November/December 2001
Articles on the theme "Happiness"
Happiness in Troubled Times
by Charles Larsen
Happiness beore and after the events
of September 11.
Keys to Happiness
by Tracy Woolrich
How to become happy and healthy.
Asking for Happiness
by Dr. Audrey Craft Davis
Of setting goals, making plans
and dreaming dreams.
An Inside Job
by Nancy L. Buchanan
Happiness, a choice of how and what
we think.
An Elusive Butterfly?
by Ron Graham
How the mind needs to be congruent
with the heart.
The Pursuit of Happiness
by Rev. Susan R. Griffin
Allowing happiness to BE rather than
pursued, sought after or achieved.
Integrity: Path to Happiness
by Constance Felos, Esq.
An attorney's look at a new dispute
resolution model.
Choose Happiness
by Dr. Ruth E. Bradley
What the events of September 11 can
teach us about happiness.
The Freedom To Be Me
by AnneMarie Dyer
Finding happiness by being true to
oneself. Living one's dreams and being in the NOW.
The Source of True Happiness
by Rev. Pat Cross
The deeper meaning of joy and happiness...
our spiritual nature.
Other Feature Articles
Holistic Health Q & A
by Linda Nash Stevenson
Of acupuncture and Chinese Medicine,
stopping smoking, herbs and hot flashes.
What is... Feng Shui?
by Billie V. Odor
The origins of Feng Shui and an account
of how Black Hat Sect Feng Shui is practiced.
UNCOMMON SENSE ! - Terrorism
David Findlay
Minerals from Mother Earth
by Judy Power
Featured stones for November and December:
Bloodstone and Septarian.
UnCommon Sense! - Terrorism
David Findlay
Everything has changed! The events of 9/11 have turned our world upside down or have they? One aspect is the reality of the situation; another is our perception of that reality. If we are going to look for common-sense solutions, we have to be very careful not to get the two mixed up.
It is all too easy to become swept up in an emotional response at which point our perceptions easily become colored by grief, fear, anger, hate etc. We need to take a deep breath, step back and take a look at the broader picture. What is really going on in the world? Clarity in our thinking is critical.
In a war, we tend to see things in black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. Life, however, is usually a matter of gray... a mixture of right and wrong, good and bad. It is much harder to sort out shades of gray than simply label things either black or white. Also, a key element of warfare is propaganda and, since propaganda is largely concerned with perception rather the truth, it tends to convert the grays to black and white.
One of the casualties of war is precision of language.
Take the word "terrorist" for example.
We all know what a terrorist is... right? It's someone like Timothy McVeigh or Osama bin Laden. Someone who is truly evil and who, at a moment when we are off guard or simply not looking, strikes us 'in the back' like a coward!
This, of course, is an obvious over-simplification, but it raises the interesting and extremely relevant question, "What is a terrorist?"
A terrorist should logically be a person who uses terror as a tactic to achieve their goal whatever that goal might be. We usually use the word to describe an individual or in some cases as an adjective to describe a group, for example, "a terrorist group." We tend not to use the word of a country, though we often describe a country as a "supporter of terrorism" or as a country that "harbors terrorists."
So far so good.
A country at war, however, frequently uses terror as a tactic. When the British carpet-bombed German cities such as Dresden in World War II, the goal was to demoralize the civilian population. When America dropped the first atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the goal was to create such overwhelming terror in the Japanese that they would surrender.
My question is, "What basically is the difference between a country and an individual or group?" A group consists of individuals. A country consists of groups and individuals.
We say that an individual or group cannot 'declare war' only a country can. My question is, "Why not?" "Why should an action be labeled as a 'terrorist act' if it is done by an individual or group and as an 'act of war' if executed by a country?"
I suggest that an individual or group can in fact 'declare war.' Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda organization, for example, have repeatedly declared war on America and the West long before 9/11. There are other groups also, such as Hizbollah, Hamas and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, that have openly 'declared war' on Israel.
So, are Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda terrorists or not? Sure they are terrorists, but I would rather describe them as "people who have declared war on the United States and the West and who are using terror as a tactic."
Does this distinction have any significance or am I indulging in academic quibbling?
President Bush has said that we are at war against terrorism (with the word "terrorism" being largely undefined). Bush added that we will regard governments that harbor terrorists in the same way as the terrorists themselves.
On the surface, in light of the events of 9/11, this sounds very reasonable. However, let's take a closer look. What is an act of terrorism and are we declaring war against all terrorism everywhere? Logically it follows that, if we are at war with all terrorism everywhere, then we are also at war with any country anywhere that harbors terrorists.
Do you start to see a problem?
To me, this means that not only are we are war with Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda, but Hizbollah, Hamas, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and 20 or 30 other terrorist groups spread across the planet. And, as for countries or governments that harbor them, well, here's a few: Afghanistan and the Taliban, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine (although not officially a state), Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Algeria the list goes on.
Seriously, are we going to war with all these countries?
And then, just to make things a little more complicated, what about countries or governments that say they are on our side against terrorism but in fact support or tolerate terrorist groups? For example, Pakistan. Not only are there clear connections between Pakistan and terrorist groups in Kashmir but Pakistan supports (or turns a blind eye to) schools the Muslim religious schools called madrasahs on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan which provide many of the raw recruits for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. What about Saudi Arabia? Supposedly they are on our side but millions of dollars have been channeled by high-ranking Saudis to Osama bin Laden. Do we hold the government responsible or not? On the one hand, we are trying to get Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on our side; on the other hand they are supporting terrorism. Tricky!
What's the solution?
I am not against a war on particular terrorists and terrorist groups who have done damage or seriously threaten the United States or our interests. So, certainly, we have to eliminate Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda network and remove the Taliban which, in any case, is not the 'real' government of Afghanistan. But let's not pretend or claim that we are going after all terrorists everywhere and all the countries that harbor them. Not so much because this is wrong, but simply because it is impractical. Surely this is a matter of common sense? Is it possible to win a war against 5,10, 15 countries with a population of over a billion Muslims?
You will note that I said, "a war on terrorists and terrorist groups who have done damage or seriously threaten the United States or our interests."
Why is this important?
Because, if we don't limit the war, we are at risk of being involved in any conflict anywhere in the world when any one of our 'allies' is having a problem with a group they regard as terrorist. Take, for example, Chechnya. Most people in the West have looked sympathetically at Chechnya as a small country that is courageously fighting for its freedom from Russia. The Russians, however, regard the Chechen Muslim separatists ('freedom fighters') as terrorists. If we accept Russia as an ally in the fight against terrorism (which is what we are doing) are we, in return, going to help Russia against their 'terrorists'? And, if one of our 'allies' has a problem with its own population as is quite possible in the case of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia are we going to help them quell the dissent? As I am writing this, President Bush is in China attempting to win support for the war on terrorism. The Chinese appear sympathetic. And why not? They are having a problem with the Uighur nationalist rebels in the vast province of Xinjiang (who have been accused by the Chinese of organizing bomb attacks against Chinese targets). Are we, in exchange, for Chinese support going to help them in their fight?
I said, "the United States or our interests."
This raises an interesting question. On 9/11 we clearly witnessed an attack on the United States no problem here. But what about an attack in another country against 'our interests'?
The main reason we have a large military presence in the Middle East especially Saudi Arabia is because of our interest in oil. Is our interest in oil of such importance to us that we will fight to protect it? Most of our foreign policy for most of the last century has been based on the belief that it is. Republicans and Democrats alike during the past many administrations have agreed the Middle East oil is essential for our survival. Whether this is true or not is beyond the scope of this article. The main point here is that we need to clearly define what our 'interests' are. Some of them are worth fighting for and some right now in the 21st century may not be worth fighting for. We need to decide. It should be a matter of vigorous public debate.
Moving on to another topic related to 9/11, frequent casualties of war are Freedom and Democracy. To some extent this is inevitable. It would be impossible for the Pentagon to run a war democratically let's have a vote among the soldiers as to what we should do next! In times of crisis such as this it is also difficult to run a government democratically. We need a leader and leaders who say, "This is what we are going to do!" People on the whole accept and understand this.
We need, however, to look at the flip side of the coin. Politicians and the government are in the business of governing. Left to their own devices they automatically tend to favor policies that increase the size of government. The more that "We the People" give up the decision-making process to the government, the more government controls and regulations that we accept, the less free we shall become.
Do we really want to move in the direction of greater socialism as has occurred throughout much of Europe? For this is the way we are moving. Take, for example, the airline industry. The government is prepared to bail out the industry to the tune of many billions of dollars on the argument that we cannot afford to let some of the larger airlines fail. Why? The government does not have any money of its own. It has two sources of money: we, the taxpayers, and the Federal Reserve Bank which can authorize the printing of an unlimited amount of money and lend it to the government (us). So either way we pay! Why should everyone have to pay to keep the airline industry afloat? Why not allow the airlines to simply increase ticket prices - if necessary - to a viable level? And allow market competition do the job of keeping prices at a reasonable level. This is the American Way - and what makes America great! - not socialism!
Unfortunately our power to do something about government policies is limited. Let's, however, do what we can and not just blindly accept whatever the government does simply because to do otherwise would be considered 'unpatriotic.'
Let's put out flags, but let's also remember that the government is our servant, not our master. At stake is something even more important than terrorism our whole way of life the American way of life. We need to stand up bravely and show to the rest of the world that we truly support the freedom that the Statue of Liberty represents.
Finally, a few common-sense comments about what we can do as individuals.
One of the main goals of the terrorists is to disrupt the country and the Western world financially. The symbolism of attacking the World Trade Center is obvious. It is likely that the terrorists will continue to do what they can to disrupt our economy. As individuals, let's not go to extremes, but it may be relevant for us to review our financial health. For most people it is probably a time for conservatism and caution. Any money in the stock market is at risk. I'm not saying that you should not have any money in stocks but it may be relevant to ask yourself, "How much?" Some people have most of their retirement savings in a 401(k). Usually such monies are invested in mutual funds. Most mutual funds have taken a real hit over the past 9 months. Is there a likelihood of more terrorist attacks? What effect would they have on the economy? Would it be safer to put some of your money in T-bills or savings bonds directly backed by the government (which can always print more money to back them!)?
What about chemical, biological and nuclear threats? Are there any common-sense solutions?
Probably not, if you are right in the middle of an attack. However, the chances of being right in the middle of an attack are not all that great. It's no doubt riskier driving in the Tampa Bay area. The chances, however, of being close to, or affected by, such an attack are much greater. So far we have, fortunately, not seen the use of infectious diseases, such as smallpox, the plague or ebola. But the possibility is always there.
The government is not recommending stockpiling antibiotics or the use of widespread vaccination. I agree. However, there is a whole lot we can do at a personal level to maintain our level of health and decrease our likelihood of infection. We have a marvelous immune system. There's a lot we can do to keep our immune system in good shape. Avoid unnecessary stress. Get sufficient rest. Eat right and exercise. In addition there are a number of excellent nutritional/herbal products on the market that help keep one's immune system in top shape. And, should one be unfortunate and become sick, there are a number of natural alternatives to antibiotics colloidal silver for example will knock out the anthrax bacillus, essential oil of lavender offers protection from the plague.
And finally since I'm running out of space there's a whole lot one can do to inform oneself of what is really going on not just the mass-media's propaganda version and what one can do to protect oneself. So I'm adding as a footnote some suggested reading and sources.
(Still my #1 suggested reading for understanding what is going on in the Middle East and Central Asia) The Thousand Year War in the Mideast by Richard J. Maybury (ISBN 0-942617-32-0, Bluestocking Press, 800-959-8586)
(For an excellent account of Bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda, and their connections with other terrorist groups and governments that sponsor them) Bin Laden, The Man Who Declared War On America by Yossef Bodansky (ISBN 0-715-3581-0, Forum, Prima Publishing)
(For an understanding of how resources such as oil have shaped and are shaping our foreign policy) Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict by Michael T. Klare (ISBN0-8050-5575-4, Metropolitan Books)
(For information on how to prepare for bioterrorism) BioTerrorism: Secrets for Surviving the Coming Terrorist Germ Warfare Attacks on U.S. Cities by Duncan Long. (Silver Bullet Enterprises 1-303-215-3322 also info on colloidal silver generators)
Copyright (c) 2001 Altnewtimes, Inc. All
rights reserved.
No part of this web site my be reproduced without written permission of Altnewtimes, Inc.
E-mail info@altnewtimes.com