New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Campaigns
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (6245 previous messages)

rshow55 - 06:42pm Nov 24, 2002 EST (# 6246 of 6267) Delete Message
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Bin Laden and I disagree, in more than a few spots.

We agree on this - Section 2 (9) - - it would be a good thing if the United States signed the Kyoto agreement.

It seems to me that the extensive, careful postings of November 17th, from 5853 lunarchick 11/17/02 2:25am to 5904, and a good deal since, gain relevance when one looks at Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America' http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

Are the beliefs of Islam really as incompatable with the modern west as Bin Laden says?

Or is it sensible to say what I said in 5863 rshow55 11/17/02 3:00pm ?

"I have a feeling, both practical and religious - I don't think Mohammed could approve, or the angel Gabriel could approve, of restrictions that hobble and devalue the lives of the followers of Islam - and make them far, far less as practical human beings than they could otherwise be.

It is often important for people to become clear about what it is that they are fighting about - and why exactly they are fighting. Bin Laden's piece is a step toward that clarity - and as it stands - a call for a fight to the death. Is that the right answer?

It can't be, without careful examination.

I wonder how hard it would be, with communication as it now is - and internet usages as they are now - for a step-by-step, detailed consideration of the facts and ideas in http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html to be set out and examined, in detail, so that people might be clearer why Bin Laden and his supporters suggest a fight to the death? Perhaps there are other ways. Or, perhaps, it will be clear that there are some things that have to be fought out - where a fight can't be escaped.

When there are disagreements - and reasons to question the assumptions made - it is safer when they are clear - lest mistakes be made.

Are we in a fight to the death? If that's true - not only for Bin Laden and his followers - but for a whole section of Islam - then all people involved ought to know that - and know exactly why.

Perhaps that would be worth some trouble, and the spending of some resources - and perhaps the resources could be found. In such discussions - free people, on both sides, might find their minds getting clearer - and effective alternatives besides a fight to the death might occur to people that were worthwhile.

I'll be reading http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html many times.

I'd suggest two general questions - again and again, about Bin Laden's points.

" How are Bin Laden's points, considered in terms of their full consequences, beautiful? On the basis of what assumptions, what evidence, and what weightings?

" How are Bin Laden's points, considered in terms of their full consequences, ugly? On the basis of what assumptions, what evidence, and what weightings?

Even enemies, it seems to me, may understand each other at that level - and may rightly wish to do so.

Bin Laden is suggesting a struggle where, barring miracles - Islam, as he defines it, must expect defeat. No doubt Bin Laden believes in miracles on occasion. But does he want to set his religion into a circumstance of such grave risk? Do people, including people in power, who have given him some support - want that?

lunarchick - 08:18pm Nov 24, 2002 EST (# 6247 of 6267)

Arab Human Development Report 2002

Creating opportunities for future generations

see

see also

almarst2002 - 11:14pm Nov 24, 2002 EST (# 6248 of 6267)

Bin Laden to America: http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

Bush responded: http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/commentary/0012nuclear_body.html

Ledies and Gentelmens! The Bush vs. Bin Laden....Put your bets! Gong!

More Messages Recent Messages (19 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us