Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
How does creating a bogeyman out of Bin Laden solve anything?
...
to direct development aid towards economic development so the young, unemployed potential hot-heads can get educations, good jobs, and lead productive lives.
Just because the government propaganda machine launches a campaign to boil the problems in the Middle East down to one person
...
I understand your views.
But, WE didn't declare war on American citizens through the 9/11 attacks. It was Bin Laden who coordinated and ordered civilian passenger planes to be used as human bombs to attack the Twin Towers and Pentagon. And, it was Bin Laden who rallied terrorists against America, Germany, England, France, and other countries throughout the world. We didn't make him into a bogeyman, it was his own actions that did that.
I have no problem with a reasonable amount of development aid being spent to accomplish the goals you mention, although why exactly is it our responsibility to provide jobs to Pakistanis, Afghans, etc.? Why is it America's responsibility to help Pakistanis have productive lives? I thought those responsibilities belonged to the Pakistan and Afghanistan governments. How silly would it be for me to say, "It is the responsibility of Pakistan to make my life fulfilling"?
And, I have not seen our propaganda machine (and admittedly there is one...of course...as is there one in virtually every country) say that all the problems in the Middle East boil down to one man...in fact, I see quite the opposite and have repeatedly heard the President and Secretary Of State discuss how complex the issues in the Middle East are.
It's private individuals who try to boil the issues down into one simple problem. How many times have I heard an "everyday person" say, "It's all about oil," OR "It's all about the Jews," for example. I've never heard a responsible government official say anything so simplistic. Sort of like the time my adopted son (who is Pakistani and Muslim and now lives in Islamabad) invited me to a party in Northern Virginia which was a cultural celebration for local Pakistanis. There were a couple of hundred people there that evening, and probably 30 came over to meet me and chat, at least briefly. Most of those 30 sooner or later said something along the lines of, "So as an American, you know that the 9/11 attacks were actually done by the CIA, right?"
Hello? Is anyone aware that it's against international law for a government to go after a foreign citizen with the intent to kill?
Pretty certain that isn't a law that's been adopted by the US, so you raise a moot point.
I disagree. The US uses international law when it's to its advantage, then thumbs its nose at it when its interests dictate that it do so. But then...the fact that the US is opportunistic and hypocritical isn't news.
Just because the government propaganda machine launches a campaign to boil the problems in the Middle East down to one person doesn't mean we have to buy into it. [...] He used to work for the US in Afghanistan, you know. How many times have people on the CIA or US gov't payroll turned around to bite us? Manuel Noriega comes to mind. When will the US learn? We create these monsters, then we have to kill them or bring them to so-called "justice". Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture? ...just askin'
I've never seen anyone reproach the general populace for succumbing to vast oversimplifications then falling victim to the same in so few words.
I disagree. The US uses international law when it's to its advantage, then thumbs its nose at it when its interests dictate that it do so. But then...the fact that the US is opportunistic and hypocritical isn't news.
You're very correct. We do use or choose to ignore international law, depending on whether or not it is to our benefit. As do most countries. I know that doesn't make it right, but it's a fact of international relations.
And yes, the US is opportunistic and hypocritical, as are most countries. I know that doesn't make it right, but that's also a fact of international relations.
If anything, I feel like Buddha's teachings of suffering and karma ring true more today than ever. We killed Osama, for justice. They killed us, for justice. Violence begets violence. It does not matter why you harm. Call it God, call it justice, call it "right", call it self-defense. But the cycle will continue until someone decides to show some humility and forgiveness.
"...forgiving means to pardon the unpardonable, or it is no virtue at all;"
As Yishai said violence begets violence. Ill will begets ill will. Tit for tat. etc It will never stop this way. I think it is all very sad and we will all pay for that.
"Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule." Buddha
Vinlyn, it depends on which President you're talking about, when you say he's presented the issues in the MIddle East as complex. Let me guess: you're talking about Obama, not Bush Jr.? And providing jobs to Pakistanis isn't how foreign aid works. Ideally, foreign aid is about facilitating economic development inside the target country so that over time, the local economy is able to provide the jobs. In fact, US gov't foreign aid (USAID money) requires that US specialists, contractors, and companies be hired to carry out the development projects, whenever possible.
The US propaganda and war rhetoric began hours after the attack on 9/11, whereas other countries and foreign networks covering the incident stuck to reporting the facts and to covering events as they unfolded on the ground. If the USSR used free university education and aid even for highschool education in the developing world to win friends and supporters, why can't the US do that? It works.
It wasn't just Bin Laden who rallied terrorists against the US. The Saudis had been setting up madrassas in other Middle East countries that functioned to turn young people into extremists. And what about Ayatollah Khomeini? He was on the scene back while Bin Laden was on the US payroll. These roots go far deeper than Bin Laden.
Not saying 9/ll wasn't a series of horrific and outrageous acts. Just examining the bigger picture.
@ Lincoln-- I meant I disagree that the point was moot.
How does creating a bogeyman out of Bin Laden solve anything? There are so many Bin Ladens. Are the American people any safer because he's dead (if it's true)? Hardly. Isn't this just going to whet the appetite of the religious fanatics on both sides? Violence doesn't beget peace, it begets violence. Far better to work behind the scenes to develop strong working relationships with moderates who could hold the Bin Ladens in check (or at least warn us when conditions have taken a turn for the worse, as I read one mullah tried to do, telephoning the FBI well in advance lf 9/11), and to direct development aid towards economic development so the young, unemployed potential hot-heads can get educations, good jobs, and lead productive lives.
Just because the government propaganda machine launches a campaign to boil the problems in the Middle East down to one person doesn't mean we have to buy into it. (All due respect to Vinlyn. Thank you for your moving testimony.) The issues are infinitely more complex than Bin Laden.
Hi c_w
Nods, I think part of it is just politics. People demand those type of answers and they want to see visions/flags of so called justice... That said, of course it is very sad and heartbreaking for those who were intimately affected by 9/11 and yet the cycles just never stop. We have also I imagine hurt and killed many in the Middle East and their blood remembers it too. This is one aspect of the problem, I believe, and perhaps the death of Osama Bin Laden will just inspire another group of revenge seekers, their passion reflamed by the death of one whom they liked. And then? It is all very sad. Perhaps we can take some solace in the teachings and guidance of the Buddha for perhaps more than ever the world has needed those whom can follow his guidance in and through their life. Each link matters. Each link counts. May yours be ever peaceful and safe too.
I havent seen anyone say killing Osama solves everything. I dont think most people believe that. While I agree that the West has some pretty crappy practices it doesnt justify trying to kill regular citizens. I dont understand what the controversy is. What should have been done to Osama ? just let him be ? Is that what some of you are advocating ?
I don't think we're advocating no harm against Bin laden. We're saying that nothing has changed, when we may have had the opportunity to weaken the idea of radical islam instead of strengthening it. We're treating this as a physical war when it is a war of ideas/ideals/morale/heart. The man is dead. The idea lives on. The enemy has not been broken. Maybe in a physical war we could end it by killing the leader. Kinda like killing Hitler, that was like chopping the head off. But the war on terror is a different animal. Can't end it by killing a leader.
Granted we strengthened Anti-terrorism as well. It may get to the point where one side just gets exhausted.
I havent seen anyone say killing Osama solves everything. I dont think most people believe that. While I agree that the West has some pretty crappy practices it doesnt justify trying to kill regular citizens. I dont understand what the controversy is. What should have been done to Osama ? just let him be ? Is that what some of you are advocating ?
