 |
 |
I thought I could avoid mixing into this one but between the opinions on the list and the opinions on the local talk shows...I live in CT. And get the New York Public Radio station... I find myself more and more amazed at not only the lack of understanding of the situation but of peoples' lack of understanding of each other. First, it would be helpful to know what background people bring to the debate. For my part, I am a secular Jew, with a natural bias toward Israel and a resultant antipathy toward terrorism. Antipathy is defined here not just as "I think it's horrible" but rather as "What to do to stop it." I am ex-military, retired after 30 years service both Active and Reserve as a Colonel 0-6 (full Colonel) and bring the bias which caused me to serve 30 years and results from that service. I am a type A personality with whatever bias that brings to the subject at hand. I don't hate Arabs; I don't hate Muslims. For that matter, I don't hate anybody unless they pose a danger to me and mine. Terrorists who kill people at random, fit this description. Ignoring for the moment pacifist or non-pacifist tendencies. Ignoring left or right wing politics. Ignoring racial and ethnic loves, hatreds or neutrality on the subject; there appears to me to be an aspect of common sense missing from the debate. If there is a mosquito swarm, you spray it lest it continues to bite at will. If you contract a disease and it is treatable, you treat it lest it get worse. If your brakes squeal, you do a minor repair rather than wait for the major to be needed. I suppose I could go on and on with a plethora of small examples of how rational people run their daily lives. If you take my point, you can easily see how the collective must also act for the common good regardless of the magnitude of the example. Going after terrorists is a not an exercise in racial or ethnic hatred. Nor is it an example of Man's (All of us) inhumanity to man (all the terrorists). It is exactly and explicitly a case of self and familial and friends' and lovers' and neighbors' and acquaintances' and (non-terrorist) preservation and preservation of a way and custom of life we would like to continue to maintain. Unless the terrorist threat is eradicated (like the mosquitos, the disease and the squealing brakes), it will grow and multiply until it finally intrudes directly into your and my personal relationships, if it hasn't already. Common sense says that no debate is necessary on the ethics, right or wrong of eliminating to whatever degree attainable, any threat to our (lots of inclusion in 'our') health, well being and way of life. It seems to me that to think otherwise is to harbor an ultimate death wish. I for one, do not think otherwise. So my opening thought that it would be good to know what bias (and baggage) people bring to the debate turns out to be spurious. Pacifist dove or warmongering Hawk, Liberal or Conservative, Muslim. Jew, Christian, or whatever denomination, the bottom line is preservation...which cannot be achieved if people of any stripe are allowed to blow us up with impunity. If we take no action they will take further action. They will poison water supplies, unleash radiation and fill the entire nation with terror. And then, having taken no action, we will bemoan our inaction and belatedly take whatever steps are available to the few of us still capable of taking them. So, Listfriends, it is not Retribution or Retaliation which is the name of the action. It is and should be done in the name of prevention and self preservation. And while new terrorists will in all likelihood follow the old, the type A in me says when that happens we'll get them too. Peace to all who deserve it and a pox on your terrorist head to those who don't. Paul H. Lauer ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn