Call my condemnation tepid ONE MORE TIME...

The BBQ Pit
1

Although this thread is not aimed specifically at Milossarian, he’s one of the people I’m talking to.

For the past two weeks, I (along with everyone else; I’m not pretending any uniqueness here) have been alternately horrified by the unspeakable acts themselves and their aftermath, uplifted and given hope by the selfless acts of everyday heroes in this country, gratified and astonished by the love and support expressed for the United States from around the world and heartened by the resolute and steady statements from our President and his staff. The various opinions and exhortations I’ve seen on this message board have run me through a similar emotional gamut.

At first, I decided not to add my voice to the shocked and saddened posters who came to this electronic community to try and make some sense of what was happening, or to get some raw comfort from each other. My own anguish, I felt, was best shared with friends and family IRL; any wisdom I could offer here seemed too dry and small to interject.

Then came the reaction posts, showing us the best and the worst of what our members have inside them. I tried to avoid “me too” comments in the thoughtful threads, and I tried not to participate in idle speculation. I refrained from commenting on all except the most egregious calls for brutal and unthinking retaliatory actions. I tried to fight ignorance one ignoramus at a time.

But I saw posts from intelligent and respected people, including Milo, expressing either contempt or puzzlement over comments that the US government should not limit its response to vehement retaliation on the perpetrators/planners and prosecution of terrorism in general, but should also learn from mistaken foreign policies of the past and seek to base its actions on understanding and sensitivity to other societies.

We (the ones counselling a response which recognizes the fact that other people besides US and the terrorists are involved) have been lumped in with “blame-America-firsters”, accused of sympathy for terrorists and told that our statements of sadness and revulsion over the September 11 attacks are tepid and unconvincing. We’ve had to deal with assertions that any criticisms of the government by US citizens right now is not only “divisive” but despicable. We’ve seen formerly brilliant observers of politics and society suddenly lose the ability to see any shades of grey between absolute fidelity to the American Way and complete capitulation to Islamic militantism. We’ve seen the credo of “fighting ignorance” replaced by the motto “We don’t need to understand nothin’; we’re the good guys.” We’ve seen good Americans forget that this country stands for liberty and human rights everywhere, not just here.

Well, I’m not about to give up my advocacy of policies which reflect America’s greatness rather than America’s temporary interests just for the sake of false patriotism. I will not stop objecting to racial profiling and modification of rights merely so I can feel secure in my “homeland”. I will not accept the charge that understanding anger at America makes me un-American.

And honestly, if I were to meet any of the subjects of this rant face to face, I would embrace you as fellow Americans or as fellow Straight Dopers before I would lift a finger against you. But if you trivialize my pain and anger, if you marginalize my dissent, and if you belittle my patriotism merely because I salute the flag differently than you do, then you’ll receive the contempt I reserve for the Fred Phelps’ and the Jack Chicks of the world.

2

what he or she said!

great job, xenophon41.

3

Yeah. I have had more than enough of the “let’s stop thinking” crowd. As well as being foolish (after all what do you think they want?) it’s really fucking insulting.

4

xeno, you must be one of those commie pinko raghead atheists. Hell, I suspect you might even be a gasp Democrat.

If you ain’t fer us, you must be agin us.

Butt butt butt butt butt butt butt.

Dammit, man, there is a time to think, and a time to act. AND THIS IS NO TIME TO THINK! (28 points for the reference)

5

Word.

6

Hah! Not only was your condemnation tepid, but your exposition was faulty, your cites were inaccurate, you argued post hoc ergo propter hoc far too many times, and overall your disquisition was filled with innuendo.

Plus your bibliography was skimpy, and who typed this thing, anyway–your mother?

Well, at least you sent her some flowers.

C-.

:smiley:

7

**
[/QUOTE]

Part of the problem, for myself at least, is that the “mistaken foreign policies of the past” part is always left rather vague. That there have been mistaken foreign policies in the past is not in any doubt in my mind at least, but I tend to think of scenarios where we backed dictatorships during the Cold war to further an anti-communist agenda. It is a practice that I hope we have left behind. (Of course now we may be supporting a dictatorship in Pakistan and I don’t really see any logical alternative to that course of action. If I ever get irony cornered, I’m going to smack in the head with a shovel.)

But the current crop of terrorists we face are more concerned with the present. The Taliban summed up their demands fairly well.

So if what you consider “mistaken foreign policies” would involve withdrawing from the Persian Gulf or throwing our political weight behind the Palestinians you are going to come under a lot of criticism. It is not just politically unfeasible to change our policy in any way that might please the terroists, it is illogical to do so, least we teach the terroists that murder gets them what they want and thus invite more of the same. You also must realize that what you consider a “mistaken policy” might not be considered as such by others. Being more specific might lessen or increase the criticism depending on your arguements.

You have every right to express your opinions, but others also have every right to criticise you for them.

I do agree that it is cruel and unfair to accuse you of grieving less than those who do not share your opinions.

8

xeno:

**
Do you have indications that the above is not the approach the United States and its allies are taking?

I have seen posters here not express hope and strong encouragement that the U.S. and its allies will take the approach you proscribe above; I have seen them instead America-bash. I have seen them condemn past actions of the U.S. first, the terrorists second, or not at all. As though anything the United States has ever done could in any way be a justification of the horror that was perpetrated Sept. 11.

Hell, some in GD have accused the U.S. of comparable actions!!!

I have seen them start threads called Will the U.S. do something stupid again? and begin with the statement, “A typical U.S. response to an international crisis is to come in with both guns blazing, killing any living thing in their path.”

I have seen posters who support overwhelming response and comprehensive annihilation or disruption of terrorist groups tsk-tsked, like any response involving the firing of a projectile is unintelligent and purposeless.

I have seen normally intelligent posters not seem to realize that any revision of our foreign policy at this time with regard to the Middle East would be easily recognized by terrorists as getting their way by slaughtering our citizens.

I think that Job 1 is eradicating large-scale terrorist threats to the national security of the free world, as immediately as possible. Job 2 is looking at how we can get a whole culture of people to stop hating us and wanting us dead, without killing all of them to be safe ourselves.

While acknowledging that both have their place, spouting incessantly about Job 2, and referring to Job 1 only in reference to limiting it and criticizing it, is ludicrous, in my opinion.

9

Tepid tepid tepid tepid tepid! You tepid little peacenick, with a side of hippie, and America Hater! You TEPID no good ick, you. How daaare you? How dare you question our greatness and our determination, and our all-but-won war? You deserve to share their fate!

But seriously Xeno, I have no problem with any suggestions that we keep out wits about us, and I also feel that we should not resort to indiscriminate killing just for the sake of feeling better. I do have a problem with all the protests here and on the streets, by people who have no idea what it is we are actually going to do but have already decided it will be the wrong thing. I will fully support our commander and chief, unless he proves unworthy of that support (not visa versa visa!).

What I have seen Milo and some others point out in several threads is that nothing of a military nature has been done, WTF is with all the protesting?

Now, foreign policy critique - COULD YOU PLEASE BE SPECIFIC OF SHUT UP? I have seen enough of this crap, with the exact quote that Saddam Hussein used right after the attacks - “Failed Foreign Policy” - coming from posters around here. Why don’t you tell us what you mean by failed, and what were the alternatives at the time?

You mean like when Iraq attacked Iran? You mean like when we sent troops to Somalia? You mean failed, as in we help Israel, and therefore kept them from being completely iliminated? Which fucking failure are you talking about, that these fucks use to justify the attacks of 9/11?

Yeah, I know, we’re just plain evil. We deserved it.

10

XENO, I really think this thread is counter-productive because it seriously mischaracterizes the reasoned disagreement of the vast majority of those of us who don’t agree with you, including MILO.

This is not an either/or proposition. I am not an brainless hawk seeking bloody vengeance if I disagree with your position, just as you are not a spineless dove willing to roll over for terrorists just because you don’t agree with mine. There is no need to mischaracterize the position of the opposition in order to defend your point.

So if you belittle or mischaracterize my feelings or position, or question the authenticity of either, then you will receive my contempt. Fair enough?

11

My God, xeno, could I love ya anymore than I already do? I needed this so much today, because the level of “ya-ain’t-amurican-lessen’-alls-ya-kin-do-is-hate-em” rhetoric around here is reaching screechy levels.

There’s been a hatefulness risiing up on this board that is not directed at the terrorists, but at fellow posters. That anyone could for one second believe that any of us are anything other than grief -stricken, horrified and heartbroken by these events, or that in our attempts to understand the bigger picture we are * in any way condoning or supporting * these acts is just unbelievably nasty. It’s also a form of bullying, and I’m getting fed right up to my back teeth with it.

Last night Tommy Smothers was on PI and pointed out that there is a difference between patriotism and nationalism. A patriot loves their country, and loves it enough to recognize its faults and question them. A nationlist is “my country right or wrong”. I’m seeing more nationalism than I’m at all comfortable with.

stoid

12

I would also add that, while specifically NOT calling your reaction and similar reactions “tepid,” I think that everyone should be able to recognize that such reactions very easily can in fact appear tepid. I have said this before, but I will reiterate:

If you link perceived past wrongs done by the U.S. to this act of horrific terror, it is a very fine line between using the latter as a prompt to examine the former and appearing to use the former to excuse or justify the latter. It’s like finding out a woman was raped and beaten and immediately turning your attention to what she could have done to incite the guy. While such inquiries are certainly NOT without merit, they run the very real risk of seeming to blame the victim.

I think if your friend complained that his car was robbed and your response was “that sucks, but you never kept it locked, you know,” people might reasonably construe your reaction to be “tepid.”

I fully grasp and respect that your response to this tragedy was NOT tepid. I hope you can at least admit how easily it might appear to be so.

13

Reason vs. Excuse

I am currently very much against what seems to be the imminent military action by the US. However, I have got to say that it is all well and good to look at the reasons behind the terrorist attack, but hey, there are reasons for everything, and just because I have a reason does not mean I have an excuse.

There is no excuse for what happened on Sept. 11th.

In our criminal justice system (correct me someone if I’m wrong), we don’t care about the reasons someone might have committed a crime, we only care about what justifications they might have had (ie, the excuse). You still get sent to jail for murder whether you’re a really nice guy with a great family, or some complete jerk who treats everyone like shit all the time. (or at least that’s how it’s supposed to work).

It’s like a parent telling his/her child, “hitting is not ok, I don’t care what the other person did,” this was not ok, and it sure sounds like a lot of the people who are calling upon us to look at it from the terrorist’s point of view are suggesting that what happened was an appropriate response to US behavior.

Right, so it’s ok, if people are really really frustrated with a country, to pick a few thousand folks at random and kill them, and not even admit you did it so that people can only speculate on who you are and what your real reasons are. Yeah, those are some great coping skills right there.

14

Thanks, xeno.

I’m sick of being told that I’m supporting the terrorists when I don’t ignore the wrong doings of this country, or when I don’t blindly support everything we do.

15

DDG; thanks for the photo of Mom. :wink:

Blackclaw: I agree that criticisms of past policies must be specific to be of any use, and that those who give such criticism should take opposing points of view with equanimity. What I objected to was the severity of responses I’ve seen directed at those who have been specific (re: this thread) and the immediate comments that any reevaluation of US policies would be tantamount to appeasement.

Good question. No I do not have any such indications, and as a matter of fact I see much evidence of intelligence and sensitivity in US diplomatic activities. I’m very thankful for the experienced team surrounding President Bush. The thing is, except for a few letters I wrote to Zell Miller and my other representatives (so far only Max Cleland has responded) in response to Zell’s idiotic “strike the viper’s nest” speech, I’m not arguing with our government. I’m engaged in discussions here on the SDMB. And they haven’t been calm discussions of appropriate military measures, Milo.

