Last night I was watching Tora Tora Tora! with the wife, and got to thinking about the kamikazes, and then about wartime heros on both sides, people whose devotion to their comrades and principles led them to deliberately die in an act of courage, so that their principles might be saved.  That courage deserves admiration.

Then I thought about the world's present suicide bombers, people willing to strap on a dozen pounds of C-4 and roofing nails, and then go out to blow themselves up in a public place.  I have a lot of ideas about future lives available to these people. In my opinion they will probably be reborn into a place that what they have been doing is what everybody receives as daily fare. Not so good. Maybe they're not doing it right.

That led me to wonder whether the suicide bombers might be going at it all wrong. In many respects the Vietnam War arose from suicides. The difference is that the suicides were Buddhist monks who doused themseves in gasoline and burned up as a protest against social injustices. The public response was, in every case, one of horror, a great deal of empathy with someone who could be so upset, and yet who had found a harmless way to express it. A sense of wonder at the love for principles that transcended love of life, egotism and hatred. None of the immolated monks caused anyone any pain, except for the matter of cleanup. They left a taste of power, control and loving kindness, and a keen awareness of what they did, and why they did it.

This essence of love made the acts of the Buddhists far more effective than if they had, for example, blown a corner off the King David Hotel, or killed all the police candidates in some precinct. People who do that kind of thing leave an aftertaste of rage, indignation, hatred and hostility. (And they may carry such feelings to the grave, to their subsequent dismay.) To make people mad is a very poor way to make them want to agree with you, or to do what you want them to do. That might be the wrong way to approach matters.

That leads me to wonder whether it might be more effective for suicide bombers to go into major public places, clear everyone away, and then blow themselves up while friends videotaped them. The value of martyrdom is even greater in that kind of situation, because it expresses love and caring. Maybe they've been going about it less effectually in the past.

Consider, what would make the greatest impression on you? I'm interested in your feedback.

Case A is the heroic fighter who infiltrates the enemy camp and blows up a dozen people. We see a news flash that so many people have died and that women are mourning the loss of their sons and daughters.

Case B is the teenage girl whose friends hold back the public while she simply states her wishes for the people of her world, and then goes Bang.  Video tapes show her expressing her caring for the world, carefully avoiding harm to others as she explains what she is there to demonstrate,  and then she's gone.

I suggest that Case B would get at least ten times the international news coverage, and would leave critics gasping for lack of words with which to counter the act. "Good Lord. She was so young and so sincere. I'll pray for her."

I suggest that Case A would get no more than a twenty second spot on the Eleven O'Clock News, and would be forgotten tomorrow. "Damned nuisance."

Of course this might be none of my business, but I have come to the conclusion that all we see in the Middle East is hatred begetting hatred begetting more hatred. I stongly suspect that a suicidal act of love would be many many times more powerful. While we can easily forget hateful things, love lingers longer.

For certain, the loving acts bode better for reincarnation.

dave

"None of the immolated monks caused anyone any pain, except for the matter of cleanup."

Pain was inflicted on relatives, friends, and others who suffered the loss. It might be wishful thinking to think that the monks' relatives agreed and sympathized.

Suicide bombing (ala Iraq) is also a tactic of asymmetrical warfare. It is effective in motivating like minded people. It's a somewhat effective political tool in the way it drags out a war and stresses the economy and home population of the conventional power. It also makes it much harder for the larger power to operate in the environment, both tactically and politically. In the absence of an effective conventional capability, there aren't too many tools that can be used against an occupying force. I'm not at all condoning the use suicide bombers, just pointing out another perspective.

Rob

 Yup, its not black and white, though i understand what Dave is trying to say.

Unfortunately, Dave... the suicide bombers the Middle East are followers of a WESTERN religious tradition (i.e., Islam.)
Western theologies do not give hell-room to reincarnation, as I'm sure you're aware.
So, although you're right about how the suicide
bombers would be doing better by their cause
were they to simply commit public suicide, their
own theology says they'll go to Hell if they simply
kill themselves.
No, they must take INFIDELS (or collaborators with
infidels) with them, thereby becoming "jihadi martyrs" -  to secure their "72 black-eyed virgins", which of course
is the principal motivation for the bombers. Hey, imagine you're a poor, un-educated 17-to-25-year-old schlub in a culture which disallows sex before marriage. (Muslim culture is very puritanical, as I'm sure you're aware... it makes old Victorian England look like a hedonist's paradise by comparison.) You're likely still a VIRGIN at the age of, say, 23. And (unsurprisingly) you're HORNY as all get-out, and pig-ignorant to boot - probably know next to nothing about the POLITICS of the "war" you're waging - and ACTUALLY BELIEVE in the silly fairy tales you were told by the local mullah about your bogey god "Allah."
You're ripe pickings for the old men (usually the same mullahs who you've been brought up to believe without question) who make a full-time profession of RECRUITING schmucks like yourself every day. (Isn't it funny that the old men seem to know better, they NEVER seem to be in a hurry to collect their own "martyr's reward"?)
There you have it.

B-man

Hello all,
This is a really complicated subjetc. We are trying to understand the reasoning of these people but we will never do.
I think muslims are just a different kind of human being and we can't judge them or justify them, let alone rationalize or understand them.
They are just something we have to live with always praying not to get in their way.
I am a londoner of catholic origen but years ago I became engaged to a bangladeshi muslim man. I lived whithin his community for over two years and I can honestly say muslims born and raised in western countries with access to education, degrees and sex have the same sick ideas as the middle east uneducated versions of them.
This was the main reason why I felt out of love with him and did not marry him.  As I said I lived as an insider within the close-knit muslim community in south east London and he was not alone with his ideas.
They are the biggest hypocrites on earth.
Years later I met my current partner. He is also a muslim but from an Eastern European country and since he did not practice I thought he'd be OK.
My partner eats pork, drinks alcohol, has never prayed or fasted for Ramadan and doesn't even know what the Koran looks like but don't you try and explain to him he isn't really a muslim because he will have you for his dinner.
He wouldn't support or organise terrorism but somehow he finds it in him to understand the minds of suicide bombers and the like.
It never fails to puzzle me. It goes way beyond religion and politics with muslims. Being made muslim by background give people an instant brainwash. It is as sad as that.
I was watching a TV program the other night titled "The root of all evil" and it was about science versus religion. The presenter was a scientist going around the world trying to discredit all religions in comparing them with the alternatives given by science.
I was just blown away by something a muslim cleric said when asked how jews can get along in Israel with muslims and his answer was more or less "Just keeping out of our way".
Now what do you do with that?

