Dangerous idea?

Sun Nov 21 11:36:36 PST 2004

It is easy for us in the western world to sit back and wonder why they
> (terrorists) hate us.  We have been bless with freedoms that are unknown
to
> many other non-western cultures.  It will take time, possibly generations,
> to find a common ground with some cultures.
>
> Thank goodness we live in a culture where sharing ideas is not a life
> threatening possibility.
>
> Steve


And if you're so open to dialogue and sharing of ideas why don't
you (western world) ask them ( terrorists)

Funda

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Gawron" <gawron at megsinet.net>
To: <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: Dangerous idea?


> Hello All,
>
> I have tried to follow both Duff and Doug in their exchange of ideas.  My
> only comment is that their will always be persons who disagree with one
> another.  The missing concept, I can see in both premises, is the aspect
of
> 'What is in it for me' (WIIFM) Vs 'What is in it for them' (WIIFT).  To
> convince a person about any idea, you must establish some mutually
agreeable
> common ground.
>
> In some cases, that common ground may be difficult to establish.
Terrorist
> strike blindly at their targets out of hatred and fear.  It is difficult
to
> find common ground with someone intent on destroying you.
>
> It is easy for us in the western world to sit back and wonder why they
> (terrorists) hate us.  We have been bless with freedoms that are unknown
to
> many other non-western cultures.  It will take time, possibly generations,
> to find a common ground with some cultures.
>
> Thank goodness we live in a culture where sharing ideas is not a life
> threatening possibility.
>
> Steve
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "R. Duff Doel" <duff at innergy.ca>
> To: <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 8:43 AM
> Subject: Re: Dangerous idea?
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > My name is Duff and i have been mostly a lurker on this list.
> >
> > Let me begin by saying that inherent in my discussion below is the basic
> > premise that even attempting to convince someone else of the veracity of
> > one's opinion is an attempt to control. And therefore, i need to say;
> > please take from what i share what works for you and discard the rest.
> > Of course that does not preclude the sharing of dissenting or agreeing
> > ideas...
> >
> > I agree that by resorting to such tactics, they have already won. And i
> > agree that much of the responsibility lies with the media's inherent,
> > apparent need to sensationalize the negative. And i agree that
> > ultimately it is all about money and therefore power.
> >
> > The second thing i thought when i stood at my Taiji class watching the
> > second plane hit the tower on the fitness club TV, was that this was the
> > most politically useful thing that could happen to a right wing
> > government that was failing in the popularity polls. It creates a
> > vehicle for breeding fear in the general population. Such fear allows
> > for the immediate and permanent reduction of civil liberties and the
> > increase of control.
> >
> > The third thing i thought while everyone was talking about the horror of
> > the situation and shouting reactionary cries for action and vengeance
> > was, what would serve more in creating a peaceful world would be to ask
> > "Why do they hate us so much that they would do such a thing?"
> >
> > If we look just at the money situation and put it into real, personal
> > terms, think of this: For the second and third installments of "The
> > Matrix", Keanu Reeves was paid a salary of $100,000,000 dollars (not
> > counting whatever other residuals and promotional money he might get).
> > This is enough to feed and water the entire third world for more than 2
> > years. Now as much as i enjoyed the Matrix, there is something that is
> > just not breeding peace in that. I am happy for Keanu that he has become
> > so successful for himself but how does a society that wholeheartedly
> > supports this, bridge to heartfully serving the world?
> >
> > This, to me is the true essence. Forget value judgements like "good and
> > evil" or "positive and negative". I feel that there are two possible
> > motivations in any choice that we make. Does our choice serve ourselves
> > or does it serve all? If our choices serve self at the expense of others
> > then our choices breed divisiveness and conflict. If our choices are
> > motivated toward serving all, then they breed inclusiveness and peace.
> > This applies on a "national" level as well. A country is an entity just
> > like a person. If a country makes a self-serving choice, that is the
> > same as a person making such a choice only it has much more far reaching
> > effects.
> >
> > So, to answer your original question: If we were to take an action like
> > targeting suspected terrorists with computer viruses, then it would be
> > an act of serving our own desire to have them think like us. It would
> > not breed peace but would rather escalate the conflict in just the same
> > way as a military response does. (an that is not opinion, it's
> > observation. Just look at what is happening in Iraq right now, today...)
> > Such an attempted solution is as much an act of terrorism as what the
> > targets of the act are doing, albeit with probably less immediate
> > bloodshed and suffering, but perhaps not so in the long run. It is an
> > act that says that if someone who thinks differently than we do wants to
> > speak her/his mind, then s/he will be attacked overtly for doing so.
