|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-23 23:31:46
"(BTW, US troops in Somalia were allegedly attacked by Al Qaeda-trained Islamic fighters)."
Could you please provide some evidence to support this statement?
"Memory can also be a curse. There are places in the world where people listen to and even sing on a daily basis to the same bittersweet memories of past injustices and battles lost to "evil outsiders". I do not think those memories are serving anyone in a positive way."
The television and movie industry in America seems to do fairly well...financially, that is- depicting past conflicts and such. Not to say that it's a "positive" thing though.
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-24 00:03:05
As I understand it;
Al-Qa'ida supports Muslim fighters in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Kosovo. It also trains members of terrorist organizations from such diverse countries as the Philippines, Algeria, and Eritrea.
Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries.
This isn't the best public source but it is a good place to start. (Federation of American Scientists)
Link;
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ladin.htm
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-24 02:37:40
Thank-you Barretm82, I'd read through that page before. I was merely looking for Vox Canadiana to back up the statement with a quotation, a citation...it amazes me how few people using these forums actually cite their sources and examples- it makes serious discussion quite difficult when the majority of talk falls short of that.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-24 13:14:11
Kn_asshap:
I just posted a reply to your earlier question. I do have other important things to do with my time.
I undestand your wish to ask questions but you must also learn to wait for answers before complaining in public. You might also remind yourself that you also have the responsibility to research and present your own ideas and proofs.
I try to take care in giving my views and the words I choose are designed to minimize misunderstanding. When I say "alleged" I mean "alleged". Whatever proof I deliver would still be less than 100% by my standards. So you are free to contend - go and look for yourself. Take a chance and give an assessment. We're on the Internet after all.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-24 13:50:41
"I try to take care in giving my views and the words I choose are designed to minimize misunderstanding. When I say "alleged" I mean "alleged". Whatever proof I deliver would still be less than 100% by my standards."
*sigh* Yes, Vox Canadiana, I am aware that you said "alleged"- and when you said it I assumed that "alleged" was what you meant. But someone must have "alleged" that U.S. troops in Somalia were attacked by Al Qaeda-trained Islamic fighters...was it an 8 year old child? Was it you- making it up? Was it the State Department of the United States?- was it Chuck Jones? You gave absolutely no source for the information what-so-ever. The problem is not that your proof wasn't "100%", it is that you provided no proof- at all. That doesn't bode well for a serious conversation...not at all, actually.
If you can't be bothered to cite the information you're using, well, you should probably prefix everything with 'In my opinion'...or 'I think' (or something of that nature)...without a source for the facts, what you say is meaningless to a discussion that is based on the facts.
"I undestand your wish to ask questions but you must also learn to wait for answers before complaining in public."
I wasn't complaining about anything, I should say- I just wanted you to provide a quotation, a cited source, for the information that you brought forward. Nothing less, nothing more. You failed to do so, hence...
If ever I do not provide cited sources or examples for the points I make or the information I bring foward, and you would like one- just let me know, buddy.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-24 12:56:46
Kn_aeshap:
Regarding allegations that Al Qeada trained (and directed) the attacks on US troops in Somalia (recall that the US wanted to protect and organize distribution of food aid that was being looted by armed bands), much information was uncovered but not communicated to the public by the media. I am not sure why there was lack of effort but perhaps this is now partly responsible for the current disconnect between US authorities and the public (and other nations). Perhaps US authorities felt the information was too hot, too provocative and may create paranoia amongst some people who may act out against innocent Arabs. Perhaps the US did not want to be forced by public opinion to take firmer action. Perhaps they felt unprepared to act.
This information was well-known to US authorities way before 9/11 and you may recall that in the aftermath of 9/11, investigations eventually revealed all of the same details and posed the question of why the administration had not taken firmer action much sooner. One of the answers that I recall was that the alarm had been raised and the leaders were worried that something big would follow from what they knew but they were all reluctant to act. No one seemed to want to take the responsibility.
Now to give you the information you requested - A number of people and organizations have been indicted by the US on charges of terrorist activities. These people and organizations have also been indicted by the UN for similar reasons. You will find Canada's role in dealing with the matter at the following Canadian Legal Information website, where Canadian law documents may be found. The following URL will take you to the documents on "United Nations Suppression of Terrorism Regulations, [SOR/2001-360]":
http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/sor1-360/
If you read the "Schedule (section 1 and 2)" you will find the names of the people and organizations being banned and subject to legal action. Amongst the names of individuals you should find the following:
Muhammed Atef
Saif Al Adel
Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah
Mushin Musa Matwalli Atwah
Fazul Abdullah
Ahmed Mohammed Hamed Ali
Mohamed Sadeek Odeh
Abu Ubaidah Banshiri
These individuals and the Al Qaeda were all named by CS-1 as having taken part in activities in Somalia that led to the attack on US troops. "Confidential Source One" (CS-1) was an Al Qaeda defector who was kept secret for years and who was subsequently named as Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl). You can obtain transcripts of his court (3) testimonies from this website at The Center for Nonproliferation Studies:
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/binladen.htm
If you really want to see the words that identified Al Qaeda and its members as major conspirators and agents in the attacks on US troops in Somalia you should download and read the testimony given on Feb 6, 2001:
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/pdfs/binladen/060201.pdf
Using Acrobat Reader, search on the word "Somalia" and go from there. You should also read the growing indictment against bin Laden. There you will find summaries of the charges against him, members of Al Qaeda and network of terrorists.
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/pdfs/binladen/indict.pdf
It is very unfortunate that the public neither sees or wishes to investigate these matters. The details of the transcripts and indictment show the deliberate manner and deep-rooted mind-set of the people who planned and committed these acts.
Now as for television, nowadays I find TV shows, especially the US variety, all too often just rubbish if not totally objectionable. I do not own a working TV because it is not worth it. Movies are marginally better but I shudder to think of what it's all doing to young minds let alone to the rest of us. I also agree with your contention that the media recycle "negative memories" for profit. Perhaps many of us look for affirmation of our pet peeves or scapegoats, however misguided that may be.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-24 14:13:06
"I do not own a working TV because it is not worth it. Movies are marginally better but I shudder to think of what it's all doing to young minds let alone to the rest of us."
It's selling us things, most likely- television networks sell space & time to the advertisers...the networks are using the people who watch their programs as currency.
The better the ratings are for a particular television show that they play, the larger the crowd- the more expensive the advertising space. And then the advertisers sell us their products. Doesn't sound all that great to me either...
"Perhaps many of us look for affirmation of our pet peeves or scapegoats, however misguided that may be."
Yes, perhaps...or perhaps people are looking to be told what their pet peeves should be.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-24 17:13:05
I am one who believes that bad television (yes Virginia there is such a thing as *good* television :-)and bad films (I won't repeat it) are contributive factors to the diminishment of the importance of memory in our culture. But that's neither here nor there...
Both media *do* tend to oversimplify, over-glorify or "macho-ize" the role of foreign policy in the world. That also is neither here nor there...
Is the act of remembering subversive?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-24 21:37:44
I think remembering is simply in our nature. Is it subversive? I guess it depends on what it's subverting us from and what it's subverting us into. I mean if we were "nasty" to begin with and we build up "nice" memories to cancel out our "nastiness", would that still be subversive?
I would guess that memory is neither "good" nor "bad". (Actually good and bad are themselves subjective concepts but I think that's too OT here).
I think what may help us use memory effectively is, as I had mentioned earlier, if we are able to step outside of our emotions (and our physical selves) when we examine what is presented to us. Memory would then just be information. "Where" we actually are when we "step" outside of our emotions is an interesting place. Is that place then enlightened?
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-24 23:19:33
I ask about the subversiveness of memory in the context of criticising the US. I have been called anti-American for publicly recalling certain historically indisputable facts, in other words by remembering those facts. I'm probably not alone in that. So I find myself wondering if the act of remembering is going to be addded to the list.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-25 14:39:42
Remembering "facts" is not subversive by itself but overly dwelling on those memories while not realizing that they are selective and incomplete as well as prone to error is probably naive...but also not necessarily subversive.
What ought to be considered subversive is if we indulge in our emotions and passions in spite of realizing our flawed perceptions and forge ahead all the same with the intentions of misrepresenting information for our own twisted purposes.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: kn_aeshap
Date: 2003-02-24 23:23:26
"I think what may help us use memory effectively is, as I had mentioned earlier, if we are able to step outside of our emotions (and our physical selves) when we examine what is presented to us."
Agreed- having the ability to be completely objective (removing ourselves from our emotions) would be of great value in a situation where emotion may reign.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-24 23:39:54
Hi Vox,
Hmm…. step outside our emotions? Enjoyable thought, not practical. We need those emotions to ground us, to provide empathy with others. Here is food for thought, look at the description for people who are outside there emotions, the term non-empathic sociopath behavior. (Definition; egocentric individuals with no empathy for others, and are incapable of feeling remorse or guilt).
That definition can hardly be deemed enlightenment. (Side note; I do understand the gist of your statement, I am just complicating it). ;)
I think your point was to put aside our problem causing emotions when dealing with a crisis. However the emotion of empathy is a part of that process, the ability to put yourself on someone else’s shoes, but I digress…..
Here is a second thought; can accurate information stored on the internet be considered memory? We can access it and sort the information fairly quick, use the information to reference and at times sharpen our perceived realities.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-02-25 21:02:01
"Barretm82", to "step outside our emotions" does not mean that we become inhumane. I mentioned elsewhere (in particular see "The 3 Pillars" under "Beyond policies and ideals") that one is often challenged to simultaneously manage conflicting impressions but that we still need to function effectively in spite of this uncertainty.
We all know that when we let our emotions rule all of our actions we are no better than a 'basket case'. Emotions are very powerful and if you have any formal training in psychology or behavioural studies you will recall that emotions are one of our fastest reacting senses (physical reflex actions are even faster). 'Thinking' is much slow.
Therefore when we wish the best for someone who may be suffering (could even be ourselves) we sometimes need to allow our slower senses to catch up. When we 'step outside our emotions" then we give a chance for our minds to work. If we are humane, we then have a better chance of extending better assistance to the sufferer (or ourselves).
BTW, when viewed broadly, 'enlightenment' is merely deep understanding of the nature of things. It has no inherent meaning, purpose or intent. Some people use it in responsible ways while others use it to successfully exploit people. 'Enlightenment' is merely a 'higher' tool. However, when we choose to ignore it, we ignore it at our own peril.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-25 22:26:10
I have to post a brief reply as I am preparing right now to leave tomorrow morning.
I understand your points, at this point I look forward to when I return, as I don't have enough time to dive into the subject.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-02-24 23:50:45
..."Memory would then just be information."...
Just to add, think of the internet as extended collective memory for people? Society?
(Yes, my philosophical computer engineering side is showing)
lol...
Steve
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: banquosghost
Date: 2003-02-25 09:59:01
As I've mentioned elsewhere I work in market research. A few months back I came across a verbal response to a question pertaining to sustainable energy development that I thought encapsulated quite perfectly our current cultural relationship to "information". Someone made the following observation (and this is a verbatim quote): "I am fairly well informed on the issue so I have not given it much thought."
Too often these days we confuse the posession of information with the activity of thinking.
Reply to this message
|
|