That's the only option, let him be? What about working via diplomatic channels with the Saudis to bring him to justice? Of course, the US is dependent on Saudi oil, so --oops!--we don't have much leverage there. No wonder we had to resort to war; our armaments are our leverage. What about working via the UN? And did bringing him back dead 10 years after the fact solve anything anyway? He was old enough to die a natural death after spending 10 years doing what he could to work against us. "Let him be" would've meant he'd have died anyway. If killing him doesn't "solve everything", does it solve anything at all? It's mainly a symbolic gesture. I suppose it gives the surviving victims of 9/11 and the relatives of those who died closure. That's worth something, as I think Vinlyn implies. Is it worth violating international law, killing thousands of innocent civilians, losing probably hundreds of our own servicemen and women, spending billions of dollars, and seriously jeapardizing our own economy? Maybe that's the real question up for discussion. Opinions?
Live by the sword, die by the sword. His Kamma ripened.
I think you're mixing a bunch of things together cw. Going into Afghanistan and Iraq was not about killing Bin Laden. The wars and capturing Osama are different animals. So much so that Osama was in Pakistan. So I disagree that thousands were killed just to get Osama.
And what you are saying is that Osama should have been captured alive? So lets just say hypothetically, if they went in to arrest Osama and he resisted and was shot, that would be better?
And that is a good question. Somewhere on one of our threads people said that nations did not have kamma. Or do they?
I wouldn't call it karma. But the people do feel the results of their nation's actions. I believe it is only this way because of the way we perceive nations.
I'm aware that these are only my thoughts on the matter. And it's off topic. But I don't think the US people should reap whatever the government/military has sewn. But we find it easier to deal with ~195 Countries instead of 7 billion people
Osama, however, did see the results of his own karma ripening.
Arguing about nothing? True the point is moot because he is dead. But we are exercising our intellect and thus growing from this topic. As long as things aren't getting out of hand, it's all good
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Live by the sword, die by the sword. His Kamma ripened.
Nope. I think you'll find it was a well-aimed bullet. faster, and a darn sight more effective.
All "Buddhism" aside for a second - doesn't anybody find it a bit odd that apparently he's already been buried at sea? Whot, no pictures? No death or glory film? No footage? That's a bit unlike the Good ol' USA, isn't it....?
Isn't there something in the American people that wants proof of this happening Now? I'm serious.
This could actually have happened a while ago, but perhaps there's something about the general unrest in the Middle east (Libya's Gadaffi debacle) that makes this a great time to release the news.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. His Kamma ripened.
Nope. I think you'll find it was a well-aimed bullet. faster, and a darn sight more effective.
All "Buddhism" aside for a second - doesn't anybody find it a bit odd that apparently he's already been buried at sea? Whot, no pictures? No death or glory film? No footage? That's a bit unlike the Good ol' USA, isn't it....?
Isn't there something in the American people that wants proof of this happening Now? I'm serious.
This could actually have happened a while ago, but perhaps there's something about the general unrest in the Middle east (Libya's Gadaffi debacle) that makes this a great time to release the news.
Just pondering...
I can agree with that. It almost seems to be a bunch of PR. The American people need some kind of morale boost. Unemployment is still high, national debt is still climbing, gas prices are high, taxes are high. Bring in some really good news. I think, in a way, it's to pacify the people. Regain some faith in the government?
So, I don't really think discussing whether or not there will be national kamma as a result of a nation's action is off topic.
And while it seems appropriate to discuss different possibilities about what the truth is, is not bringing about conspiracy theories with absolutely no evidence not the same a gossiping, which is generally seen as "wrong speech"?
Like a lot of ppl here have already said, killing Osama makes him a martyr. While I dont quite agree with that, I think that killing Osama and showing his body and having a soldier stand on top of his body to pose for a picture surely would make him a martyr.
I think its just common sense to keep a semi-low profile. One crazy preacher burning the Koran caused a whole lot of turmoil.
As far as Americans needing proof...a lot of Americans wanted proof of Obama's birth certificate. So to me its more a symptom of the internet than anything.
And while it seems appropriate to discuss different possibilities about what the truth is, is not bringing about conspiracy theories with absolutely no evidence not the same a gossiping, which is generally seen as "wrong speech"?
Curiously: What about taking something at face value without seeing evidence? What would that be considered? All we have is the word of the media and the government.