> >
> > Self-defense is stopping someone from hurting you. Defending one's ward
> > or dependent or even an innocent bystander, is preventing someone from
> > hurting that person. Attacking the attacker in response is an attack not
> > self-defense. Attacking a potential attacker preemptively is terrorism.
> > As an example, if one walks down a street and sees someone being
> > attacked in an alley and interferes, preventing the attacker from
> > harming the victim, then one is protecting someone. If one then beats
> > the crap out of the attacker, one is waging a vengeful war. If one goes
> > around looking for people who might be potential attackers and beats the
> > crap out of them to make them afraid to be attackers, one is a
terrorist.
> >
> > Even if one goes about sanctioning anyone who might say something
> > hateful one is serving one's own self-interest. Who decides where it
> > stops? Who defines what is the line that can't be crossed? Today, it
> > might be a website showing horrific videos. Tomorrow it might be a
> > website making statements against military involvement in Iraq. Next
> > week it might be anyone who disagrees with G.W.B.
> >
> > While it is possible, though not probable, that such a sanction as
> > targeting the websites of suspected terrorists or those making hateful
> > statements, might prevent some bloodshed, it is at the cost of becoming
> > hateful, manipulative and controlling just like them and ultimately
> > creating more excuses for them to feel justified in their actions. In
> > other words, the end does not justify the means. The means must be
> > defensible on their own merit, independent of the outcome. And further,
> > it won't work anyway because such a stand only breeds more divisiveness.
> >
> > And finally, none of us as individuals can make such choices of service
> > for anyone else. Especially, we can't make such choices for whole
> > nations. We can however, make them for ourselves, every moment of our
> > lives. If we consistently choose serving all instead of just ourselves,
> > then we become examples, beacons for others to see. If one person lives
> > as much as humanly possible this way of being, and just a handful of
> > people see that and see that it might be a happier, more peaceful, more
> > constructive way to live, then we create a grassroots movement of peace.
> > This is, to me, the only way peace can happen. One person at a time. As
> > Chris Mac Rae pointed out, large media interests, large corporate
> > entities and most large driving forces in our socio-politico-economic
> > structure are inherently motivated toward self-serving goals. They can
> > only be relied upon to create more conflict unless the general
> > "marketplace" is only willing to buy peace. Then they would be selfishly
> > motivated to act in a selfless manner. It wouldn't be real, but at least
> > they would get out of the way of peace.
> >
> > A clear and decisive choice that is motivated by serving all is to
> > simply refuse to open any website that would show any such horrific
> > thing. One person at a time.
> >
> > Wow, i didn't intend to go that deep when i started this, but this is
> > how i feel.
> >
> >
> >
> > Douglas D. Germann, Sr. wrote:
> >
> > >Hi--
> > >
> > >I had this thought yesterday, and was going to put it on my blog, but
> then
> > >I thought perhaps it is too dangerous an idea to post too widely.
> > >
> > >It is attempting to harness a negative in the service of positive, but
it
> > >still repulses almost as much as it attracts. Is there a seed of good
> here
> > >that could be developed? I know the people on this list can be trusted
to
> > >find it if it exists....
> > >
> > >      Could we as internet community deny these terrorist
> > >      websites access to the world of publicity by using viruses,
> > >      or something like them, in a positive way?
> > >
> > >(I had in mind the sites that are posting the videos of beheadings, and
> > >similar atrocities.)
> > >
> > >                              :-Doug.
> > >
> > >*
> > >*
> > >==========================================================
> > >OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> > >------------------------------
> > >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
> > >view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
> > >http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
> > >
> > >To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
> > >http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
> > >
> > >
> >
> > *
> > *
> > ==========================================================
> > OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> > ------------------------------
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
> > view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
> > http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
> >
> > To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
> > http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
> >
> >
>
> *
> *
> ==========================================================
> OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> ------------------------------
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
> view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
>
> To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
> http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
>

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu:
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html

To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist