A Letter to the Terrorists, From London

[Richard]

Originally Posted by JustinoXXV

Number one, it's time to end all political correctness. Islamic immigration to the West should be restricted, if not banned outright.

I'd come up with a pithy response, but really, the only one that comes to mind is: oh belt up. How you can describe world leaders as idiotic while promoting exactly the kind of introspective isolationism that does nothing but breed fear, paranoia and build sky-high walls between cultures is beyond me.

AL Queda continued to regroup and plan until they came up with a way of killing thousands of New Yorkers. Then no one laughed.

Nope, they single-handedly launched a hate campaign against whole countries, locking down the political system, rushing through ludicrously poorly thought out laws and ultimately started an illegal war based on nothing more than their own desperate igorance and paranoia. Clearly, a better approach than taking it in your stride...

[Joe Calabrese]

Originally Posted by JustinoXXV

New York City had a pathetic failure of an attack as well. In 1993, the first attack on the World Trade Center barely caused the twin towers any damage. I don't even think anyone was killed. Some people even laughed at how ineffective the terrorists were.

For the record.

John DiGiovanni
Robert Kirkpatrick
Steve Knapp, Manhattan
Monica Smith
William Macko
Wilfredo Mercado

These people did not laugh. They died in that attack.

You may have been too young to remember the details, but the first attack was serious, well planned and did cause structural damage as well as fear. It was by no mean a failed, pathetic or ineffective attack.

It is a shame that 9/11 has overshadowed the 1993 attack for some people.

[Joe Calabrese]

Originally Posted by biotales

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH /OR ABOUT THE CORRUPTION IN SOME OF THOSE COUNTRIES?

No system is perfect, but that is not an excuse to do nothing.

[eldragon]

It's a silly, feel good campaign like save the whales

Saving the whales is silly? Goodness. Do we even need to go there?

Let me summarize your compassionate statements, Justino. Forget Africa - (even though you are black.) Let them all die. Who cares?

Forget third world countries - let them all die. It's not my fault they were dumb enough to be born poor.

Forget Islamic countries - "if the people want tyrannical governments ...that's their problem."


Forget animals -- they're stupid. Who cares if we the people are responsible for thier deaths? Not my fault we pollute the oceans with chemicals, killing all plant life and its not my fault we suck the ocean of all animal products - who cares? Screew the whales!


Justino - You're one heck of a compassionate person. Apparently, being born black and gay has made you into a hate monger.

Of course I disagree with the war in Iraq - but "pulling out" now isn't really an option, is it?

[biotales]

Originally Posted by Joe Calabrese

No system is perfect, but that is not an excuse to do nothing.

I suggest you go back and read the part that explains the rotting food on the docks.... etc etc.....
If a African country wants to reform into some resambance of a decent society... fair pay for fair work, schooling for the children.... and not a cleansing genocide society ... then I am all for helping....
but if those countries are not willing to help themselfs then ... I am sorry...
I as sic and tired of watching the same news reports on the same counrties in Africa.... and I am equally tired of watching the f--king UN do nothing but issue out excuses....
period.

[Fractured_Chaos]

*sigh* I wasn't going to respond to this, but I can't let it slide.

[QUOTE=JustinoXXV]

If Britain and the US continue business as before, it's because we have imbecilic leaders.[/qiote]

Agreed. Somewhat. The US action in Iraq was the best boost for recruitment for the Al Qaeda there ever was.

Originally Posted by JustinoXXV

Number one, it's time to end all political correctness. Islamic immigration to the West should be restricted, if not banned outright.

WRONG! That's not what we're about. You know, "Innocent, until -proven- guilty"? That would be the same as condemning all black people for the actions of OJ Simpson, or Micheal Jackson. And remember, both of them were found "not guilty".

Originally Posted by JustinoXXV

Two, we can't force people in Iraq, Iran, or wherever in the Middle East to be democratic. If they want tyrannical governments let them have them.