And while it seems appropriate to discuss different possibilities about what the truth is, is not bringing about conspiracy theories with absolutely no evidence not the same a gossiping, which is generally seen as "wrong speech"?
Curiously: What about taking something at face value without seeing evidence? What would that be considered? All we have is the word of the media and the government.
A little more than that. You have arabian news showing a house on fire, you have people who lived nearby attesting to a fierce gun fight.
What kind of evidence do you want? What would satisfy your need? If they showed a picture there would be tons of ppl who would say its photoshopped.
Curiously: What about taking something at face value without seeing evidence? What would that be considered? All we have is the word of the media and the government.
I tend to trust people until I have a reason to not trust them. Sometimes that's in general. Sometimes that's situational.
And while it seems appropriate to discuss different possibilities about what the truth is, is not bringing about conspiracy theories with absolutely no evidence not the same a gossiping, which is generally seen as "wrong speech"?
Curiously: What about taking something at face value without seeing evidence? What would that be considered? All we have is the word of the media and the government.
A little more than that. You have arabian news showing a house on fire, you have people who lived nearby attesting to a fierce gun fight.
What kind of evidence do you want? What would satisfy your need? If they showed a picture there would be tons of ppl who would say its photoshopped.
Don't confuse me with someone who believes conspiracies. I'm just expressing that anything is possible. Nothing and everything would satisfy me because I don't have anything that needs satisfying in regards to Osama Bin Laden. If I had to "put my chips" on a certain idea. I would go with dead. I agree with vinlyn in that I also tend to have trust until given a reason otherwise.
And don't misunderstand me. I have my doubts about whether he was really "buried at sea". But until I have evidence, I'm not going to go beyond just saying I have my doubts.
I know that people have varying views on this, but I'm not sure we Americans always benefit from knowing everything that our government does. I think back to FDR. It has been written that if the American public really knew how extensively physically handicapped he really was that he would never have been elected. Yet, he saw us through the Great Depression and all but the very end of WWII.
You can't fix samsara. All you can do is do your practice and be kind.
So simple. So sweet. And yet...is it that simple? As practitioners of ahimsa, should we hold our government accountable for atrocities, violations of international legal norms, and injustice? Or not? What do you think, Jeffrey? Do citizens have a responsibility to try to influence their government's actions? In the 1960's an awful lot of people thought they did. As Buddhists, do we have an even greater responsibility to raise our voice? Or not?
I'm surprised how many people on a Buddhist site are celebrating, or at least approving of, murder. Not long ago we had a thread about whether war is ever justified. If I recall correctly, the fact that HHDL has changed his "killing is never an option" position, and approves war (or killing) if the motive is right, was questioned. The majority opinion was that war is never justifiable, HHDL is wrong. What a difference it makes when the question is not abstract, but becomes very concrete, and is brought home in a very direct and for some, emotional, manner. Suddenly--opinion does a 180 degree about-face. Just an observation.
Ten years, thousands of lives and billions of dollars later, and the US has finally succeeded in making Osama bin Laden a martyr. Good job?
Well, not really. As I see the most well-equiped army in the world took ten years to look for an old man , hiding in some caves. Son, I am dissapoint.
I guess my sarcasm was a bit too subtle?
All sarcasm aside, I realize that many see Osama bin Laden's death as a cause for celebration, but I think it's worth reflecting on Lao-Tzu's words on war, especially the part about treating victory in war as a funeral:
On happy occasions, the left is favoured; on sad occasions, the right. The second in command has his place on the left, the general in chief on the right. That is to say, they are placed in the order observed at funeral rites. And, indeed, he who has exterminated a great multitude of men should bewail them with tears and lamentation. It is well that those who are victorious in battle should be placed in the order of funeral rites.
Personally, it saddens me to see so many people celebrating the death of another. It reminds me of Gandhi's saying: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." In fact, one of the main things that attracted me to Buddhism is its attitude towards violence, e.g.:
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.
"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.
Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
There are those who do not realize that one day we all must die. But those who do realize this settle their quarrels. (Dhp 1: 3-6).
