We have all read the opinions of everyone. We shouldn't carry out actions that will injure or kill innocent people.

How do you define innocent people? It is central to the discussion.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 26, 2001

Answers

Innocent people are people who did not know or plan to cause injury or death to any other people.

-- helen (i@know.i.know), September 26, 2001.

Helen:

Good generic answer [sorry]. Let's say that you are flying in on a bomber and dropping, what else, bombs. How do you separate the guilty from the innocent.

This is the question.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), September 26, 2001.

Z,

Excellent question. Suppose some of these civilians knowingly shelter terrorists, secretly supporting them, but refusing to take an active role in anything that they do. Are they guilty? I'm not so sure I'd say "no" here.

By the same token, what about somebody who is scared of the local Terrorist Club and won't say anything for fear of being killed? That person I'd call "innocent."

It's not an easy line to draw, that's for sure.

I *do* hold governments that knowingly shelter terrorists to be just as guilty as the terrorists themselves.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), September 26, 2001.

Actually, Z, if I'm releasing bombs the question of innocence on the ground is moot.

I used to get around a bit more a long time ago. The people I met from nearly every middle eastern country were of the same opinion that the U.S. was responsible, through our backing of Israel, for ALL of the political and social upheavals in their countries. The Palestinian refugee populations destablized the entire region, and they are into what ...? ... the fourth generation now?

Innocence really has no place in the discussion. War may have superficial rules like the Geneva convention, but the brutal reality is that civilians ("innocent") will be killed outright and other civilians will be uprooted and starved and exposed to killing diseases.

We took a first strike, and civilians were killed. The people who planned the first strike will never quit. They will never ask for peace. There is only one way to deal with someone who will kill you at the first opportunity.

I am not in favor of bombing refugee centers where civilians are known to be gathered. However, where would YOU hide from a bomb? No target can truly be off limits.

"They started this war" is being said on both sides. While I deeply regret that things have progressed to this point, I will whole heartedly fight for my side. There is no other choice. If we don't, they will kill us. It's that simple. Innocence has nothing to do with it.

-- helen (never@been.much.of.a.hawk), September 26, 2001.

From an existential point of view, it doesn't really matter. In our purest form of existence as spiritual beings we are all innocent, and always will be. It is the perception by our minds of our situation in this physical world of illusion which often causes us to behave in a less than totally conscious fashion, but this has nothing to do with who we really are.

We can use this world of physical experience to learn how to become conscious, or we can continue to let ourselves be deceived by our minds. We can consciously learn to see beyond this illusion to discover our true reality, or we can continue to unconsciously destroy the illusion. The only difference would be whether or not we enter the next world with awareness of who we are. It might be nice to have that going for us.

-- Mahareshi Mahesh Yogi (yabba@dabba.doo), September 26, 2001.

Keep working on the unified field theory Maharishi. Eventually you will con enough followers so your coffers will overflow.

Jai Guru

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 26, 2001.

Helen, trenchant.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 27, 2001.

MMY, how much you charging for a personalized mantra these days?

-- (Roland@hatemail.com), September 27, 2001.

Roland - I was truly surprised to come across this little tidbit so I'm gonna' let you in on an "inside" secret....

Contrary to popular belief, the ultra top-secret "specialized" TM mantras are NOT specially selected just for YOU. An article in the now defunct Omni magazine revealed that the mantras are assigned (get this) according to your age at the time you begin meditation. I have the list of mantras stashed somewhere around here and can dig it up if you're interested in knowing what they are. Of course, psychologists have demonstrated that ANY two-syllable word repeated continually for twenty minutes will elicit the same results so the TM mantras aren't a necessity if you're interested in meditation for relaxation and clarity.

Jack - Just some more factoids, pal. Nothing to get excited about. Maybe meditation is something you ought to consider to keep your hypertension under control.

-- Peanut (Gallery@Nuts.com), September 27, 2001.

Hee hee hee!

Like I said...

"It is the perception by our minds of our situation in this physical world of illusion which often causes us to behave in a less than totally conscious fashion"

The above response by "Jack Booted Thug" is an excellent example of this phenomenon in action.