Peace.

SC.


   

Strapping bombs to yourself and blowing things up, such as buildings, people and cars is more affective in my oppinion then just killing yourself.

It has huge affects on economy's - Tourisim these days is a huge source of revenue for country's, if somewhere is blown up by a suicide bombers, you see people canceling holidays left and right, this leads to companys having to slash prices, it meens the area of the bombing's tax's need to rise and the local population can/will go through a kind of mini depression.

the country will have to spend millions on new security measures, and screenings at such things as airports - not to mention oversea's investment into finding the leaders of the organisation that was responsible.

I would say case B would have more impact dave. Because people comit suicide everyday, and they dont get mentioned on the news. While if a person comits suicide for a cause....the media will latch onto it because they can build a deep story of why/who did this.

Suicide is for losers anyway. You aint gonna be around to see the fruits of your labor. + most of the time you are forgotten within a few weeks. Suicide + taking others with you, has never done anything but create publicity for a cause, and it's usually bad at that. It leads to the cause usually being erradicated through revenge.

I can't understand any of those "suicide for a cause" people.

If you want people to listen, perhaps setting yourself on fire isn't going to leave the best impression of intelligence and wisdom someone might respect enough to hear what they have to say, it being an extremely painful way to go and all..
A display of "love"?  ..to your own self, not so much..

Also, maybe it'd be more effective to stay alive here and do things for your cause, rather than just hoping your overly-dramatic death's attention will help it.

wrote on Jan 11^th, 2006 at 11:40am:

I can't understand any of those "suicide for a cause" people. If you want people to listen, perhaps setting yourself on fire isn't going to leave the best impression of intelligence and wisdom someone might respect enough to hear what they have to say, it being an extremely painful way to go and all.. A display of "love"?  ..to your own self, not so much.. Also, maybe it'd be more effective to stay alive here and do things for your cause, rather than just hoping your overly-dramatic death's attention will help it.

I totally agree.  The dividing line seems to be whether one purposely commits suicide to draw attention to one's own pain/death for a cause or dies taking an action not specifically designed to attract attention, such as a mission of some sort like rescue or "taking a bullet" for someone, or trying to rescue someone.

I've never been impressed by suicides.  It seems if their life wasn't worth keeping to them, why should I get too upset about it?  On the other hand, it's more admirable when a person tries to be useful and do the right thing and attempt to do something productive at the risk of death.  Actually, the latter is not even suicide in my mind, even though it may involve someone going knowingly to his or her certain death.

Yeah, Bud. - "I've never been impressed by suicides." That's my point.

If you arm yourself and join the jihad, like the Crusaders did when they went Grailing, then you're just a soldier doing what soldiers do, and it's too bad you're dead, but you were a nuisance to the other side.

Just to snuff yourself is pointless. Virgins notwithstanding (not being one, and not being married to one, I'm not impressed by perpetual virginity, although that suggests some bizarre karma if that's what you wind up with) if you die for acquisition of a good time it's about as smart as dying for AIDS. "Whoopeee - let's all get STDs and die."

But if we are willing to simply do our thing, and to accept death if that's the only way, and we do it in a way that proves our love for all humanity, I suspect that the very novelty of the intensity of love in a hateful world woul carry far more weight. That isn't a military campaign, it isn't an attack on the citadelof evil, it's simply a massive overload of human sensibilities and empathy that would stand out conspicuously.

I'm not here to criticize either side - tossing a bomb of having your house buldozed or whatever - that leads nowhere but back to itself. It's a closed loop. The only way out is love, and with it, trust.

But that's just an opinion.
d

Sorry for drifting off topic, but is terrorism allowed to exist because the victims are to compassionate?

Terrorism exist because terrorists can level the playing field with a super power.  Terrorist are correct when they call the U.S. or Israel a paper tiger.  They kill a dozen Israelis and Israel fires back and maybe kills the same amount (tit for tat).  If a super power had a policy of:  for every one of our citizens you kill we will kill one thousand of your people (unfortunately the super power would have to follow through once).  The cost of terrorism would be to high and terrorism would end that day.  I'm not saying this should be done.  Not sure if more lives are saved in the long run or not.  But I do think it would stop terrorism.

Am I drifting to the dark side for thinking of such a solution?  

Now I know why Alysia is leaving.

Sorry for drifting off topic, but is terrorism allowed to exist because the victims are to compassionate?

Terrorism exist because terrorists can level the playing field with a super power.  Terrorist are correct when they call the U.S. or Israel a paper tiger.  They kill a dozen Israelis and Israel fires back and maybe kills the same amount (tit for tat).  If a super power had a policy of:  for every one of our citizens you kill we will kill one thousand of your people (unfortunately the super power would have to follow through once).  The cost of terrorism would be to high and terrorism would end that day.  I'm not saying this should be done.  Not sure if more lives are saved in the long run or not.  But I do think it would stop terrorism.

Am I drifting to the dark side for thinking of such a solution?  

Now I know why Alysia is leaving.
*****************
I don't think we wanna go there, dude.
Assuming that these terrorists ("freedom
fighters" to themselves, however misguided
they may be) are NOT cowards (and they
AREN'T) intimidation will not work on them.
Intimidation is best used on un-committed,
somewhat dis-interested foes... which these
Islamicists AREN'T.
Add that to the fact that these are religious
zealots (Islamicists) who have had their
natural fear of death brainwashed out of
them at their "Madrases" (religious training
schools) from the time they were little boys.
If we take the path of killing a thousand of
them for every American or Israeli killed, they
will sooner or later (most likely SOONER)
respond with, say... a suitcase nuke in New York
(where DID all those suitcase nukes go, that
the former Soviet Union couldn't account for..?)
or biological warfare (i.e., SMALLPOX. You wanna
go blind and/or be ugly for the rest of your life?
Or how about your wife, or your kids maybe..?)
I don't know what the best answer to terrorism
is. (Maybe we should do the "James Bond" thing, with professional assassins and million-dollar bounties on the heads of terrorist leaders? There's something we HAVEN'T tried, BTW. ) In any case, what we're doing, AIN'T working... so far it's been a bit like trying to excise a cancer with a sledgehammer and a fire axe. (All we've done is to irritate the tumor and made it spread..!) This WASN'T a job for traditional military forces (but try telling that to the Bush Administration.)
So... "upping the ante" with mass killings REALLY
ain't gonna work.

B-man

Good post B-man, though political.