And:
Killing, you gain your killer. Conquering, you gain one who will conquer you; insulting, insult; harassing, harassment.
And so, through the cycle of action, he who has plundered gets plundered in turn. (SN 3.15)
I think Howard Zinn, a WWII vet and political activist, came to a similar understanding — that war can't end war, that violence can't end violence — from his experiences in WWII; an idea which he expressed in part of a speech he gave in 2006:
I was talking to my barber the other day, because we always discuss world politics. And he's totally politically unpredictable, as most barbers are, you see. He said, "Howard," he said, "you know, you and I disagree on many things, but on one thing we agree: war solves nothing." And I thought, "Yeah." It's not hard for people to grasp that.
And there again, history is useful. We've had a history of war after war after war after war. What have they solved? What have they done? Even World War II, the "good war," the war in which I volunteered, the war in which I dropped bombs, the war after which, you know, I received a letter from General Marshall, general of generals, a letter addressed personally to me, and to 16 million others, in which he said, "We've won the war. It will be a new world." Well, of course, it wasn't a new world. It hasn't been a new world. War after war after war.
There are certain -- I came out of that war, the war in which I had volunteered, the war in which I was an enthusiastic bombardier, I came out of that war with certain ideas, which just developed gradually at the end of the war, ideas about war. One, that war corrupts everybody who engages in it. War poisons everybody who engages in it. You start off as the good guys, as we did in World War II. They're the bad guys. They're the fascists. What could be worse? So, they're the bad guys, we're the good guys. And as the war goes on, the good guys begin behaving like the bad guys. You can trace this back to the Peloponnesian War. You can trace it back to the good guy, the Athenians, and the bad guys, the Spartans. And after a while, the Athenians become ruthless and cruel, like the Spartans.
And we did that in World War II. We, after Hitler committed his atrocities, we committed our atrocities. You know, our killing of 600,000 civilians in Japan, our killing of probably an equal number of civilians in Germany. These, they weren't Hitler, they weren't Tojo. They weren't -- no, they were just ordinary people, like we are ordinary people living in a country that is a marauding country, and they were living in countries that were marauding countries, and they were caught up in whatever it was and afraid to speak up. And I don't know, I came to the conclusion, yes, war poisons everybody.
I know that we're not a nonviolent species by nature; but as naive as it sounds, it's my hope that we'll eventually see the futility of violence in the long run.
Right, Ric--I'm wondering if this is a different crowd that who weighed in on that other thread. And I'd acknowledge that diplomacy doesn't always work, it wouldn't have worked against the Nazis. Life is full of tough calls. As Buddhists, what do we do when a really challenging situation arises, that challenges our commitment to our principles? I know that at the very least, we have the obligation to weigh all the options and their possible consequences very carefully.
But, WE didn't declare war on American citizens through the 9/11 attacks. It was Bin Laden who coordinated and ordered civilian passenger planes to be used as human bombs to attack the Twin Towers and Pentagon. And, it was Bin Laden who rallied terrorists against America, Germany, England, France, and other countries throughout the world. We didn't make him into a bogeyman, it was his own actions that did that.
Factually true, but the elephant in the living room that nobody wants to talk about is *why* bin Laden and many others around the world hate America and the west in general in the first place. What have we done to cause this hatred to germinate? Some people will call that "blame America first" and so be it. If we're culpable, then we can't really cry in our beer when those we've oppressed, exploited, and otherwise run amok over for all these decades get tired of it and say they've had enough. I'm not condoning violence on anyone's part, but I can see their point to some degree. America has been a big bully for the better part of 150 years. Sometimes overtly, often covertly, and usually with little or no regard to the consequences. Our thirst for middle eastern oil (aka greed) is the main driving force behind most of it, but certainly not all. Americans need to develop a healthy sense of self-reflection before jumping up and down and waving the flag because we've killed a bad guy. Ain't gonna happen though. It's "my way or the highway".