Agreed. Freedom isn't free, and the people who want it will have to fight for it themselves, else they will just be trading one ruler for another. We cannot force freedom and deocracy on anyone at gunpoint, and that's exactly what we're attempting to do.

Originally Posted by JustinoXXV

Pull our troops out of Iraq. If Bush and Blair cannot prevent attacks at home, how then can they stabilize Iraq? The Iraq was a failure, is a failure, and the US and Britain aren't accomplishing anything there. Time to admit it and pull out.

Can't do it. We have to at least fix the infrastructure, now that we've trashed it. I'd like nothing more than to see our troops come back home. But we're mired in too deep, now. It's nothing more than damage control, but it's damage we caused, and therefore need to control as best as we can.

Originally Posted by JustinoXXV

Three, it's time to end this charade of wanting to help end poverty in Africa. It's a silly, feel good campaign like save the whales. However, I would think Blair and Bush's first duties are to ensure the safety of their citizens and to prevent this from happening again. Make no mistake, everything we've learned about Al Queda suggests that will come back, with a much more grand attack.

Our citizens are secure as can be without eliminating their freedom, as well. Both the US and GB have the resources to prevent terrorist attacs, but as long as we're both free nations, there will be some whoi slip through the cracks.

Personally, I would prefer to take my chances, than to give up my freedom.

I also disagree that ending poverty is a silly notion. There are enough resources on this planet to keep everyone currently alive healthy and well-fed. It's a matter of distrubution. And we can end the poverty. But the -people- have to be willing to share. We can't force that at gunpoint any more than we can force democracy at gunpoint.

Originally Posted by JustinoXXV

Along those lines, **** the third world. I honestly don't care what happens in those countries. It's time we take care of our own.

In this case, this is purely opinion, and religious convinction, but as a Buddhist, I cannot condone that. I agree that we need to care for our own first, but we can set our priorities to care for others, as well. It would take very little to relieve some of the suffering in other parts of the world, and no one would suffer, here because of it.

[robeiae]

Two points, not to be construed as me taking sides with anyone or any group:

One: This idea that "you can't force democracy on someone" is simply inaccurate and ahistorical. Japan? Germany?

Two: Someone's skin color and/or ethnicity should not be used to determine how they should feel about a particular situation Such expectations are as damaging to having a free society as outright discrimination/racism. I am mostly Scottish, but that fact does not require me to have a special empathy for the plight of the Scots. I prefer to see all people as people in their own right; I'm not gonna reach out a helping hand to people based on my background. I'm gonna do it based on need, on circumstances, and on probable results.

Rob

[JustinoXXV]

The West has given African nations billions of aid. Most of it was used by the governments to further oppress people.

Most of the starvation in Africa is caused by ethnic/racial warfare. In the context of Africa, each ethnic group considers itself a seperate race, and they all hate each other. It's why you have situations like Ruanda, Nigeria, the Sudan, Ethiopia, the Congo, Uganda, etc, countries that have seen genocide perputated by one ethnicity against another.

Where on earth did some of you get the idea that being black would somehow make a person more compassionate? It certainly hasn't made African dictators or theirt thug soliders more compassionate. I'd argue that Africans in general are far less compassionate than white Westerners. In the Sudan and Nigeria, adulteresses are executed. As Islamic law dictates, a woman who is raped must have four male witnesses. The people doing this are black muslims. Oh, they cut off the hands of thieves.

Giving these people Western aid isn't going to endear the West to them. Women in Northern Nigeria and the big parts of the Sudan are kept VEILED.

As for them being the descendants of many ancestors, so what, my ancestors died centuries ago. I have nothing in common with those people, nor do they have anything in common with me. The concept of an Africa only exists in the minds of white people who don't realize that black people speak different languages, have different religions, have different cultures, and don't really have anything in common with each other.

Even in the Americas, what does a Southern Baptist from Mississippi (black) have in common with a practioner of Palo Mayombe(an African based religion) from Panama?