Hee hee hee, I rest my case!

-- Mahareshi Mahesh Yogi (yabba@dabba.doo!), September 27, 2001.

No thanks Peanut, I use Accupril.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 27, 2001.

Jack - Meditation is cheaper and without nasty side effects. Unless you enjoy dizziness, headache, and possible abdominal pain, coughing, fatigue, nausea and vomiting. You must be one fun guy! LOL

-- Peanut (Gallery@LOL.com), September 27, 2001.

Mahareshi, don't be so hard on Jack. He can't help it if he's waaaaay down on the karmic evolutionary scale and isn't spiritually evolved enough to fully grok the subject. Give him a coupla' more lifetimes......

-- Peanut (Gallery@LOL.com), September 27, 2001.

You mean I was conned for $200.0 in 1976? I want to speak to Doug Henning!

-- (Roland@hatemail.com), September 27, 2001.

Why? Was Doug Henning your TM teacher? Did he make the incense disappear when you weren't looking? Or did he make Vishnu appear in a cloud of smoke? Now THAT would be worth 200 bucks!

-- Peanut (Gallery@Nuts.com), September 27, 2001.

Z, innocents will die, they already have in WTC. Hopefully the plans minimize this but no guarantees.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), September 27, 2001.

I think the essence here is this: Say you have a lot of people in an area -- some with guns but no protection or shelter. And you have a terrorist-sniper who's somehow arranged to have innocent hostages wrapped around him. And he keeps shooting at the others who are reluctant to shoot back because an innocent might get killed.

Sooner or later, to REDUCE the number of innocents killed in the long run, you have to risk killing one or more of the hostages in order to take out the terrorist. But the risk was planted by the terrorist.

The argument that you'd just anger more terrorists who'd kill yet more innocents in the future doesn't hold water, IMO, because in the bin Laden/ Al Queeda (sp?) case -- they all harbor a psychotic, fanatical hatred of the West/America anyway. Besides, I see them as basically insane, and an insane person is completely unpredictable. As a result of our taking out the terrorist they could become cowed, infuriated, indifferent or anything in between, over, or under.

Really, by murdering then hiding behind innocents, the terrorist has put the innocent at risk; the blood of the hostage/innocent, then, is on the hands of the terrorist.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 27, 2001.

Whoops -- sorry; looks like I pulled a Roseanne Roseannadanna and ignored the question. I guess I just saw the term "innocent" and went off in whichever direction I wanted. :(

I see an innocent as truly that -- who's done nothing to support the evil. For example, a farmer who knowingly and voluntarily feeds the terrorist troops -- which keeps them going (from something I posted on another thread) -- is practically as bad as the terrorists.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), September 27, 2001.

I see the word "voluntarily" in your post, Eve, and I have to wonder: just how many of those farmers are actually bustin' their humps to grow veggies and goats just to have to give up the fruits of their labors to some filthy nomadic "freedom fighter" (to most farmers over there I don't think it much matters anymore who's taking it today, and for what) and for the dubious reward of being bombed next week for it - unless somebody is holding a gun to their heads (or soon will be). So, I'm a little leary of buying into the guilt by association argument too heavily.

I may be a bit hypersensitive to this entire issue. In another war I got to see non-combatants used as expendable pawns, by both the politicians and the military, of both sides. I could never possibly expess to you, or anyone else, how very deeply it effected me. Words just cannot describe the injustice of some things. And that's one...

If you'd really doubt me, I'd be [grudgingly] willing to share a photograph that I have with you, sometime. It's not for the faint of heart. A quick 'one second' glance is about all people I've shown it to can seem to take, and they report they wish to God they'd never seen it and that they know that they will never, ever be able to forget it. Maybe you'd like a look at why this whole subject makes me so incredibly uncomfortable? Or...would you just prefer to take me at my word...?

Killing innocents is not good. It is never good. It will never be good. We should avoid it in whatever possible ways we can.

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), September 27, 2001.