Dakini, both appealing to your government and environmentalism are good causes. They end suffering for a time. But it is more important to do your practice. We can try all we want to make samsara perfect but it will never happen in conditional existence. The measure is to go to liberation. That doesn't mean you cannot be kind. You can be kind in understanding eachother and giving eachother space to have different views. By all means speak your mind and I am not saying anyone is doing anything wrong. When all beings are liberated from samsara then there will be no problem
No, I wasn't knocking daily kindness. I was raising the question: is that all practice is? What is our definition of practice? Is it narrow, meaning meditation and daily compassion, or is it broad, meaning "universal responsibility", as someone put it recently, and handling our citizenship responsibly, insofar as our government's actions cause so much suffering? But maybe this is a question for another thread.
Mountains, our actions proping up dictators were wrong. However that doesn't validate terrorist actions in some way. The worst thing about installing those dictators was how the dictators themselves harmed innocent people.
Practice is letting go of grasping. And having confidence in things however they go, to work with whatever situation. That doesn't prohibit responsibility. But it does prohibit attachment to views without compassion for the other side. I think thats your whole point. Isn't it?
Theres a mentality that those rural republicans. Or those guys across the pond. Or those liberals. Or those french. Most people have an extreme view of how the other side is an 'idiot'. This is an exagerated emotional reaction that doesn't reflect reality. Be at peace yourself first
Yes, that's part of the point. And if we view the other side with compassion, do we then have an obligation to do what we can to prevent our government from causing further suffering? Or is the question bigger than that, even? I don't know. Maybe, as someone observed, if we detach the other wars (Iraq, etc.) from the hunt for Bin Laden, and take stock, maybe not that many lives were lost in that hunt. So maybe some people feel his murder was justified. I don't know. But it's not a decision Buddhists should take lightly. Maybe that's my main point. Or one of my main points.
My point is not to get so caught up in things that you lose your own happiness. You didn't murder him. So the ideal is to work for positive ends while at the same time pacifying your own negative emotions. Its a great situation to practice buddhism.
The caught up person is the environmentalist (PETA?) who is angry. Pema Chodron says she knew a guy who would get depressed when he didn't have a cause to protest. Its not like a bad sin or something. Its no different from any other obstacle and in fact if you bring the obstacle to the path its an ideal situation. But if you don't it isn't.
I recently had my own emotional issue and I decided that it was ok. Just a arising to let be. Its very freeing and feels good. My ex hadn't responded to my emails for a year and a half so I finally unfriended her on FB. And I felt emotional fallout. So I could be on this crusade to not get hurt. Ever. Or I could bring the obstacles to the path and work with the situation.
Agreed. But we can discuss without negative emotions coming up. If we maintain the right focus (mindfulness is so important!), we can protest with equanimity. All of it's Buddhist practice.
In another forum (unrelated to Buddhism - in the extreme!) that I read, I'm a pariah because I've voiced the opinion that there is a reason why people like bin Laden hate America. Holy cow... You'd think I'd dragged an American flag behind my car through the mud or something.
It saddens me that most (the GIGANTIC majority) people are incapable of even entertaining the idea that America is anything but 100% innocent in this whole scenario. What could we possibly have done to provoke these (insert insensitive racial slur)?? Very, very sad. And ultimately self-defeating. Only by self-reflection are we going to change things.
Wow just look at all this peace of mind and closure that Osama's death has brought to us all. If this thread is just a small sample of how humanity as a whole feels.... then I can rest easy that everyone is finally at peace. (This font was written in sarcastica- just below times new roman)
So we know what we are referring to can you give specific examples of what america has done to insite terrorism?
Surely you're not serious? Where do you want to start? We could go back to the overthrow of the legitimately elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh and the installation of the Shah in Iran in 1953 by the CIA and go from there (Iranians still remember that, btw, unlike 99.9% of Americans). The fact that we are utterly dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf and all of the various wars and interventions that has entailed are next. Consider: If we weren't dependent on Persian Gulf oil, and thus the political stability of governments (most of them oppressive monarchies) in the Persian Gulf region were not in our "strategic interest", we could tell those nations to drink their oil. We would have no need to have troops there. We would have no reason to even care what goes on there, much less send troops, aircraft, and ships to ensure the flow of precious oil is uninterrupted.
