Posts by GinnyTosken

3

Rabbi's Rosh Hashanah Sermon

by wasasister in

jw
friends

the following was sent to me by a friend, a reform jewish rabbi.

i present it in its entirety, with edits only to remove details about identity and location.

i thought it would be an interesting perspective and one not normally available to us as ex-jw's.

GinnyTosken

Wasasister,

Thank you for sharing this. I especially like the overview of the motives and goals of Osama bin Laden and his network and the Rabbi's explanation of the differences between Islamic states.

I have read elsewhere that the Israel/Palestinian conflict is not a prime motivation for Osama bin Laden; he uses it because it happens to suit his purposes. Still, I don't think the Rabbi was quite fair in his portrait of Israel as a blameless victim.

Last night I was reading about the Crusades in Will Durant's The Age of Faith, hoping for some insight into what may happen if history repeats itself. We are appalled at reports of Palestinians dancing and singing in the streets. Here is a report after a Christian victory in the first Crusade:

At last, on June 7, 1099, after a campaign of three years, the Crusaders, reduced to 12,000 combatants, stood in exaltation and fatigue before the walls of Jerusalem. . . . The caliph offered peace on terms of guaranteed safety for Christian pilgrims and worshipers in Jerusalem, but Bohemund and Godfrey demanded unconditional surrender. . . . On July 15 Godfrey and Tancred led their followers over the walls, and the Crusaders knew the ecstasy of a high purpose accomplished after heroic suffering. Then, reports the priestly eyewitness Raymond of Agiles,
"wonderful things were to be seen. Numbers of the Saracens were beheaded . . . others were shot with arrows, or forced to jump from the towers; others were tortured for several days and then burned in flames. In the streets were seen piles of heads and hands and feet. One rode about everywhere amid the corpses of men and horses."
Other contemporaries contribute details: women were stabbed to death, suckling babies were snatched by the leg from their mothers' breasts and flung over the walls, or had their necks broken by being dashed against posts; and 70,000 Moslems remaining in the city were slaughtered. The surviving Jews were herded into a synagogue and burned alive. The victors flocked to the church of the Holy Sepulcher, whose grotto, they believed, had once held the crucified Christ. There, embracing one another, they wept with joy and release, and thanked the God of Mercies for their victory.

There are many other interesting stories about the Crusades. Saladin, for example, is an interesting character. It also appears that the story of the Pied Piper may have originated from this time. If anyone is interested, I can share more of this after I return from working this weekend. Right now I'm pressed for time.

The Crusades spanned two centuries. They began to collapse after defeat in the Third Crusade and a scandal in the Fourth. Thinkers were hard-pressed to explain why God had allowed the defeat of His defenders in so holy a cause, and had granted success to Venetian plunderers. More questions were raised when Frederick II, who had been excommunicated because of delay in joining The Crusades, signed a treaty with al-Kamil in which al-Kamil ceded Acre, Jaffa, Sidon, Nazareth, Bethlehem, and all of Jerusalem except the Dome of the Rock. Christians in Palestine had shunned Frederick as an outlaw from the Church, yet he succeeded where "holier" men had failed.

Ginny

8

A Texan and Totalitarianism

by GinnyTosken in

jw
friends

congress is now reviving a proposal killed last year by senator phil gramm, the texas republican who was then chairman of the senate banking committee.

the bill, introduced by the clinton administration, would give the treasury secretary broad power to bar foreign countries and banks from access to the american financial market unless they cooperated with money-laundering investigations.

it was strongly opposed by the banking industry and mr. gramm.. "i was right then and i am right now" in opposing the bill, mr. gramm said yesterday.

GinnyTosken

Rex,

I just noticed your quip:

Ginny:Is there a NOW chapter in Afghan?

Unless you're thinking of a blanket, I think you mean Afghanistan, Rex.

I don't belong to NOW; for me, the focus is too narrow. I am interested in human rights, not just rights for women.

Kiss, kiss,
Ginny

8

A Texan and Totalitarianism

by GinnyTosken in

jw
friends

congress is now reviving a proposal killed last year by senator phil gramm, the texas republican who was then chairman of the senate banking committee.

the bill, introduced by the clinton administration, would give the treasury secretary broad power to bar foreign countries and banks from access to the american financial market unless they cooperated with money-laundering investigations.

it was strongly opposed by the banking industry and mr. gramm.. "i was right then and i am right now" in opposing the bill, mr. gramm said yesterday.

GinnyTosken

Rex,

Maybe you could go and ask the Taliban or Asama Bi Laden about that? Oops, I forgot, women are not often seen and NEVER heard in that country.

Sounds like your kind of place, eh?

Ginny

8

A Texan and Totalitarianism

by GinnyTosken in

jw
friends

congress is now reviving a proposal killed last year by senator phil gramm, the texas republican who was then chairman of the senate banking committee.

the bill, introduced by the clinton administration, would give the treasury secretary broad power to bar foreign countries and banks from access to the american financial market unless they cooperated with money-laundering investigations.

it was strongly opposed by the banking industry and mr. gramm.. "i was right then and i am right now" in opposing the bill, mr. gramm said yesterday.

GinnyTosken

Congress is now reviving a proposal killed last year by Senator Phil Gramm, the Texas Republican who was then chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. The bill, introduced by the Clinton administration, would give the Treasury secretary broad power to bar foreign countries and banks from access to the American financial market unless they cooperated with money-laundering investigations. It was strongly opposed by the banking industry and Mr. Gramm.
"I was right then and I am right now" in opposing the bill, Mr. Gramm said yesterday. He called the bill "totalitarian" and added, "The way to deal with terrorists is to hunt them down and kill them."
from http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/business/20MONE.html?searchpv=past7days

I find it wryly funny that in Mr. Gramm's mind, a money-laundering bill is "totalitarian," but hunting down people and killing them is not.

Ginny

"If you love someone, set them free; if they come home, set them on fire." --George Carlin

40

Boston Tea Party--A Terrorist Act?

by GinnyTosken in

jw
friends

i'm not sure what i think about this myself and am curious to hear your opinions.. here is an account from paul johnson's a history of the american people.. ginny.

the origins of the boston tea party had nothing to do with america.

the east india company had got itself into a financial mess.

GinnyTosken

Teejay,

Intent and means are as important to me as the ends.
... she said, from the comfort of her living room. If you were oppressed for decades, your flowery platitude might carry more weight. As it is...

You have no idea what oppression I may or may not have endured in my life, Teejay.

Sitting in judgment of people you don't understand -- and perhaps have made no attempt to understand -- is easy. Working to fit oneself into another's shoes, getting off one's high horse, trying to see a point of view you don't share, is a bit more difficult, not to mention uncommon. It's probably the MAIN reason we're in the major jam we're in. People, particular people with big sticks, would rather dictate than listen. But, hey... it's the American Way.

If this accusation is directed at me, I think it is misplaced. For one, I am sitting in judgment of no one; I am simply sharing my views. I do try my best to understand the current situation from a radical Muslim perspective, and I am clearly against coercion with big sticks. Several of my friends are Muslim, my son's day care provider was Muslim, I have attended services at a mosque, and I worked for a student exchange program in which primarily Muslim students came from Malaysia to the United States.

Suppose you were a young, attractive Black woman. Suppose it was 1950 Mississippi, and you had been raped by a group of white men. . . .
In the above, entirely fictitious scenario (thank god), answer me this: Is dad a terrorist?
Whatever your answer, was dad "justified"?

Is dad a terrorist? It depends on the father's intent. Was he trying to coerce and intimidate with fear? Or was he trying to take justice into his own hands?

Was dad "justified"? It depends on what you consider just. Who was in the building when it burned? Were they all rapists, or were there other people who had nothing to do with raping? Do rapists deserve to die?

What will be the consequences of his action? Will the system be changed, or will the cycle of violence escalate?

Ever read the book or see the movie A Time to Kill?

No, I have not.

You started this thread by using a reference to the Boston Tea Party. As I mentioned, I was working up an essay using the BTP as a centerpiece to demonstrate how misdirection, deception, even terrorism, in the proper setting, can be viewed as a good thing -- it's all in the presentation -- and that current events may simply be a replaying of history.

I'd be interested to read your essay.

In your top note, you did not state your opinion or your point. In the note I am responding to now, you did... sorta. You say that people choose violence because they are angry or impatient. That, of itself, means nothing. Some one (or group) is angry. Is their anger justified?

Often people choose violence because they are angry or impatient, not always. Anger can be quite just and still cloud one's ability to think clearly and to carefully consider the consequences of one's behavior. Acting quickly, without much thought, in the heat of anger can lead to behavior one later regrets.

Impatient? That was one of the appeals to Blacks in pre-Civil Rights America. "Sit down (at the back, or else) and just wait. Justice is coming. Y'all know we're all Christians. We'll do right by ya. You're going to get your due. Just be patient."