Not only would you people find the practices of the Islamic parts of Africa appalling (and most African countries have a decent Muslim population except for the Condo, Angola, Zimbawe, Zambia, South Africa, Namibia, and Bostwana), the practices of the native African religions are equally appalling by your standards. Both animal sacrifice and human sacrifice are a part of African religions, and both are still practiced somewhat in parts of West and Central Africa, as well as Latin America and the Caribbean. You can do a google on Palo Mayombe, Eshu, Yoruba religion, etc for more info. For me this isn't just academic, I've known these people in NYC very well and have been to their homes.

I think most people here react on knee jerk emotionalism. Show them a picture of a cute kid, and they go ga ga ga.

And I assume most people on this thread apparently haven't heard of the gang warfare type situations that do occur in certain black neighborhoods all across the country. You know, with people (black) shooting each other. I know something about that, considering I have cousins who are gangsters. The naiveity of some people here who think that black people are one happy family astounds me.

Oh, and in cities like NY, where blacks of different nationalities get together (American, Jamaican, Haitan, Cuban, Brazilian, Nigerian, etc), people often diss each other on the basis of their nationality (discrimination).

As for sending aid to the poor kids, in the US and abroad? It obviously has to go threw adults. As I stated in previous posts, I know third world people quite well, having been to South America and having lived among immigrants. Listen to the forms of rap listened to by blacks and hispanics (yes, there is Spanish rap, quite popular in Colombia). All the lyrics of violence, drug dealing, 'hos, etc quite accurately describes a good number of black communities (in the US and in other countries), and a good number of latin communities. With that in mind, why would I be compassionate towards people? Under these circumstances, show people any compassionate, and all you'll get is a knife in you.

[JustinoXXV]

Back to the issue of Islamic immigration, when NY was attacked, a lot of non Muslims beat the crap out of Muslims. I could not even say hello to my Pakistani neighbors, as doing so would have gotten me in trouble with my other neighbors. For the record, the mobs that beat up Muslims included New Yorkers of all races, including blacks.

Back to the Islamic immigration, if the West's situation with the Muslim world isn't improved, then it makes no sense to let them in. Because if these attaks continue, mob justice will deal with the Muslims in the harshest way possible.

Terrorists will continue to come to the West, to blow up Western cities in apparent retaliation for their percieved injustices. Some people on the left here would rather have Western countries fight with their hands tied behind their back.

Historically, if countries are at war with each other, they tend not to let citizens from the opposing side enter in large numbers. That's just common sense.

[JustinoXXV]

So, for the record, black people are every bit as rotten, mean, self centered, heartless, etc as whites.

Even as far as slavery goes, it exists in Africa long before the Europeans and Arabs came onto the scene. One nation would fight with another nation, and if they defeated them, they would enslave them. The losing nation would get their women turned into concubines. The Arabs fight like this as well. Even today, as the Muslims (those Arabized black africans) of the Northern Sudan fought the southern Sudanese, when they came to villages they often slaughtered adults (men and women they did not find attractive). Children were often taken as slaves, and the pretty surviving women were made into concubines.

The concubines are the maids/servants/slaves of married men. So slavery is still legally being practiced in some African nations.

And for those of you who think we can solve the problem, well, we haven't stabilized Iraq. So Iraq is going so poorly, how then we will occupy countries like the Sudan? We don't even have the resources to expand the war much beyond Iraq (big deficet, shortage of troops, etc.)

And if the US cannot stop the gangster violence occuring in areas with large numbers of blacks in the United States, how then can they do anything with ethnic/religious warfare in Africa?

[biotales]

Originally Posted by JustinoXXV

So, for the record, black people are every bit as rotten, mean, self centered, heartless, etc as whites.

Even as far as slavery goes, it exists in Africa long before the Europeans and Arabs came onto the scene. One nation would fight with another nation, and if they defeated them, they would enslave them. The losing nation would get their women turned into concubines. The Arabs fight like this as well. Even today, as the Muslims (those Arabized black africans) of the Northern Sudan fought the southern Sudanese, when they came to villages they often slaughtered adults (men and women they did not find attractive). Children were often taken as slaves, and the pretty surviving women were made into concubines.

The concubines are the maids/servants/slaves of married men. So slavery is still legally being practiced in some African nations.

And for those of you who think we can solve the problem, well, we haven't stabilized Iraq. So Iraq is going so poorly, how then we will occupy countries like the Sudan? We don't even have the resources to expand the war much beyond Iraq (big deficet, shortage of troops, etc.)

And if the US cannot stop the gangster violence occuring in areas with large numbers of blacks in the United States, how then can they do anything with ethnic/religious warfare in Africa?

You are correct in your summation.... Long before the first black slaves came to this country... they had something called "Head Count"... in the 1600's wealthy land owners in favour with the king at time... was given large land grants through the Virginia Company.... Head count was just that... the more poor Irish and poor scots that they bought to this land the larger the tract of land they got.... not the irish or scots mind you... but the wealthy land owner... the irish and scots were en-slaved to the owner....
Slavery has been around since the dawn of time...It is still happens today...
from black african slavery within the tribes of africa to white slavery being funneled through the carribean... period..
I think the whole point at least for me... I do not mind helping any nation out of poverty IF that nation is truly trying to help themselfs.... but I am tired of seeing money poured down the drain into someones pocket and that money not getting to where it is suspose to go because they poor in that country just happen to be from the wrong f--king tribe...
Haveing a concert to bring attention to the world leaders to step up and solve the problem is not going to solve anything..

[William Haskins]

so, anyway... the british have met this whole thing with resilience and defiance, and i personally stand with them in not allowing themselves to be cowed by the forces of hatred and terror.

[eldragon]

In this case, this is purely opinion, and religious convinction, but as a Buddhist, I cannot condone that. I agree that we need to care for our own first, but we can set our priorities to care for others, as well. It would take very little to relieve some of the suffering in other parts of the world, and no one would suffer, here because of it.

I agree with you completely, and as a spiritualist who believes alot of Buddhism , you and I both know that we are all one people, regardless of color, Nationality, sex or religion.


That's the problem thus far in history. It's "us" and its "them." When its really "we."


But some people have nothing but hate in their hearts. Regardless of how they look on the outside, if they have hate in their hearts, they feel no compassion.

[JustinoXXV]

"I think the whole point at least for me... I do not mind helping any nation out of poverty IF that nation is truly trying to help themselfs.... but I am tired of seeing money poured down the drain into someones pocket and that money not getting to where it is suspose to go because they poor in that country just happen to be from the wrong f--king tribe..."

Well, I think a big part of the problem is that a lot of people seem to want to create a homogenous world. If only we could give these poor countries all this aid, and make them over into democracies just like us.

But that won't work. It hasn't worked in 50 years. Of the third world countries that have developed trememdously, like China and India, that was due to foriegn and domestic private investment, as well as the governments using their own funds to build up infastructure in said nations. And still, China isn't a democracy (and shows no signs of becoming one). India is a democracy, but you have outright Hindu nationalists in power. (they have absolutely no seperation of church and state). And all the modern technology they have is used for different purposes. For example, in India, people abort female fetuses because they'd rather have more boys than girls. More females in China are aborted as well. China, with the modern technology that they have, is now threatening Taiwan, and if the US military gets overextended, they may very well take Taiwan (and possibly S. Korea). We modernized a totalitarian regimes which make take down two of our democratic allies at some point. So modernizing poor nations isn't always a good idea.

Again, we can't make the entire world like the US. We would do well to worry more about our internal security, and tackle difficult issues like immigration reform.

[biotales]

Originally Posted by William Haskins

so, anyway... the british have met this whole thing with resilience and defiance, and i personally stand with them in not allowing themselves to be cowed by the forces of hatred and terror.

WILLIAM I agree........