Surely I don't need to go on, do I? If you've traveled to the middle east, or almost anywhere else in the world, you understand that most people don't have a really positive view of the United States. They may love you as an individual, but their opinion of our government and its actions is almost universally negative. Why? Because we act like a big, self-righteous, holier-than-thou bully. Kind of like the Roman Empire in that way (and many others).
Everyone is dependent on persian gulf oil. Our whole civilization. If not for oil we would starve and the whole society would collapse. I do not agree with what the CIA does.
Comments
But, WE didn't declare war on American citizens through the 9/11 attacks. It was Bin Laden who coordinated and ordered civilian passenger planes to be used as human bombs to attack the Twin Towers and Pentagon. And, it was Bin Laden who rallied terrorists against America, Germany, England, France, and other countries throughout the world. We didn't make him into a bogeyman, it was his own actions that did that.
I have no problem with a reasonable amount of development aid being spent to accomplish the goals you mention, although why exactly is it our responsibility to provide jobs to Pakistanis, Afghans, etc.? Why is it America's responsibility to help Pakistanis have productive lives? I thought those responsibilities belonged to the Pakistan and Afghanistan governments. How silly would it be for me to say, "It is the responsibility of Pakistan to make my life fulfilling"?
And, I have not seen our propaganda machine (and admittedly there is one...of course...as is there one in virtually every country) say that all the problems in the Middle East boil down to one man...in fact, I see quite the opposite and have repeatedly heard the President and Secretary Of State discuss how complex the issues in the Middle East are.
It's private individuals who try to boil the issues down into one simple problem. How many times have I heard an "everyday person" say, "It's all about oil," OR "It's all about the Jews," for example. I've never heard a responsible government official say anything so simplistic. Sort of like the time my adopted son (who is Pakistani and Muslim and now lives in Islamabad) invited me to a party in Northern Virginia which was a cultural celebration for local Pakistanis. There were a couple of hundred people there that evening, and probably 30 came over to meet me and chat, at least briefly. Most of those 30 sooner or later said something along the lines of, "So as an American, you know that the 9/11 attacks were actually done by the CIA, right?"
And yes, the US is opportunistic and hypocritical, as are most countries. I know that doesn't make it right, but that's also a fact of international relations.
"Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule." Buddha
The US propaganda and war rhetoric began hours after the attack on 9/11, whereas other countries and foreign networks covering the incident stuck to reporting the facts and to covering events as they unfolded on the ground. If the USSR used free university education and aid even for highschool education in the developing world to win friends and supporters, why can't the US do that? It works.
It wasn't just Bin Laden who rallied terrorists against the US. The Saudis had been setting up madrassas in other Middle East countries that functioned to turn young people into extremists. And what about Ayatollah Khomeini? He was on the scene back while Bin Laden was on the US payroll. These roots go far deeper than Bin Laden.
Not saying 9/ll wasn't a series of horrific and outrageous acts. Just examining the bigger picture.
@ Lincoln-- I meant I disagree that the point was moot.
Nods, I think part of it is just politics. People demand those type of answers and they want to see visions/flags of so called justice...
That said, of course it is very sad and heartbreaking for those who were intimately affected by 9/11 and yet the cycles just never stop. We have also I imagine hurt and killed many in the Middle East and their blood remembers it too. This is one aspect of the problem, I believe, and perhaps the death of Osama Bin Laden will just inspire another group of revenge seekers, their passion reflamed by the death of one whom they liked. And then? It is all very sad. Perhaps we can take some solace in the teachings and guidance of the Buddha for perhaps more than ever the world has needed those whom can follow his guidance in and through their life. Each link matters. Each link counts. May yours be ever peaceful and safe too.
Thanks for your commentaries.
Abu
Granted we strengthened Anti-terrorism as well. It may get to the point where one side just gets exhausted.