I agree that patience wasn't the real issue in this case. In other cases, being patient produces a more effective, long-term solution.

I'm proud that my forebears displayed more Christian behavior than those who were supposedly superior. But violence (terrorism) might have been justified in certain situations. I think Samuel Adams, his cousin John, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, and all the rest of the early American patriots would (in fact DID) take my viewpoint. Many others have throughout history.
I have no problem with you taking a different viewpoint, but personally, I think there comes a time to kill.

I'm still not sure where I stand on this issue, so in part I've been playing the devil's advocate. I think I would kill in self-defense. I think I would kill to protect my son, my family, my neighbors. By saying the latter, I have to ask myself the classic Biblical question, "Who really is my neighbor?"

I lean towards the martial arts approach, in which an aggressor's energy is deflected back at him and used against him. In this way, one can defend oneself without rancor, even with compassion for one's opponent.

I see little point in vengeance or revenge. It may relieve one's feelings, but it does not unrape or unkill a person. Usually it leads to more violence. Somewhere, somehow, someone has to be big enough to say, "This is enough. The cycle stops here. I will forgive and work towards a lasting solution."

I do think that criminal behavior must be restrained. Vengeance and revenge are different from justice.

Ginny

40

Boston Tea Party--A Terrorist Act?

by GinnyTosken in

jw
friends

i'm not sure what i think about this myself and am curious to hear your opinions.. here is an account from paul johnson's a history of the american people.. ginny.

the origins of the boston tea party had nothing to do with america.

the east india company had got itself into a financial mess.

GinnyTosken

Teejay,

I don't necessarily believe that terrorism is "commendable," but from the standpoint of an oppressed people that does not have the same avenues of redress as other people, it may be the ONLY means.
Effective? Damn skippy, if only to get attention, even if the "attention" leads to unhappy consequences for some. Often, it leads to the exact end that the terrorist hoped for.

I see. So much for Ghandi and Martin Luther King.

I can't say that I share your views. Intent and means are as important to me as the ends. I think people often choose violent means because of anger and impatience.

The way you describe it, terrorism doesn't sound much different than a 2-year-old throwing a tantrum. If bin Laden is responsible, maybe he needs a time out until he understands that such behavior is inappropriate.

Ginny

40

Boston Tea Party--A Terrorist Act?

by GinnyTosken in

jw
friends

i'm not sure what i think about this myself and am curious to hear your opinions.. here is an account from paul johnson's a history of the american people.. ginny.

the origins of the boston tea party had nothing to do with america.

the east india company had got itself into a financial mess.

GinnyTosken

Teejay,

I'm not sure I know Bigboi's view on this and will not assume. Otherwise, yes, the ends do sometimes justify the means. Everyone knows that.

Bigboi mentioned Machiavelli recently, so I was thinking specifically of the maxim "The ends justify the means." I'm not sure they do, even if you modify it to "sometimes."

Gloria Steinem's comments in a commencement address to Hobart and William Smith Colleges in 1998 are worth considering:

In fact, the means are the ends. The means we choose dictate the ends we achieve, which is why we can’t use violence on children and expect children not to be violent, or have slogans like "Kill for Peace," or create strength in people by telling people what to do, or have a truly democratic nation without starting with democratic families, or start a group that is inclusive unless it is inclusive when it starts, or have a revolution that leads to love and poetry and music and humor without revolutionary tactics that include love and poetry and music and humor.
from http://www.hws.edu/new/speakers/steinem.html

Does the designation "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" depend on one's perspective?
Of course. Duuuhh.

This does sound like a simple question, but it has me pondering the meanings of these words.

Who is a terrorist? One who uses terror as a means of coercion.

Who is a freedom fighter? One who fights for freedom. Can one truly fight for freedom while at the same time coercing others by means of terror? Isn't that like saying, "Oppress for Freedom!"?

Not all freedom fighters are terrorists. I think an accurate distinction between the two is determined by the means one chooses to fight for freedom, not the perspective of onlookers.

Is bin Laden's reasoning sound...
Absoulutely.

I've missed your humor before. Was your response meant to be funny? Do you really believe that terrorism is an effective and commendable means of abolishing tyranny and corruption?

Ginny

40

Boston Tea Party--A Terrorist Act?

by GinnyTosken in

jw
friends

i'm not sure what i think about this myself and am curious to hear your opinions.. here is an account from paul johnson's a history of the american people.. ginny.

the origins of the boston tea party had nothing to do with america.

the east india company had got itself into a financial mess.

