular in its ideals. I believe we in the west might listen with more sympathy if Arab complaints were wrapped in secular language. The issues could be defined in terms of division of wealth, imperialism, the environment, oil, and human rights. However, the complaints are no less real, the issues no less strong, their willingness to risk their lives that much greater, if the wrongs are described as affronts to God rather than using western secular buzz words.

As a secular dabbler in political philosophy, I would prefer if the west?s opponents would avoid using God as an excuse for violence. I know enough about western scripture to be skeptical of such arguments, but am no student of Islam. If one filters God out of the complaints coming from the Islamic world, one could translate into western concepts easily enough. In a religious society, leaders will be more effective in reaching their people using religious language and ideals. The Middle Eastern opposition leaders are focused more on uniting local opinion that reaching us. They think and speak in terms of local values, not ours. This is apt to continue. It would be up to our press and politicians to translate the issues into values we would understand and sympathize with. The press is becoming a little more balanced in its reporting since the early flag waving following September 11. It would be a bit much just now to expect them to translate our enemy?s complaints into the most favorable language. Instead, we seem to be getting mediocre word for word translations, grammar garbled, that makes the opposition seem stupid and inarticulate. I suspect they are neither.

The other gap in worldviews is between those that follow cyclical history and those that do not. If one embraces the idea that people are ready to change their world order every four score and seven years, and the world order needs changing roughly that often, the political landscape is very different. King George, Buchannon and Hoover look really stupid with 20 20 hindsight. Lacking foresight, the present world situation might look very different to people who have not embraced S&H?s theories. King George, Buchannon and Hoover were of the mistaken belief that the world could and should continue to be as it has always been. Silly them. A common mistake.

SV81 -

I was going to respond to some of the questions you had raised in earlier posts, including reposnding with a definition of "What is a terrorist?" which was a question you had raised earlier.

Then I read your last posting.

I must compliment you, that is the most articulate description of the "Global Jewish Conspiracy" I have read in some time. That was right out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

I'm done with you - I've wasted far too much of my life arguing with bigoted fanatics (4 years of lunacy in "Women and the 4th"). As a Jew who works in the media I have far too much to do, what with meeting with my secret Cabal supervisors and making sure that news coverage is slanted to favor Israel as much as possible and supplying old Gulf War footage of Palestinians celebrating to make sure that the oppressed of the world never have their say.

Got to go! So little time - so many lies to disseminate.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Delsyn on 2001-10-08 13:22 ]</font>

On 2001-10-08 06:42, Bob Butler 54 wrote:

In the west, I have been hoping that a split might develop in the traditional alliance between the wealthy industrial elite and the liberal democratic idealists. This is not happening yet to speak of.

Bob, I have been trying to picture the split you are describing and I am not sure that I get it without further information. In any event, there is a very interesting interview with Christopher Hitchens at:

reason.com/0111/fe.rs.free.html.

He explains more or less how he has probably always been more of a libertarian philosophically but that the realities of politics as they stood when he was coming of age (the Awakening) dictated that he make a pragmatic choice to become a socialist. It was only recently during the late Unraveling that the realities of politics changed such that he finally abandoned the socialist label as well as his pragmatism. I am not sure that he actually states whether he now calls himself a libertarian or anything at all. He does state however that he no longer asks people what political party they belong to but instead he asks what their principles are.

I found it very interesting because it illustrated to me how I might conceivably have cast my lot with socialists had I been born a few years earlier into a different generation and political climate. Of course I cannot know whether I would have or not but the notion seemed absolutely inconceivable to me until very recently. However after reading Hitchens' interview here, I can clearly see an avenue by which I may conceivably have followed that path under those circumstances.

How does someone of Hitchens' views fit into the political alliances you envision?

Another interesting read at Reason can be found <a = href http://reason.com/hod/jw092101.html>here</a>.

The way we ultimately respond to the 9-11 massacre (options 1-6) will be telling of whether this is a 3T or 4T.

So far it looks as though the rhetoric is aiming at #5--the Ceasar option--or #6, the Strangelove Option. That's definitely 4T rhetoric.

The reality looks as though it is #3, the Bronson option, or #4, the Bugs Bunny option. There are definitely 3T-style responses.

So as H&S say, it might be too early to tell where we're at in the grand scheme of things.

Whoops. hot link error

http://reason.com/hod/jw092101.html

is the link

delsyn,

when i saw what you said about the problems that you had experienced on another topic it intrigued me enough to go back and look myself. after looking over all the posts all i can say is that you should be commended for your comments. you did the right thing. people like that are an affront and an embarrassment to God and the sad part is they don't know it and won't know it until it is too late.

in fact, i would suggest that people like the individual that you tangled with in those posts is guilty of one of the greatest sins of all and that is twisting the message of christianity into something ugly, compassionless and devoid of logic that only serves to drive away people who may have been truly seeking something within it.

i would also like to thank you for enlightening me as to what "the protocols" were. i had never heard of them before and when i searched and found them i was shocked. what absolute madness!

i do not believe, however, that this means that these past injustices means we can not objectively examine how israel has behaved relative to the palestinians and how our support for them might affect our future history, and frankly, i don't think you believe that either. and i, for one, would certainly be interested in knowing how you define what a "terrorist" is.

i agree with you that sv81 went too far with the "jewish global conspiracy" rhetoric, and maybe he just got carried away. i don't know. his earlier posts had not seemed like those of a fanatic to me. perhaps there is just a misunderstanding here...perhaps not. but i do think this is an important topic that needs to be discussed because i do believe that it will be central to the way in which the path of this country plays out over the next few decades.

I don't hate anybody, I'm not a christian fanatic or one of the Hitler youth. I'm only trying to bring to the forum a recognition.

It's not hate, it's a truth, there for each of you to see if you are brave enough to face it.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sv81 on 2001-12-31 23:40 ]</font>