[JustinoXXV]

"so, anyway... the british have met this whole thing with resilience and defiance, and i personally stand with them in not allowing themselves to be cowed by the forces of hatred and terror."

Or is Blair and his associates meeting this thing with bravado? Blair and his associates have allowed militant Muslims to preach extremely anti Western rhetoric in mosques in Britain. Blair will have to grow some balls and deport some of these militants. France deported some Muslims for making speeches in mosques that could incite people to violence and terrorism. Now it's Blair's turn.

By the way, the police had to evacuate the entertainment district in Birmingham, England.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050709/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

It appears the jihadists intend to bring down the house in England. They must be STOPPED. It's time for political correctness to end.

[Christine N.]

It was a brilliant letter. Short and to the point. Terrorists only win if we live in terror.

As for the rest...well, I'm not going to go there. Personally, I think we spend too much on other countries. It's not that I'm not sympathetic, not at ALL, my heart goes out to each and every one, because underneath they are just like us, trying to make a life for them and their families. But here in our own country, children go hungry and people go without jobs or even homes. We're being taxed to death to foot the bill on this war. They cut funding to municipalities, so MY property taxes go up to fill the gap. But do my wages go up? Nope.

Don't get me started on how I hate professional athletes in the US. Not them personally, but their whining that they don't make enough money. Wah.

If women ran the world...

[robeiae]

Originally Posted by Christine N.

If women ran the world...

We'd have a new war once a month...

Rob

[JustinoXXV]

Paul Woflowitz wants to "help" Africa, in the same way we helped China, India, and certain other Asian countries. Basically, he's talking to large Western companies about offshoring work to African nations, and ending farming subsidies in the US.

The same people who cried let's help the Africans will be singing another tune when they are forced to compete with them economically. (Americans and Europeans couldn't not compete with Africans on wages, a few dollars a day would work quite well in many African nations (just as it does in China and India). Western companies will further maximize their profits, and those well off in African nations will get a lot richer (like they have in China, India, Mexico, Brazil, etc).

I'll also add that foriegn aid is basically working class Americans or European being forced to contribute their money (taxes) to inept regimes whose dictators put the money in their Swiss bank accounts. So poor people in rich countries are giving money to billionaires in poor countries. Marvellous.

[William Haskins]

justino, my comment and the spirit of the original letter dealt with a shattered people making their way through the early hours of a horrific attack.

your points are valid, of course, and perhaps if you look in the top left corner, you'll see a button labelled "new thread".

of course, there's no rule about piggybacking on an existing thread to pontificate. the high-portability of soapboxes makes it inevitable, i suppose.

[JustinoXXV]

"justino, my comment and the spirit of the original letter dealt with a shattered people making their way through the early hours of a horrific attack."

And I responded, to point out that those people had better make major changes if they didn't want things to repeat themselves. Look at the scare in Birmingham, England which just happened only two days later. This is far from over.

And then other people responded to my points.

So I responded to their points.

[robeiae]

I like the British and I hope they give those terrorists what for.
(that okay?)

Seriously, the history of England is something that always makes me shake my head in awe. I don't believe there is anything special about a "people," but if there was ever case to be made for such a position, it would be in reference to the English peoples. Reminds me of the line from the Tim Allen farce, Galaxy Quest: "Never give up! Never surrender!"

Amazing, simply amazing.
Rob

[Fractured_Chaos]

Originally Posted by robeiae

We'd have a new war once a month...

Rob

Nah, just intesnse negotiations. :þ

[eldragon]

Originally Posted by Christine N.
If women ran the world...

We'd have a new war once a month...

No we wouldn't. The majority of Women know how precious life is. The largest component or ingredient in war is testosterone.

[robeiae]

Originally Posted by eldragon

The largest component or ingredient in war is testosterone.

Grrrr ...No it isn't! Say that again and see what happens!! Grrrr ...Anyway, my guns are bigger than yours! Don't believe me? Well, we'll see about that!! You may fire when ready, Grizzly!!

Rob