More killing won't solve problems, but bluffs and strategy may.  If we pulled the heads of state of Syria, Iran and other terror countries aside and said "hey fellas, just so you know, if there is an "American Hiroshima" (the code word Al Queda supposedly has for simultaneously detonating 8-12 nuclear bombs in major cities essentially sending the US back to the stone age, and wiping out our politicians/system), Tehran, and Damascus will go bye bye within 24 hours.  This can be said strategically, without intent to act on it.

Perhaps, these countries, as the former Soviet Union did, would think twice about helping the terrorists, and would get involved from the Arab end to track and eliminate them (for their own self preservation).  I am glad I'm not a politician, because the whole notion of mass destruction sickens me, but we have to be realistic too.

Bin Laden has said that he believes that 2-4 million American dead would make us even; an eye for an eye (the whole world going blind).  So as inhumane as these nightmares sound, one can not ignore the possibility.  

I have heard of major spiritual changes for the better, with ascencion and enlightenment occuring.  On the boards, I meet wonderful people, souls.  In the real world, I have to keep the news off.  One can see the opposite of enlightenment going on right now, I'm afraid.

M-Man

The 'terrorist' is always the other guy - who thinks and understands his world in a different way to others.

'We,' of course, are the Good Guys, who would never attack women, children and old folk, especially for oil.

The suggestion that a death retaliation ratio of 1000:1 was a mindset employed by Nazi Germany - with killing on a whim becoming the norm.

Is that the way the world should go?

Greed and selfishness coupled with an imagined military superiority will lead us to......where?

The terrorist is he/she who would kill civilians, elderly, infants, for no immediate military outcome.  Say what you want about the USA, oil, but the nukes are not unleashed (since Hiroshima), and even in Iraq, rather than carpet bombing everything and reducing the country to rubble, measures were taken to spare noncombatants.

The man/woman walking into a supermarket, trying to shed blood, with the outcome of that killing being nothing but to terrorize his/her population is a terrorist, no matter what thier religion.  We live in a messy world, with governments that sometimes go to war for the wrong reasons.  Still, there is a line of human decency you cross to define a terrorist.  Radical/militant islam has crossed this line.  

M

Aye, Doc, this line is being crossed constantly.
The US has used and is using nuclear weapons in Iraq (twice) Kuwait and Afghanistan.

These are now in the form of shells containing depleted uranium, which is very messy, but as there is no visible mushroom cloud - well, folks, you all can see that it's just 'normal' armaments.

The life of this hideous stuff is, apparently, thousands of years.
This is terrorism against unborn (mutilated) children and also affects and will continue to affect the military personnel who are currently exposed to it. When they do return home, goodness knows the full extent of what their families will be exposed to.

Thoroughly enjoy your posts, Doc, thank you.

[quote author=hiorta link=board=afterlife_knowledge;num=1136953097;start=0#14 date=01/12/06 at 09:43:46]Aye, Doc, this line is being crossed constantly.
The US has used and is using nuclear weapons in Iraq (twice) Kuwait and Afghanistan.

quote]

I think you're confusing nuclear weapons with depleted uranium weapons.  

The former involves splitting or fusing the nucleus of the atom in a way to sustain a violent chain reaction.  I think it would be beneficial if we used low yield nukes in the middle east because the blast can be more targeted to bunkers more effectively w/o more overall destruction.  I didn't think nukes have been allowed yet, but given greater ability to target the force of the blast in deep bunker situations, I think it would be a good idea.  Most people, however, can't get themselves over the "nuclear" word, because they think of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.  If you are correct about them being used in the middle east, I expect it was in the context of a deep bunker, and the damage to surrounding civilian areas was probably less than it would have been otherwise.

Depleted uranium is the leftover U from enriching electricy plant fuel.  Natural U is .71% U235 before enrichment, 3 -5% afterwards.  The U238 leftover has less than .2% U235 and is considered "depleted."  It's heavier than lead, and when used as a dart-like anti-tank weapon, the shear lines actually sharpen it on its way through the armour so it penetrates exceedingly well.  Shear lines are determined by crystal structure, which are a result of both the element itself and the processing method. The inside of the tank is then splattered with molten stuff that kills the occupants.  Not pretty, but it's war after all, not a garden party.  This has been used in conflicts for over a decade.

The danger of depleted U is the dust/oxide generated on impact and the residue inside the vehicle.  If you sprinkle this on your food, or breath the dust for a fair amount of time, or play in it as a child might, it will cause the same immuno problems that breathing any heavy metal creates, (Pb, Cd).  

Depleted U is not radioactive (it's depleted), and so doesn't pose a radiation problem like power plant waste or bomb fallout.

Here's a World Health Organization Factsheet.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

Suicide bombers

Today I saw a picture of some women in Iran who were protesting about using nuclear whatever in that country..and since I was reading over a shoulder, I think they were pro-, but I'm not sure. What struck me was the way they looked with those all-black covers on...I began to make up little modern dances in my head with beings covered in black sacks that fanned out when they spread their arms...walking mtuable black obelisks of women. Then I added the nuns dancing along in their flowing black and white.

When I see these Muslim women in their robe thingies, I am always reminded of nuns. I'm not Catholic but my friend was, and the nuns at her school (yeah yeah I'm dating myself! I know Dave remembers these things) wore those penguin suits that look to me much like those robes the Muslim women wear. Well, they are similar. The nuns dressed like that because in the middle ages, European women dressed like that. ...(I think.). Women were expected to cover their heads. Pictures of early middle ages chicks show them with headdresses. The difference is, we moved on...

Now, I have it in my mind that war used to be more of a free-for-all. None of this non-involvement if civilians. Everyone was a potential target, no? I don't know historically when we started recognizing civilians as a separate group, but relatively speaking, I imagine it was not too long ago. (Maybe guys wouldn't think about that..women always know they are not entirely safe if they venture out alone.) I imagine in the middle ages when those headdresses were in fashion, a woman in a war zone was considered fair game. Men too, for that matter. We (theoretically) moved on.

These people are stuck in a time warp! Not because they are Muslim per se, but because the culture is. I don't think they truly distinguish soldier from civilian any more than they did in the middle ages.

Regarding the hate begets hate comment...I came across an intersting book in the library once, about the time all heck broke lose in the former Yugoslavia area about 10 yrs ago. It was written about the woman who was once secretary to Alfred Noble. about Bertha von Suttner....
http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/1905/suttner-bio.html

She and her husband lived in the Caucasus and I thought they were in the same region that became Yugoslavia but now looking at the map that doesn't make sense. Anyway, things were peaceful but then another war broke out. The descriptions of the transformations of people as family members were slaughtered was interesting. Age-old cultural hatreds would surface. The hatreds she described seemed almost bred into the people. I have often wondered how you counteract that deep level of hatred. This conflict she described had actually been going on for centuries with just little breaks in between. We don't usually have to deal with that deep level of hatred in US. I could understand if the Native Americans hated the whites that deeply but even that conflicy only goes back a few hundred years. They've been practicing this hate in Eurasia for many centuries!

Hi Bud_S, you are quite correct, I have confused the two terror weapons. My apologies.

The after effects of both seem worse than the initial devastation.
"Mans inhumanity to man, makes countless tousands mourn"  Robert Burns.

"The terrorist is he/she who would kill civilians, elderly, infants, for no immediate military outcome."

Often the military and political outcomes are one and the same. Carl Von Clausewitz pointed out that war is politics by other means. I submit that the reverse is also true.

Terrorists who succeed in driving out an invader's army have indeed accomplished a stategic military objective as well as a political one. It matters not if the invader is defeated militarily in the conventional sense. A war of attrition as a means of applying political pressure achieves the same outcome.

Bud,

Tactical nuclear weapons are useful for three purposes: breaking up large concetrations of enemy troops, countermobility (to channel the enemy), and to terrorize the enemy. None of these are appropriate in the Middle East at this time. To use them for bunkerbusting would not be effective nor would it be politically sustainable. The only scenario I can see where they would be useful, even needed, would be in a land war with China.

Rob

wrote on Jan 12^th, 2006 at 3:26pm:

Bud, Tactical nuclear weapons are useful for three purposes: breaking up large concetrations of enemy troops, countermobility (to channel the enemy), and to terrorize the enemy. None of these are appropriate in the Middle East at this time. To use them for bunkerbusting would not be effective nor would it be politically sustainable. The only scenario I can see where they would be useful, even needed, would be in a land war with China. Rob

They do have nuclear bunker busters, and the latest improved one under study is called an RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator)  It doesn't sound like they did anything but study it.  ($15 million worth).

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-11/p32.html

From that article:

"To exploit that efficiency, in 1997 the US replaced its aging 9-megaton bombs with a lower-yield but earth-penetrating 300-kt model by putting the nuclear warhead from an earlier bomb design into a strengthened alloy-steel casing and a new nose cone. When dropped onto a dry lakebed from 12 km, the missile penetrated a modest 6 m. But even at this shallow depth a much higher proportion of the explosion energy would be transferred to ground shock compared to a surface burst at the same yield. "

edit1: Also, Figure 6 in the article shows the narrow column of vented material that shows up instead of a mushroom cloud.  This could be what hiorta was referring to earlier about the weapons in use not having a traditional tell-tale mushroom. ?

This is a very interesting subject that is open to a lot of good opinions.  

In my opinion the fundamentalist moslems' and some western moslems mindsets are somehow stuck in a medieval atitude when it comes to nearly every subject of everyday life.  

It is also very important not to "generalize" as there are many humane moslems out there who would not harm anybody.

But thats where the pleasantry stops for me I'm afraid.  Every moslem who I've ever came into contact with are selfish, biggoted and treat women like 10th class citizens and that is not an exaggeration.  They are also highly militant and aggressive and instead of accepting other peoples religions and beliefs, they either set out to aggressively challenge them or to violently destroy them, just look at the Talaban!  Thats the tip of the iceberg.

Their supposed holy Koran has verses and chapters  that clearly point out that Muhammed was a child-abuser, and detailed chapters on how to "purge the infidels onto Allah's Sword" what does that tell you....

Another item that infuriates me is when people try and "understand" suicide bombers and when theyb say that you have feel sorry for them (e.g. Palestinian).  Excuse me but when you walk into a cafe in Jerusalem and kill innocent babys and people you don't deserve sympathy.

I honestly think that suicide-bombers and would-be suicide bombers are completely brain-dead, not brain-washed!  And somehow I don't think they will enter their paradise when they press that button..
.
Im not anti-moslem, im anti religion

Im sorry if that is not P.C.

Ban me if you want

Actually, Jambo, your last lines are important to the afterlife discussion.  If there is a divine law, truth, right and wrong, then suicide bombers would likely go to a hell, or at best a restricted Islamic area.  If truth is relative, and you believe you have done the right thing, and if our belief is all (right or wrong), then one would guess they would have their version of heaven and 72 vestal virgins.

My own take, is that there is a divine law, there is right action and action that leads either to or away from the divine.  Thus I believe that these guys are going to a hell in a handbasket.

Matthew

yes I think so too Doc but what if they are right

Then i'm a very scared chappy  :-[

Please tell me there is absoilute proof or a high lieklyhood that they are way off!

Hi Jambo-

In past life work I've been able to locate two of the guys involved with 911, but only briefly. One got away and was reborn before I could get any data. The other was extremely happy to nolonger have to be involved with previous activities, and was hanging out in his version of heaven. "That's all water under the bridge." He said that he was member of a three personcell that comunicated by pink paper (which means nothing to me) and the grafiti on the walls of rest rooms (which sounds possible and reasonable).


I also encountered a group of three people who were doing a sort of collective activity to steal from an evil lord in the Middle Ages who was over-taxing the people of the town. They'd steal his stuff, distribute it to their cronies in town, and thus were trying to repair obvious social wrongs. They got caught, were hung on dungeon walls where they were very slowly starved to death. Then the went into their own little cubicle of heaven, where they were all alone, but were able to enjoy the fruits of their good deeds. Then on rebirth they got into the negative karma part.

A woman came in who had been living in the early 1800s, went to a finishing school, and was then essentially sold by her father into marriage with an ancient business associate. His children, of whom she was now the mother, were older than she was. They mistreated her, made her into a domestic slave and eventually were so wretched that she jumped out a window with a sash cord around her neck. She spent a long time being all alone in a peaceful place.   Her rebirth was into a modern family in which she was sister to the owner, who made her into a general office slave, given all possible junk jobs, lots of work, no praise and no reward. In other words, she was right back where she started.  Th solution was to get her to gointo business with her husband as his assistant doing office work while he did automotive engine repair, and thus was able to abandon the situation.

Again, the karmic kicker comes back at the time of rebirth. To my knowledge (I don't have a Koran in my office) there is no specific provision that denies rebirth in Islam. In fact, the Sufis do a form of meditation that is identical to that done by Hindus who assuredly believe inreincarnation. Guru Nanak recognized the two religions as identical in their basic ideas, and founded the Sikh faith as a merger of the two. Sufism would thus be expected to agree that we get reborn and as such we get to work out our problems with the world.

This leads me to think that, as Doc put it, the tendency would be to have a"Muslim section" in the Light, followed by returning to the same kind of situation that they created.  This is precisely the type of thinking that led me to speculate on the fact that suicide bombers are probably doing themselves personally very little good, and that they are going to get back what they give out. More than that, their collective enterprise is going to be tainted by the method of its doing, snce, in the last analysis, life is not an end point, but a serial process.

The Buddhists who torched themselves in French Indo-China would at least return to a place in which theywould again be faced with the same decision, but not with the inevtability of their children being turned into hamburger by the guys living on the other side of the wall because they had just finished doing that to those guys' kids.

And - I still believe that despite the greater military efficiency of attrition of the other guys and their families, that in a climate that is primarily a political stage on which we are watching a kind of perverted morality play, those who can pull the heartstrings will do more for their cause than those who pull the trigger.

d

Just a passing thought - does a female suicide bomber expect 72 studly dudes? - Or is there a sort of psychic transvestism?

ROFLMAO!  That might be the case!  they may be 72 she-males with hairy bodies   ;D

Ok, now Dave, I have to ask,


How could you have located two of the 911 hijackers in past life work, as they only died recently?  The folks you counsel, aren't they too old to have been a terrorist?

And I'm very curious about these past life sessions.  Are you convinced that we all have past lives, or could it be that through regression and hypnosis you are connecting to the "all that is," the same place that a remote viewer connects to?  In that case, you may make contact with virtually anyone, and if my take is correct, depending on how strong the connection is, their life may temporarily seem so connected that it is our past life...

The only thing that doesn't fit into my theory of connecting to the universal field/God is karma.  If you truly regress people and find that they messed up in a certain way 100 years ago so they have told themselves that they have to keep trying to get it right, then that would be proof of past lives for me.  

My question would then be this: if we had to a learn a lesson, why do we keep having our memory wiped clean and do it over and over until we learn it that way?  One could argue that way our soul just gets it right without prodding, so that
we have advanced spiritually.  

Still, say a suicide bomber, could realize, as a spirit the error of his/her ways.  Say they had a change of heart, got out of their belief system.  Would they have to reincarnate?  Or would it be a retrieval? Apparently we are all constantly choosing to do this reincarnation over and over and over again.

I wouldn't mind sitting in your chair.  I have no definite knowledge of any prior lives.  I have, at times connected to the all that is in deep meditation.  If I had past lives, I'd want to know about it.  I don't like the idea of frequent reincarnation immediately following a life.  I prefer the idea of deep understanding, and gradual steady spiritual ascencion.  I think this is possible if we are not overly attached to material things and negative emotions.    

What say you?

Matthew

OK, so I'm not hearing a lot of optimistic solutions or ideas for this very difficult problem of terrorism.  I know it's messy but maybe shoving democracy down the throats of the people in the heart of the middle east is the best option we have.  If freedom and liberty can give them a better life and educate them, that makes sense to me.  Maybe Bush is doing the only thing that might work in the long run.  It's been very messy like I said, but haven't heard anything better.  I don't mean to get political, but is democratizing the middle east a bad idea?  Is there any other realistic way of doing it other then by force?  

shoving democracy down the throats of the people....???

I like a little logica consistency in my political systems. There is something logically awry in the concept of democratization by force.

this war isn't about sharing democracy, it's about oil. President Cheney is not "for the people." I wouldn't mind seeing Bush impeached.

If intent produces results, then intent must always be in motion, in play, a causative variable...because we always have results.  Then what is in my intent that contributes to terrorism in the world?  (this was one of my underlying reasons for starting the thread on intent, to figure out this level of action...the role of intent)

The only solution is for all to agree that killing nonmilitary civilians is wrong; that killing for killing's sake is wrong.  Radical islam may never do this.  Radical islam may never recognize the equality of women.  As such, it is a barbaric, medievel religion not worthy of continuing.  If both sides can't agree that killing innocent civilians is wrong, then the side that can should prevail.

The live and let live philosophy is advanced in a spiritual sense.  But think about it.  It was not that way with Nazi Germany.  The Nazis were thoroughly destroyed and not allowed back again.  They were thought of by all free nations (except themselves) as an evil on the face of the earth.  Whether or not they were a cosmic evil (and I believe they were), they had to be completely eradicated.  It was not "let us live side by side with them and their hate in peace."

Unless moderate peace-loving Muslims speak up, I fear that first radical Islam, and then the whole religion itself may need to go the route of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and other evil regimes (the Apartheid party in South Africa).  And yes, I know there are 1 billion Muslims in the world, and most are peaceful.  But you have a religion whose members do not readily repudiate the acts of its radical group hate and murder fringe group.  

Christianity went through a reformation.  Medievel customs have been replaced with debate, wisdom and evolution in the Jewish and Christian faiths.  It is time for the other people who claim to come from the same tribe of Abraham to step up to the plate!

Matthew

But Matthew

(and I remember you mentioned your heritage)

How would you solve the Palestinian issue? If those people had never been displaced, would this mess have evolved? And it wasn't the Israelis alone who displaced them because it took alot of English-speaking help. The US brought some of this on itself. We were wrong to take people's homes away from them. There are no simple answers because we got here by a complex path.

BTW I have alot of colleagues who are ethnic Moslems and, well, the women certainly don't wear the veil! Islam is as diverse as any of the other religions. This is too complex to solve here.

I can't solve the issue, its true.  I have some ideas.  I think a Palestinian state is vital, and it should come to pass.  I think that part of that happening would be for them to denounce suicide bombers in their schools.  They should stop teaching the children to count to ten by saying "one dead israeli, two dead israelis" (which has been caught on a famous documentary in the palestinian schools.

Although there is no ultimate right or wrong when you argue over land, there is the general golden rule, and rule not to kill except when fighting directly in mortal combat.  Most civilized people take this as a given.  Some people of the radical factions do not.

You can not live with a neighbor who refuses to renounce wanton killing of innocents.  Once the palestinians renounce this, they will have a state, and freedom, perhaps not exactly where they want.

The USA and europeans have certainly committed heinous acts, but in general they have supported openly freedom (from Apartheid), freedom for independent nations.  There is no government that is blameless.