And what you are saying is that Osama should have been captured alive? So lets just say hypothetically, if they went in to arrest Osama and he resisted and was shot, that would be better?
It seems like a lot of arguing about nothing.
I'm aware that these are only my thoughts on the matter. And it's off topic. But I don't think the US people should reap whatever the government/military has sewn. But we find it easier to deal with ~195 Countries instead of 7 billion people
Osama, however, did see the results of his own karma ripening.
Arguing about nothing? True the point is moot because he is dead. But we are exercising our intellect and thus growing from this topic. As long as things aren't getting out of hand, it's all good
faster, and a darn sight more effective.
All "Buddhism" aside for a second - doesn't anybody find it a bit odd that apparently he's already been buried at sea? Whot, no pictures? No death or glory film? No footage?
That's a bit unlike the Good ol' USA, isn't it....?
Isn't there something in the American people that wants proof of this happening Now?
I'm serious.
This could actually have happened a while ago, but perhaps there's something about the general unrest in the Middle east (Libya's Gadaffi debacle) that makes this a great time to release the news.
Just pondering...
It's certainly possible.
So, I don't really think discussing whether or not there will be national kamma as a result of a nation's action is off topic.
And while it seems appropriate to discuss different possibilities about what the truth is, is not bringing about conspiracy theories with absolutely no evidence not the same a gossiping, which is generally seen as "wrong speech"?
I think its just common sense to keep a semi-low profile. One crazy preacher burning the Koran caused a whole lot of turmoil.
As far as Americans needing proof...a lot of Americans wanted proof of Obama's birth certificate. So to me its more a symptom of the internet than anything.
What kind of evidence do you want? What would satisfy your need? If they showed a picture there would be tons of ppl who would say its photoshopped.
I know that people have varying views on this, but I'm not sure we Americans always benefit from knowing everything that our government does. I think back to FDR. It has been written that if the American public really knew how extensively physically handicapped he really was that he would never have been elected. Yet, he saw us through the Great Depression and all but the very end of WWII.
I'm surprised how many people on a Buddhist site are celebrating, or at least approving of, murder. Not long ago we had a thread about whether war is ever justified. If I recall correctly, the fact that HHDL has changed his "killing is never an option" position, and approves war (or killing) if the motive is right, was questioned. The majority opinion was that war is never justifiable, HHDL is wrong. What a difference it makes when the question is not abstract, but becomes very concrete, and is brought home in a very direct and for some, emotional, manner. Suddenly--opinion does a 180 degree about-face. Just an observation.
(Jason, you beat me to the Ghandi quote!
9/11 3,000 people killed.
Afghanistan, thousands killed.
Iraq,thousands killed, many tortured.
Good karma, US soldiers rescued a dog from Afghanistan.
Saw it on Oprah.
The caught up person is the environmentalist (PETA?) who is angry. Pema Chodron says she knew a guy who would get depressed when he didn't have a cause to protest. Its not like a bad sin or something. Its no different from any other obstacle and in fact if you bring the obstacle to the path its an ideal situation. But if you don't it isn't.
I recently had my own emotional issue and I decided that it was ok. Just a arising to let be. Its very freeing and feels good. My ex hadn't responded to my emails for a year and a half so I finally unfriended her on FB. And I felt emotional fallout. So I could be on this crusade to not get hurt. Ever. Or I could bring the obstacles to the path and work with the situation.
It saddens me that most (the GIGANTIC majority) people are incapable of even entertaining the idea that America is anything but 100% innocent in this whole scenario. What could we possibly have done to provoke these (insert insensitive racial slur)?? Very, very sad. And ultimately self-defeating. Only by self-reflection are we going to change things.
Surely I don't need to go on, do I? If you've traveled to the middle east, or almost anywhere else in the world, you understand that most people don't have a really positive view of the United States. They may love you as an individual, but their opinion of our government and its actions is almost universally negative. Why? Because we act like a big, self-righteous, holier-than-thou bully. Kind of like the Roman Empire in that way (and many others).