Replying to LO27245 --
Exceptional piece, Andrew!
While not as overtly system-oriented, here's what I wrote today and have
been posting and sharing. What concerns me so is the appearance our media
is giving of oneness of mind among the American people, but I don't
believe that to be the case. All of my friends and even business
associates think that our current response plans are crazy. I guess we're
in the minority, if you believe Gallup and others.
No middle ground?
It's nice to know that there is world-wide support for America in the
aftermath of these events. But it concerns me greatly that our media and
our government are making this out to be such a black-and-white issue. I
saw the headline this morning -- "Either you are with us, or you are with
the terrorists." It's just not that simple.
There is an immense middle ground here, and none of what we are being
presented by our government or our mainstream media seems to recognize
this. Can we not at be sympathetic to the extended victims of this
tragedy, horrified at it, and want justice, yet at the same time
acknowledge our collective complicity in creating this situation, try to
understand "why America is hated around the world", and work on those
issues instead of just vengeful sabre-rattling?
On the day of the attacks, 14 Palestinians were killed and 13 wounded in
an Israeli encroachment in Jenin
and the Israeli defense minister gloated about the world's non-reaction to
The UN has issued a statement that, ""We recognize the inalienable right
of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment
of an independent state and we recognize the right to security for all
states in the region, including Israel," and yet it has been years since
we played any sort of effective role in negotiating a fair and equitable
Over 6,000 dead in one day is tragic -- perhaps even catastrophic. What of
the more than 100,000 killed or missing Tamil in Sri Lanka by the
U.S.-supported government in the last 20 years? Or the 50,000 or more
Kurds killed by the U.S.-supported Turkish government? See
http://www3.cnn.com/US/9806/16/terrorism.suit for more info on both of
these -- a Federal judge has ruled that we can't prevent private citizens
from aiding these groups that we have labeled as "terrorist". What about
the thousands of Zapatista and Chiapas Indians who've been massacred by
the Mexican government that we so blatantly support? Indonesia?
Philippines? Kosovo? What about the tens of thousands of Vietnamese we
killed in the name of our American ideology? They saw themselves as
defending their homeland. We were invaders. We take sides in civil wars
and then label people fighting for their basic rights and freedom as
"terrorists". 225 years ago we called them "patriots".
And even our "peaceful" solutions come at a great price. According to
UNICEF, between 1990-2000, as many as half a million children under the
age of five have died in Iraq as a direct result of the sanctions imposed
following the Gulf War (http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm). Did I
mention that we armed and trained Saddam Hussein to fight Iran?
And lest we try to blame it on Islamic fundamentalism, what about the
10,000 or more Bosnian Muslims who had laid down their arms who were
slaughtered in the name of Christianity
http://www.epiic.com/archives/1998/sympos98/ethnic98.html)? There's a long
list here, too... And, btw, NATO action there most likely hurt as much as
it helped (http://www.transnational.org/pressinf/pf70.html).
And what about the hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilians who are
fleeing their homes because of the threat of U.S. attack? As Nigel asked,
are they not terrorized? Have we not already answered terrorism with
terrorism? If we attack, and some civilians get killed, no matter how
many, it's just "collateral damage". But our 6,000 are "victims".
And has CNN bothered to mention that WE trained and armed Osama bin Laden
and the Taliban to help oust the Soviets? And odds are pretty good that
we're now going to turn around and train and arm the Northern Alliance.
Shades of Iran-Iraq, eh?
Violence begets violence. It's a vicious circle. We are only just now
starting to reap what we've sown for the past 50 years or so, and as
tragic is this is, it hasn't even begun to scratch the surface of what
people in dozens of other countries around the world have been living with
for years while we sat idly by.
I think it's time we let our government and our media know that we do not
see this issue as simply as a Gallup poll
(http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr010914b.asp). They didn't ask me.
If you'd like to hear some news and opinion that's not seen through the
myopic lenses of our corporate propaganda machine, take a look at:
I agree we need justice, and to work towards an end to terrorism, but that
will only come about by changing the way we deal with the rest of the
world, not by answering with our own form of terrorism wearing the costume
of righteousness. There IS an emergent pattern here, and collectively, I
think we're ignoring it.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different results." (Einstein)
VP of Professional Services
>From: "Andrew Jones" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: "LO List" <email@example.com>
>Sent: Friday, September 21, 2001 12:09 PM
>Subject: War on Escalation LO27245
> Declare War on Escalation
> Andrew Jones and Elizabeth Sawin
> Sustainability Institute
> Which came first, the violence or the retaliation? That is today's somber
> version of the old "chicken or the egg" riddle.
"Scott Allen" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.