M

I was reminded of the complexity of this situation a short while back. I was visiting a discussion group (no particular topic) and one of the regular members is a former ambassador from Iran...era of the Shah. He mentioned that the real religion of Iran is Zoroastrianism (or whatever you call it). Followers of Zoroaster. I thought that was interesting. There is a large Iranian immigrant community in CA. He indicated that the Zoroastrianism is the preferred faith of many of this community, the real traditional religion of Iran. I didn't know that.

the Palestinain/Nazi issue:

It is a well documented and historical fact that in 1948 the palestinian people were told not to leave Israel by the New settlers as they would still have their homes/farms intact.  The reason why they left is because the surrounding arab nations (egypt, saudi, jordan) said that they would "drown the heathen jews into the meditteranean sea".   Nobody has the right to just arrive at a country but I think they do when 6 million of their people were massacred while the world watched and did nothing, so that in my opinion gives them a right to have a homeland when all that they owned was stolen from them.

Dave

I thought about your question and I think my answer is that I'm not impressed by either A or B.

I think we're not getting the answer (to war etc) right because we are somehow missing the right question.

I think the right question will involve asking why we are here (as animals) and what are we to learn from that. What is this conciousness and what is it for?

Last night caught a rerun of a PBS show..Deep Jungle. I always assume since you are in social sciences that yu know about stuff like what I am going to bring up. The episode had information from primate researcher David Watts. It went into the stuff about the chimps who apparently band together to kill and tokenly eat colobus monkies even when they don't need the food. It was hard to not think of it as ritual male bonding. Well that's what it was. Then the chimps banded together and killed another chimp. It almost seemed premeditated.

Here's a little info on that show:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/deepjungle/episode3_watts.html

I don't know Dr. Watts but I somehow doubt he falls back on models of reincarnation to explain any primate karma that's developing here. But if the chimps can do this, then is there something in what makes the chimps do this that is also operant in us humans?

If we are here to experience conciousness then that must also mean its down side too.

Or maybe the problem is we just aren't so highly evolved after all....

Lucy,

I think you hit on something.  I've often thought that some of the new age dogma such as "we didn't purge fear in a past life, so we are back to the drawing board and here to purge it again in a second chance," is a bit of bunk.  Our lives are too complex to boil them down to one lesson, or one reason for existing.  

These primal urges to kill are present in much of the animal kingdom.  Usually for food, territory, or sex.  Sometimes in a mean way.  But the idea of bambi and cute animals playing in the forest is so unreal, any true lover of nature knows this to be untrue.  Can a monkey experience grace, or PUL?  If so, are they too supposed to follow the golden rule?  Monkey hell, if not?  I can't even begin to imagine.  

Many ancient texts like the bible keep talking of God separating man from beasts.  We are supposed to know the difference of right and wrong actions.  And deep inside, I'd like to think we do.  Since thought creates our surroundings, a killer, or one who does a heinous act, will by necessity be unhappy in other ways, and unbalanced.


Matthew

Lucy and Doc-
OK, I'm in basic agreeement, and of course there's very little to be said about useless killing.  Except for the chase and killing of Colubus by chimps I had the impression that only Man was the only critter that kills for sport. Are we setting a bad example to our longer tailed friends? The idea about simian macho bonding makes some kind of sense. It also fits territorial and caste concepts. And, very unfortunately, it fits right in with observed behaviors in oppressive regions where rape is used as a social weapon to dispossess people of their social status, and where the husband blames the wife for getting raped.

It seems that the nature of males is rejecting, isolating and destructive. The  moose in rut, elephant in must, and similar animals are examples. This clearly points to mating behaviors and competitions. However, in matriarchies we are not free from violence either. Although the competition that comes to my mind at the moment is more the Soap Opera type, my wife has many stories about tough girls in school, fighting and so on.

These ideas are reflected in many urban areas in territorial gangs. Presumably, as we get socialized we are able to accept the idea of a larger and more valuable social purpose for which we create a social contract of unity. Buddhist and Hindu philosophies, arising generally in lush areas in which wild food was not uncommon, seem to have incorporated some of this unity into their general outlook as a beneficial quality of social living. The world offers us the opportunity to be social, and from this we have the gains and joys of social living. How fortunate that we can do this.

The Arab social historian Ibn Khaldoun, in his Muqqadimah, pointed out that the world is a fierce and hostile place, that the survival chances for a single person are quite minimal, so we're forced to live together in social groups in order that we do not perish. This is an enforced socialization, and not at all a matter of being fortunate. Instead, it is a matter of dire compatition. Evidently the mullahs, who are the present mouthpieces for Islam, find that life is like a caravan moving across an endless desert, in which all interference is a lethal threat, and not an offer of companionship.  Couple this to macho territoriality and it is an incendiary situation.

I find it sad that the sons of Abraham can't play in the same sandbox without fighting.  We could go back to Jacob and Esau, but in the modern world, I think Adam Smith is more pertinent.  Were I able to input my opinions into the situation, I'd be inclined to suggest that the Middle East nations, most of which are Islamic, should form a commonwealth, rather like the OPEC common governance of resources, and through the economic power of their commonwealth they would begin to settle issues in the region.  But there seems to be disagreement even at that level, as between Syria and Lebanon etc. Still, when considered in the light of the entire world, Ibn Khaldoun's counsel to form a social group in order to survive still seems pertinent.

dave

Lucy,

I think you hit on something.  I've often thought that some of the new age dogma such as "we didn't purge fear in a past life, so we are back to the drawing board and here to purge it again in a second chance," is a bit of bunk.  Our lives are too complex to boil them down to one lesson, or one reason for existing.  

These primal urges to kill are present in much of the animal kingdom.  Usually for food, territory, or sex.  Sometimes in a mean way.  But the idea of bambi and cute animals playing in the forest is so unreal, any true lover of nature knows this to be untrue.  Can a monkey experience grace, or PUL?  If so, are they too supposed to follow the golden rule?  Monkey hell, if not?  I can't even begin to imagine.  

Many ancient texts like the bible keep talking of God separating man from beasts.  We are supposed to know the difference of right and wrong actions.  And deep inside, I'd like to think we do.  Since thought creates our surroundings, a killer, or one who does a heinous act, will by necessity be unhappy in other ways, and unbalanced.
*****************
Monkey Hell. An interesting idea, Doc.
Could it be...
A CDC (Center for Disease Control) primate infectious disease studies laboratory?

B-man

Lucy and Doc-
OK, I'm in basic agreeement, and of course there's very little to be said about useless killing.  Except for the chase and killing of Colubus by chimps I had the impression that only Man was the only critter that kills for sport.
*****************
How then do you explain the behavior of my overfed, obese (21 lbs.) spoiled house cat?
He regularly drags birds, squirrels, ect. back to the house (always so badly hurt, I  usually have to put them out of their misery) and thinks himself quite the beau for doing it, to see the look on his face and the... well, STRUT he affects afterward. (He's also a bully who attacks any cat smaller than himself...)
Obviously he's hunting for the FUN of it (i.e., sport.) so I think we can't call mankind unique on this one... or chimps, for that matter. Then there's sheep-killing dogs and so on.
BTW, I doubt there is a "cat hell" (for what that's worth.)

B-man

Chumley

The point about the chimps was that they did the chase and killings of both monkies and other chimps as a (social) group. Your cat undoubtedly acted alone.

I also think that if left alone, the cat might return to the dead prey and snack a bit. I think that's the way it works in the wild.

I once lived out in the country with a human and several dogs and a group of chickens.  The dogs went renegade one day and got in the hen house and put all those birds out of their misery. I do not for a seconfd believe this was premeditated, dogs being rather spontaneous and opportunistc creatures, whereas the chimps almost appeared to plan their attacks. Dogs also have a chase instinct, which is why you don't leave small children alone in the reach of some dogs.

We couldn't find all the chicken bodies, at first. But one of the dogs would afterwards show up from time to time with a carcass to knash on. Don't know where they were "stored". Just because things don't get eaten right away doesn't mean they don't get eaten. But then, these were well-fed dogs; why did they go on their hunting frenzy? "Instinct"? And do we have the same genes as that in our brains? And if so, assuming that the instinct can go awry and be turned towards others of our own kind, how do we learn to deal with it so as to live peacefully in society?

BTW, Dave, tell your wife I'd take it a step further. If men are like apes, then women are like piranha. I'm just not sure what biological function that reflects. Having truly believed since I was about 8 yrs that women could make a difference, I have had some bitter lessons. It's not that simple; replacing the men with the women won't work. I personally believe that if there was an Atlantis, it was the women who destroyed it. I think the solution might lie in developing some kind of balance between men and women....maybe something we don't see in the "lower" animals. Maybe that is a challenge we accepted when we came here: how do we take this biology that we can see more clearly in chimps etc. and surpass it to establish something more balanced. Or maybe just remembering that before we were humans, we were something else.

Greetings Lucy,
Re: your idea of a balance of genderness as a means of humanity avoiding trouble--
Androgyny is over-rated, I'd have to say from experience, at least for anyone who's androgenous who lives in an area where the hunt and conquest for sexual partners is a main cause for living.  Here in the US, I'd say that includes the South, the West, the college/yuppie areas of the east and the farming/ranching areas of the midwest. Too much energy is taken up trying to define what you are in these situations.
This site has alot of great discussions with obvious male and female polarities. They usually end up understanding the topic and each other better, as we all do. I really appreciate that.
Keeping sons and daughters of the desert chaste and separate until their 20's sounds criminal to me. All that pent-up energy then becomes perverted by the State. Maybe we need a Garden of Eden where bodies can be adored instead of bomb-packed vests that destroy what's so worthy of adoration.
Racey huh?  I've never talked like this before.

Great post Bets.


Quote:

Maybe we need a Garden of Eden where bodies can be adored instead of bomb-packed vests that destroy what's so worthy of adoration. Racey huh?  I've never talked like this before.

I agree and I also feel you are really opening up to be able to talk like this. Good for you.

Love, Mairlyn ;-)

Actually, B-Man, animal experts seem to feel that the cat is presenting you with food for the family, since you are in the feline role of "top cat". "Hey, Dad, Looky what I brought you!"

But I see your point. Even if, as Lucy put it, they retun to eat later, it's a love of hunting. In my early teens I used to pop off pheasants for dinner, and I admit to the having many of the same emotions as any other predator. On the other hand, Big Macs and Chicken Nuggets don't exactly grow on trees, so modern tastes are only slightly less savage.

By the way, did anyone ever figure out what part of the chicken was the Noodle? (Nope, I won't even touch the other obvious question.)

Bets- I can't really see a problem with chastity until mid twenties. China and India both exemplify the population glut that can happen when people have a huge family. The idea that "more than two is pollution" has merit, although that would leave four of my kids majorly PO'd at me for saying it.

Lucy- men like apes and women like piranaha? Maybe we can translate Doc's monkey-hell into piranha heaven? Ugh. The chilling part is that I have known people that would more or less fit that idea.

We seem to associate adulthood with sexuality. About 5 or 6 thousand years back, when the reckoning was based on the cycle of the Moon, and thus the women were the tribal rules because they "obviously" represented the forces of the Nature Gods, kids had more or less freedom to reproduce as fast as they were capable. Looking at Methuselah, for example, his first child was at about 109 Lunar Years (or "moonths"). Dividing by 13 we get about age 14 Solar Years.

That's OK for breeding, I suppose, but in fact we keep advancing spiritually through the next 13-15 years as well. About 30 years seems to be the age of spiritual maturity IMHO,  and I've noticed that it is also the age of comparative reason, and roughly the peak of intellectual function. The Eastern concept of sat-chit-ananda, menaing to get a grip on love, clear mindedness, and joy from one's lifestyle seems to be a fairly good example of the kind of adulthood that's available at that age. That also correlates with social stability.

My thinking is that we might do a little better culturally if we were to look toward a somewhat higher level of maturity than simply being old enough to diddle the neighbors, blow up the guys across the street, or bulldoze the settlement down the block.

But I see no reason that any culture needs to adopt higher standards merely because they exist and are available. Not even because a higher level of social ethics might be more efficacious in the business of life.

d

An article in today's online paper has me thinking about what's biological and what's not again. So looking at the chimps, it appears that there is an element of male bonding and perhaps even organized violence that uses the male bonding that is biological, since it comes from creatures that don't communicate with ideas. Seeing the chimps go after the monkeys was weird when in the back of my mind I can see guys together playing football, going to boot camp, etc.

However, with humans, it seems we can use our conceptual talent to harness that biological function for conceptual/cultural goals.

So although I'm not sure all Islam supports violence against women, it is obvious that Fundamentalist Islam does. Here's the story:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/01/16/for_muslim_women_a_deadly_defiance/?page=full

We certainly are in the middle of a cultural war. There are many directions one could go with this discussion from here, but we were talking about motivation. Is there a connection between being willing to be a suicide bomber and this ritual abuse of women in the context of Muslim Fundamentalism? Are these things biology in the service of some pretty lousy ideas or is some uniquely human motivation involved here?
_____________

Androgyny is only one form of balance. I don't think balance comes in a neat little package. Partly it means looking for balanced people of either  sex and ignoring which sex they come from. Maybe for some people being in a couple is what brings balance. Maybe for some people being alone is more balanced.

We might need to adopt a higher standard for adulthood as a means to preserving the race. Now, if you have 6 kids, well, you can't go back! I used to argue for 2 kids and my sister, the 3rd, didn't like it either! But to support trends going forward, well, it is difficult to argue for large families. the fisherman in this area are on the bink of crisis because their catch is limited. The fish stocks really have been depleted. When the white men cam ehere in the 1600's or maybe this was written in the 1700's, there were reports of large schools of cod near the shore. And the fish were larger. (Lobsters crawled on the beaches. They were called mud roaches. Only the poor would eat them. What a difference a day makes.) This is not a trivial problem. If we deplete our fish stocks, maybe we will see more starvation, and closer to home. You can either have birth control, or you can have after-birth birth control in all its many forms. What China has done seems horrible, but the pictures from the Sudan of starving children are pretty grim too.

Maybe it's in the eyes ::)
One thing I miss while reading the wild and wonderful thoughts on this board is the opportunity to see eyes.
Altho TV is supposedly desensitizing us, with close-up photography, TV helps us see into the eyes of primates, elephants, carnivores, (humans), etc.  I've been dumbfounded by the range of feeling seen in these animals, everything from rage to mourning. If I didn't see compassion in a few shots (have you?) then it was something close to it. Wth animals perhaps it's happening more rarely but potential seems there. Are we agreed that compassion generates PUL?
If we want to keep thinking of ourselves as a 'higher' species, maybe we'd better pull on our bootstraps harder, 'cause I think they're gaining on us!
Actually I think this board serves the purpose of evolving its participants as well as anything society's come up with so far. Too bad our animal friends can't read.

PS to former 'in the eyes" post
I exaggerate my posted responses sometimes. This topic  has so many sober aspects that have been brought up that I was just trying to lighten things up abit. More somberly--
If one monkey could communicate the idea of hell to some others, I suspect soon there'd be a monkey hell.  Monkeys, wolves, and others can imagine (?) being punished by the group, hence their observance of social hierarchies ("If you step out of line there'll be hell to pay.") Hell could be just fear of punishment, with imagined trappings added thru the ages.
(I cannot believe however that heaven can be imagined into being. It's impossible to imagine something that is qualitatively so more than we've experienced, complete with new qualities of Light not experienced from our sun.)

Hi Bets-
I like the way your mind works.

Your remark, that this board is a tool for developing us spiritually, seems to be what Bruce is all about, kinda. After all, his books emphasize the matter of rescuing stuck souls and sending them off itno the light. I'd be inclined to view this forum as a do-it-yourself vehicle for our own rescue, which is really not such a bad idea. I find that here and there I've become less "stuck", largely through communicating with others.

dave

This is a collecting ground for people in transition from this dimension. And those who have experienced someone they know who have passed and have questioned the afterlife.

on topic,
Some people are absolutely decided in their beliefs, for instance, suicide bomber. Very absolute in their their view of the afterlife.
But more importantly is their cause.
And their cause is reform. And so it is their reform influencing us. Because terrorists, have influenced us to reform also. You see how that works?
We have adjusted and reformed nation to accomadate a terrorist threat... the joke is seriously on us, let me explain.

. Its no coincidence that their are places attacked by a suicide bomber, because that in itself is benificial to reform the area that was itself seeking reform.

As well, you cant say a country that drops bombs on other places is not to blame for small groups that retaliate, in some way.
Niether side is justified. And its not pretty. But is a method of change. One among many influences that effects the direction of this world at large and also reflect each individuals own conflicts collectively.

Key word acceptance.  No conflict if their is acceptance, i suppose, wouldnt you think?...even before the explosions....no acceptance...we dont accept them, they dont accept us....on practically the other side of the world..
war always reeks of the worst case scenario of a judgement and violence is always the caving into the feeling of aggression.
hmm

Propriety and sancity are the birthright of the person who dies in conflict. They are termed brave and strong and warriors.
The japenese have the kamakazee pilots....

Americans, place the value on life and freedom, but dont accept the freedom of others to blow them up too?

A conflict of hypocrits.

I used to have resentment for terrorists for obvious reasons. But then i began to realize our side is doing the same thing to them, that they are doing to us.
David verse goliath.
a slingshot verse a giant....

So propriety and sancity are the birthright of war itself.
War is about gain. Vilolence is triggered by the carrot of gain being dangled in front of the persons who fight not for freedom, but for security of personal assests. Which is their propriety and their sancity.


War is about the better cause. Good verses evil.
Propriety and sanctity are the birthright of our interactions with eachother....

HAH!

Hi Niven,

I like your points on this subject.

I basically agree that there is not reaction without an action, no cause without an effect.  

If you know your recent history (which i'm sure u do) then you will remember that during the cold war America actually gave weapons and financial aid to Osama and his cronies to beat the ruskies  :D

what does that tell you?

Actually, Jambo, it tells me that what passes for truth, integrity and honesty, in the international scene, seems to be at odds with what the rest of us value.

My original point in posting this thread is that innocents are being abused. Further, those who are not innocents are being misled.

To make an effect that causes a satisfying response requires that one side put forth an agenda that the other dare not reject for fear of either being called incompetent, or actually discovering themselves incompetent.

There is no doubt that terrorism is as old as the original disgruntaled teen ager who got tweaked at a farmer and tipped over his outhouse, or the ancient equivalent. However,  the only thing that is gained by terrorism is more terror. Htler capitalized on this by taking power with the promise to end the civil disruption caused by his own people. That's a Faustian bargain at best. A "War on Terror" unfortunately reifies the initial problem, and then compounds it.

Terrorists are psychologically associated with personal alienation, a sense of futility, disempowerment and inability for self expression in a meaningful manner. One would think that intelligent international leaders would seize upon this fact and strive to give the people a chance to be heard, and then would act to right basic social wrongs, thus defusing their issues.  However, there is far more money and power to be had by encouraging your fellow cirizens to blow themselves up along with a batch of their neighbors, or, conversely, to encourage your nation's military to blow up a bath of their neighbors to prevent a few of them from blowing themselves up alonbg with your fellow ciizens.

Whether its shekels, dinari, euros or bucks, gold, oil or grain, the motivation seems to be more to make a profit than to save the world.

One of the examples I think of, with respect to saving the world, is the crucified Christian Savior, Jesus. The impact of his death was not because he took anyone out with him, but because he did not. There is no profit to be made at that level. Priestcraft was forced to reinvent the Devil in order to scare money out of people. How much simpler are suicide bombers and armored bulldozers.

I still think that the ones who will make an impression are those who will stage the greatest protest without harm.

d