Re: Eclipse Tours to Muslim Countries? 2006
From: Mike Simmons (mikes_at_nospam.mtwilson.edu)
Date: 12/12/04
- Next message: Mike Simmons: "Re: Optical Quality of the Eye"
- Previous message: Tom McDonald: "Re: Which Beginner Scope?"
- In reply to: John Savard: "Re: Eclipse Tours to Muslim Countries? 2006"
- Next in thread: John Savard: "Re: Eclipse Tours to Muslim Countries? 2006"
- Reply: John Savard: "Re: Eclipse Tours to Muslim Countries? 2006"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:55:42 -0800
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:46:20 GMT, John Savard
<jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote:
> Egypt is an example of a predominantly Muslim country which is friendly
> to the West, but where a terrorist attack took place.
Terrorist attacks have also taken place in the United States. Also Spain
and many other non-Muslim countries. And certainly Israel. I suggest
looking at each situation independently rather than throwing a broad
blanket over an entire region based on the predominant religion. If one
turned the narrow view you've used towards the West one might conclude
that Christian countries are unsafe because they are the most common
targets of the terrorists. Based on deaths due to terrorism, New York is
the most dangerous place on Earth (though John Steinberg will deny this
with his last victimized breath).
What is important is not the country or the religion or any other general
classification but the targets. The terrorists had their reasons for
attacking the World Trade Centers as well as the Israeli vacation spot
near the Egypt-Israel border. I would say mosques in New York and Cairo
are safe from Islamic terrorists (though perhaps not from vigilantes in
New York). WTC and the Egyptian resort had large numbers of potential
vicitims. Anyone who equates his own value as a target with those
overestimates his own importance unless he's truly a high-profile
individual.
> And, as you've noted yourself, the situation in a "safe" country can
> change quickly.
As we all learned on Sept. 11, 2001. How should Americans change their
lives to stay safe now? Some did stay out of high-rises and off of
airplanes for a while but life eventually goes on. How many moved out of
the country to avoid being a victim of terrorism?
Again, the point is that a single incident as you cite above may or may
not raise the danger level above the background. Much more is needed to
determine if the area is safe or not. There is no place on Earth with
guaranteed safety. The best of example of this to me is the cavalier
attitude with which people drive on the highways. Considering the
statistics on deaths and injuries, I consider that to be the riskiest
activity I ever engage in. More people are afraid of dying in a plane
crash than while driving but the fact is that driving to the airport is
far riskier.
> Of course, one of the things al-Qaeda wants is to prevent Muslims
> forming bonds of friendship with the rest of the world.
>
> But that, unfortunately, is one of the easiest goals for them to
> achieve: they've created a situation where only an expert like yourself
> would dare travel to that part of the world.
Yes, they have been very successful at that. But it isn't true that only
"experts" would go there. I became an knowledgeable ("expert" is
overstating it) by traveling there, not the other way around. And none of
the dozen people who traveled with me to that part of the world this past
June had ever been there before. They became "expert" on the situation by
simply reading in the comfort and safety of their own homes. They learned
where it is safe and where it isn't based on personal experiences. Thus
is the power of information and education. The Internet makes it even
easier than ever.
Think of astronomy as an example. How many people know even the basics of
the subject? If you ask people questions about botany, geology or
meteorology they'll know something about it -- they know a tree, a rock
and a cloud and likely just what they are. But how many people know what
a star is? They've known of their existence their whole lives ("Twinkle,
twinkle little star") but how many know that they're made of gas, let
alone that the energy source is thermonuclear reactions. Do they even
know you can see planets naked eye? There was a huge surge in learing
about Islam in the months after Sept. 11 and I talked with many people who
knew something about it for the first time. But how many know what it's
like on a street in Cairo, Amman or Damascus? How many know what kind of
welcome they'd receive from the average person there? I have to say that
despite all the preparation I did ahead of time I was still surprised and
continue to be.
Interestingly, I have come across far more Europeans in Iran than
Americans. I also find far more information and in-depth analysis in the
European media than in the American media. It's hard to avoid the
conclusion that the Europeans -- who are clearly better educated on issues
outside their own country than are Americans -- have benefited from having
more information available. Unfortunately, for various reasons Americans
are less educated about the world outside the US than any other country
that's developed enough to allow it. Decisions are then necessarily
uninformed unless a particular effort is made at self-education.
I meet Americans in Iran at times, too. Fewer than Sept. 11, of course,
but they're still there, and not "experts". I asked two brothers I saw in
Iran this past visit why they decided to go to Iran. They said it sounded
interesting. Their research had showed that it was safe and they wanted
to see it for themselves. It's simply not necessary to listen only to the
sources you mention who would prefer we don't go there. There are other
sources if one goes beyond the quick summaries of TV news.
You mentioned building a wall around the Islamic world in your last
message and this is a point that's relevant to the above. Note that the
wall that's being built by the US is not isolating the Islamic world but
the US itself. The sanctions that were recently lifted on Libya, allowing
Americans to travel there legally, were placed by the US. Other countries
did not necessary follow our lead and could trade with Libya or go there.
I don't know the specifics of Libya but I do as regards Iran. The US has
sanctions against doing trade with Iran (but not against traveling there
on a US passport) and there are no diplomatic relations between the two
countries. But every other country in the world is free to trade with
them and most do. Thus the US has no economic basis for applying pressure
on Iran, though the EU does. Iran would be better off with US trade but
so would the US be better off with Iranian oil and gas available again.
As more of these walls are put up by the US but not by others, the country
that becomes increasingly isolated is the US. The military option has
been removed completely (much to the relief of the hardliners in control
of Iran's regime) by being overextended, even though it's on two of Iran's
borders.
Geez, looking back I guess I should have said, "Don't get me started".
Too late now... But I appreciate your reasoned and interesting points and
I mean my own comments in the same vein.
Mike Simmons
- Next message: Mike Simmons: "Re: Optical Quality of the Eye"
- Previous message: Tom McDonald: "Re: Which Beginner Scope?"
- In reply to: John Savard: "Re: Eclipse Tours to Muslim Countries? 2006"
- Next in thread: John Savard: "Re: Eclipse Tours to Muslim Countries? 2006"
- Reply: John Savard: "Re: Eclipse Tours to Muslim Countries? 2006"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
