Hi Dragan,

>>Hi folks,
>>
>>In light of the recent discussions here about how best to respond to the recent attack on the WTC and what the best response should be I'd like to offer this link to an article written by a Michael Kelly.
>>
>>For the record, I agree with his assessment.
>>
>>http://jewishworldreview.com/michael/kelly.html
>
>Once you get into a situation that you are attacked, pacifism doesn't help anymore.

Well, I'd think that pacifism as a response would be more accurate. What we're starting to hear from are those who seem to confuse good intentions with harsh reality.

>But then, the question of pacifism vs any other option wasn't issued when the circumstances which led to this were created.

Well, if pacifism was the ruling thought process on the initiating side (terrorist's side) then they would ipso facto cease to exist I'd think.

As the initiating side has proven they have obvious ill intentions our response should be in kind.


>
>In a world where rich are getting richer and the middle and poor are getting poorer, the only thing which could prevent the future wars is to make living as good as possible for as many people as possible. Since that is somehow out of scope for voters, they all elect (or tolerate) governments which continue doing as they do. The imbalance this layout creates breaks out this way or another, sooner or later. Once it breaks out, it's too late for pacifism.

IMO this has nothing to do with money. Osama bin Laden has hundreds of millions that he could have used to help Afghanis. Arafat has literally had billions flow through his organizations. Why didn't he invest that in infrastructure?

Now, envy and greed, in the sense of someone else wanting to take by force that which we possess I suppose you might have a point.

This is not the fault of "the rich", whomever they may be. You should dig around a little and discover for yourself things like the terrorists museum that Arafat just had closed due to bad publicity. These people hate Israel, Jews and those who support them. Did you notice what the demands of the Taliban were? Essentially we need to abandon Israel. Ehud Barak offered Arafat everything he had been demanding over the years with the sole exception of absolute control over the Temple Mount. Arafat declined. Why? He needs the fight to stay in power and, quite candidly, these people have no desire whatsoever for peaceful co-existence with Israel. They want the total elimination of Israel and Jews. We are seen as enemies of these folks because we are seen as friends with Israel.

>
>Besides, pacifism in only one country, and/or on only one side, is necessarily fruitless and seen as treason. It's the pacifists on the attacking side who would matter. It did happen, but somehow didn't get into the news.

Pacifists on the attacking side? <g> Isn't that like honest people on the side of criminals? <g> Uhh.. Is this, for example, like the Palestinians who executed some of their own on the charge that they had collaborated with Israel a week or so back?

Sorry, but I'd disagree here quite strenuously, based upon the facts I've observed. Have you seen the footage of the Talibans shooting some of their own in summary executions? I have.