GinnyTosken

Teejay

But then, terrorist acts against an oppressor is not always a bad thing, as the BTP was a step in the direction that led to independence. Also see John Brown, Nat Turner, et al.

Do you share Bigboi's Machiavellian outlook? Do the ends justify the means?

Does the designation "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" depend on one's perspective?

Is bin Laden's reasoning sound when he says:

Besides, terrorism can be commendable and it can be reprehensible. . . . Every state and every civilization and culture has to resort to terrorism under certain circumstances for the purpose of abolishing tyranny and corruption. . . . The terrorism we practice is of the commendable kind for it is directed at the tyrants and the aggressors and the enemies of Allah, the tyrants, the traitors who commit acts of treason against their own countries and their own faith and their own prophet and their own nation. Terrorizing those and punishing them are necessary measures to straighten things and to make them right.
from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

Treborr Jones,

Do you have a link to this story. If not could I use your post on my website?

I typed the passage above from pages 141-143 of A History of the American People by Paul Johnson. You are welcome to copy it.

I'm editing this to add that Paul Johnson also has several other books that might be of interest to folks here, A History of the Jews, A History of Christianity, and The Quest for God, to mention only a few. His work is not dry history, but is highly readable and engaging. I highly recommend his books.

Trilobite, Amazing, et al.

I heard on NPR that there were suspiciously high volumes of trades for United and American airlines, Morgan Stanley, and several insurance companies just before the attack. The commentator said that a link is unproven but at least plausible and is being investigated.

Here is a link to an article called "Profiting From Terror?
Worldwide probe of surge in trades days before attack" from Newsday:

http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzsell192372611sep19.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

Ginny

40

Boston Tea Party--A Terrorist Act?

by GinnyTosken in

jw
friends

i'm not sure what i think about this myself and am curious to hear your opinions.. here is an account from paul johnson's a history of the american people.. ginny.

the origins of the boston tea party had nothing to do with america.

the east india company had got itself into a financial mess.

GinnyTosken

I'm not sure what I think about this myself and am curious to hear your opinions.

Here is an account from Paul Johnson's A History of the American People.

Ginny

The origins of the Boston Tea Party had nothing to do with America. The East India Company had got itself into a financial mess. To help it extricate itself, [Lord] North passed an Act which, among other things, would allow the company to send its tea direct to America, at a reduced price, thus encouraging the 'rebels' to consume it. Delighted, the harassed company quickly dispatched three ships, loaded with 298 chests of tea, worth £10,994, to Boston. At the same time, the authorities stepped up measures against smuggling. The American smuggling interest, which in one way or another included about 90 percent of import-export merchants, was outraged. John Hancock (1737-93), a prominent Boston merchant and political agitator, was a respectable large-scale smuggler and considered this maneuver a threat to his livelihood as well as a constitutional affront. He was one of many substantial citizens who encouraged the Boston mob to take exemplary action.

When the ships docked on December 16, 1773, a crowd gathered to debate what to do at the Old South Meeting House. It is reported 7,000 people were jammed inside. Negotiations were held with the ship-masters. One rode to Governor Hutchinson at his mansion on Milton Hill to beg him to remit the duties. He refused. When this news was conveyed to the mob, a voice said: 'Who knows how tea will mingle with salt water?' Sam Adams, asked to sum up, said 'in a low voice,' 'This meeting can do nothing more to save the country.' The doors were then burst open and a thousand men marched to the docks. There had been preparations. An eyewitness, John Andrews, said that 'the patriots' were 'cloath'd in blankets with the heads muffled, and copper color'd countenances, being each arm'd with a hatchet or axe, and a pair of pistols.' The 'Red Indians' ran down Milk Street and onto Griffith's Wharf, climbed aboard the Dartmouth, chopped open its tea-chests, and then hurled the tea into the harbor, 'where it piled up in the low tide like haystacks.' They then attacked the Eleanor and the Beaver. By nine in the evening all three ships had been stripped of their cargo. Josiah Quincy (1744-75), one of the leading Boston pamphleteers and spokesman, said: 'No one in Boston will ever forget this night,' which will lead 'to the most trying and terrific struggle this country every saw.' John Adams, shrewdly noting that no one had been injured, let alone killed, saw the act, though one of force, as precisely the kind of dramatization of a constitutional point that was needed. As he put it: 'The people should never rise without doing something to be remembered, something notable and striking. This destruction to the tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important consequences, and so lasting, that I can't but consider it an epoch of history.'

Adams was quite right. The episode had the effect of forcing everyone on both sides of the Atlantic to consider where they stood in the controversy. It polarized opinion. The Americans, or most of them, were exhilarated and proud. The English, or most of them, were outraged. Dr. Johnson saw the Tea Party as theft and hooliganism and produced his maxim: 'Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.' In March 1774, on the invitation of the government, parliament closed the port of Boston to all traffic and two months later passed the Coercive Acts. These punitive measures, paradoxically, were accompanied by the Quebec Act, a highly liberal measure which gave relief to the Canadian Catholics and set Upper and Lower Canada firmly on the road to self-government and dominion status. It was designed to keep the Canadians, especially the French-speaking ones, loyal to the crown, and succeeded; but it infuriated the American Protestants and made them suspicious that some long-plotted conspiracy was afoot to reimpose what John Adams called 'the hated despotism of the Stuarts.' In the current emotional atmosphere, anything could be believed. At all events, these legislative measures, which included the compulsory quartering of troops on American citizens in Boston and elsewhere, were lumped together by the American media under the term 'Intolerable Acts.' They mark the true beginning of the American War of Independence.

11

Taliban, Lot, and Men of Sodom

by GinnyTosken in

jw
friends

reading an article in the new york times, i came across a description of the taliban and mullah omar, the man who started the movement:.

isolating the taliban has been easy but ineffective because they insulate themselves.

television is banned.

GinnyTosken

DannyBear,

I agree that country of residence or birth should not matter. Any who aid and abet terrorism should be restrained.

My point in posting this information is that to defeat this radical Islamic mindset, especially to eradicate it long-term, you must first understand it.

It may be that bin Laden and the Taliban comprise the head of the snake. I'm not so sure. My feeling is that they are convenient, tangible targets for a country that very much needs to give its enemy a face, that needs an outlet for its anger and grief. We do not like grappling with a faceless, murky monster.

If we did not have bin Laden and the Taliban, what would the U.S. do? Target Saudi Arabia? The United Arab Emirates? Iraq?

I fear that the U.S. is trying to punish primarily one country for actions of individuals. This paragraph from the New York Times sums up my feelings well:

In Moscow, an influential parliamentarian, Aleksei G. Arbatov, said although the consensus there was "total moral support" for the United States and the struggle against terrorism, there also existed a strong humanitarian concern "not to resort to massive strikes, to nonselective actions which are unjustified from the moral point of view, to avenge the death of thousands of innocent people with the deaths of tens of thousands of other innocent people."

I also feel that chasing bin Laden and giving him so much importance is just what he craves. I would not give him what he wants, nor would I chase him. What deeply bothered him before was an American presence in Saudi Arabia. Let Saudi Arabia show its support by allowing American troops to once again enter Saudi Arabia. Ignore Afghanistan for now. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda will emerge.

Meanwhile, allow the Islamic world to express its outrage at bin Laden's behavior, quoting heavily from the Quran, exposing the flaws in the radical mindset. If this is done soon, it could be especially effective since Muslims will observe Ramadan between November 16 and December 14, a time of fasting and prayerful contemplation.

http://www.submission.org/about-R.html

If the U.S. wants to be religious, drop the "God Bless America" and emphasize how our prophet Jesus admonished us to return evil for evil to no one. Outdo the most fundamentalist Muslim in being excrutiatingly careful to be just and fair in this case. Take away the expected face of the enemy from the barkers of radical Islam, and the movement will lose its motive power. An enemy is a strong unifier. In this sense, Satan has always been much more powerful than Jesus.

Grunt,

I agree, it is a very warped and twisted mindset in which one can kill without guilt yet have a law against kites because they distract from prayerful contemplation and worry about the law of sacred hospitality. The Taliban considers itself the only pure followers of Islam. More liberal Muslims are viewed as corrupted apostates and must be destroyed. Sound familiar?

I can't say that it will break my heart if the Taliban is routed from Afghanistan--if the loss of civilian lives is minimal. When I indulge myself in thoughts of revenge, it is not for the terrorism at the WTC and Pentagon, but for the atrocities you describe committed by the Taliban against the Afghan citizens. I fantasize that a woman will fly the fighter plane that gets the Taliban. I think it would also be poetic justice if a woman prime minister headed Afghanistan afterwards.

Vengeful fantasies aside, I think it would be much more effective long-term if the Muslim world itself exposes, confronts, and eradicates the Taliban.

Ginny