Sanjay,

>Doug,
>
>>Perhaps you do not understand. The violence that will eminate from the US as a result of this most recent event will not be without prejudice. As a matter of fact it will be with extreme prejudice. Hate will never be removed from the hearts of mankind, either by force or by soft words. Only God is able to do this.
>>
>>However, prosecuting a war against those who have caused us this great harm will make sure they never do so again. I think people of good will are confusing these two issues.
>>
>>You are not seeing hate from people like me. You are seeing resolve to deal with and eliminate this problem to the best of our ability.
>>
>>These terrorists have actually done us a favor. They have managed to galvanize our entire nation. We now have one mind, one purpose. We will wage war against terrorists now... We willthrow our might behind this effort and we will not stop. It was a bad strategic and tactical move on their part and one they will regret if we have our way. I'd be looking for a hole to hise in about now but that will only stop us for a little while.
>>
>>These people are already dead.
>>
>
>So, when do you think it will end?

When we decide it's ended.

>
>>>What Len is suggesting is by no means irrational, or unworkable. In fact, thankfully, at last someone is asking the question, why did this happen. As I have mentioned in another post here, we achieve nothing by indiscriminate use of force. In fact it destroys the judicial and moral fabric on which our civilised society is built. Violence is not the means to an end. Its the end of means to a new beginning.
>>
>>Please demonstrate for me either in history or in the modern world where this has worked. If it has then why are we seeing these events as we are? Ergo - those other efforts have not worked. However, I might point out that Hitler and Tojo aren't causing anyone any trouble these days... <g>
>>
>>What I'm suggesting is that this approach has no teeth.
>>
>I think you misunderstood me now. I made it clear in my other post that recriminations should be severe. At no point did I suggest that we should propogate the 'non-violence' paradigm of Gandhi, which incidentally, did work to free India of British rule. However, that was another era and another time. No single event in my mind, which was not an act of war, is comparable to the atrocity of Tuesday.

Ok, sorry if I misunderstood you. I hope, after all my hot rhetoric, you can forgive. me. <g>

>
>What we are suggesting is that western society should in parallel, look into the why's of such happenings seriously at the same time.

Ok.. But that is a two-way street we are still waiting for the terrorists to take. I just posted a new thread in Chatter (trying to be the good citizen. <g>) that contains an open letter to terrorists I received and thought good enough to pass along. Perhaps that will help a little to understand our reaction which must totally puzzle some. <g>

BTW, we do understand that people have differences. That's the whole core of our system. Just not that everyone should be forced to have the same ones like is done in most Muslim-run countries.


>
>>>Gandhi once said "We must be the change we wish to see." If we as the educated mass of modern humanity cannot change our stereotypical views of nation, race and creed, what hope is there for others, ...or for humanity?
>
>>And Ghandi was asassinated, as were several other members of his family if I correctly recall. Nice words....
>
>What I am saying is that we must not punish the innocent for the deeds of the guilty. All muslims are not guilty for the crimes of a few, just as all McVieghs of the world are not the same.

Of course not all Muslims are evil. We're not intereted in them, just those who harbor those who attacked us.

>
>Gandhi was assassinated by a fanatic, of the same mindset as of the people who committed Tuesday's crime. Lets not forget that although dead, Gandhi's legend and his philosophy is very much alive today. His assassin, Nathuram Godse, got a fair trial after killing the 'Father of the Nation'. The reason he was not lynched after the deed was that the people surrounding Gandhi at the time of his assassination were true followers of his philosophy. (Indira and Rajiv Gandhi, (mother and son) although assassinated by terrorists, were not members of the family of MK Gandhi.)

But Ghandi's philosopy didn't stop the assassination did it? Neither will all the nice words we type or speak. Bullets will stop these people and probably not much else. Is that what we would want in an ideal world? No, of course not! But it is the world we live in and that's what is puzzling to many of us - can not some people tell the difference?

>
>>There is IMO a difference between idealism and reality. Sadly so I might add. If I were God I would make everyone get along but the problem with that of course would be that it would be forced and therefore no better than what we see today. People have to want to change.
>
>Admittedly, a lot of this is idealism in today's world. But one lives in hope...

Hope is a good thing and to be desired. I have a solid hope that extends beyond the grave. I would wish all had this hope but I know that many will reject it. I cannot stop that from happening in spite of my tears and prayers to the contrary.