You say you “have seen posters who support overwhelming response and comprehensive annihilation or disruption of terrorist groups tsk-tsked, like any response involving the firing of a projectile is unintelligent and purposeless.” I’ve seen those same threads, and it seems more like the posters who point out that “overwhelming response and comprehensive annihilation” may come at too high a humanitarian cost and only breed future terrorism are quickly lumped in with the “America bashers.”

No sir; only those revisions which disengage the US from politics and economics in the Middle East would be giving them their way. Adjustments to our policies are inevitable now, in any case. Like it or not, the terrorists accomplished two of their main objectives right off the bat on Sept. 11. They forever changed international political dynamic (although not quite in the way they wished), and they got the US President to label their actions “acts of war.” Their supreme objective, clearly, was to leverage the US war against terrorism into a war between the West and Islam.

I agree. And as others have noted, both jobs can run concurrently.

tradesilicon: “WTF is with all the protesting?” Well, in my case, it started when the hair on the back of my neck stood up as I read Zell Miller’s comments. While his views may not be the dominant ones on Capitol Hill, they certainly indicated that at least some of the early talk on the hill advocated extreme military measures. As far as specificity regarding “failed policies”, we can discuss the ways our support of various despots (including Saddam Hussein) and warriors of questionable virtue (ObL) in pursuit of laudable (and this is NOT sarcasm) US goals ended up biting us in the ass later on. However, other posters DID make those specific arguments, and were castigated for it in the way I described.

Jodi: I thought Milo’s thread I referenced in the OP was “counter-productive because it seriously mischaracterizes the reasoned disagreement” of the large portion of those of us who don’t agree with him.

Also, I understand your need to find analogies here, but I think the global terrorist situation is probably not fully analogous to car thefts and home breakins.

Eonwe: No shit.

Guin: You’re welcome.

16

Oh, and Stoid, I like that Tommy Smothers comment. Thanks.

17

You had me up to there. Could you please provide a cite in which one regular SDMB poster suggested that? I’m not even asking for you to support your “a lot” number. Just one.

Yes, this is a danger we run. Is it better to continue blindly, saying, “I don’t care if he has the slightest point whatsoever! I’m not letting him push ME around!”? Isn’t that a childish way to act? Yes; it is the way brats act. It is not the way thoughtful people act.

This act, heinous that it was, did not occur in a vacuum. There are a thousand years and more of misbehavior on all sides of the Christian/Moslem/Jewish wars at its root. I, personally, do not believe bin Laden has any real religious motivations, but he is able to take existing animosity and turn it into support for his actions. It is in our interest as a country to do what we can to counteract that hatred. Killing bin Laden and his followers will do no good to end terror. Like killing a dandelion, you must get the root, too.

So, we who recognize that American foreign policy, of both Republican or Democratic administrations, may have played a part in the situations and beliefs that led to this tragedy we are only recognizing facts. To not see that is to be blindly nationalistic, which is something we make fun of other countries for. Let’s not be it ourselves.

18

The question is not whether you approve of the analogies, but whether or not you see the point. Leaving aside your quibbles with how it is presented – Do you?

And please tell me we’re not descending into a “He mischaracterized my position first!” sort of argument. The fact is that with emotions and tensions both running so high, it is incumbent upon all of us to refrain from mischaracterizing what is being said, or we will only end up talking past each other and pissing each other off. Do you disagree?

19

and before folks land into dropzone I’m sure they also meant to add in (hope this is ok w/you) that even if the terrorist had a point etc etc etc, this in no way whatsoever means that the actions of 9/11/01 were in any way justifiable, ok, or anything less than horrific.

Jodi - one real problem w/the crime analogies (IMHO), is that the military scenarios also allow for retribution/punishment etc. for those who are in proximity to the miscreants. Our system of jurisprudence does not generally allow for the police to fire bomb the apartment complex where a bad guy is living, even if the owner of the building refuses to assist law enforcement, as long as there are innocent folks in there.

20

WRING, the question is not whether the analogy is perfect, or the extent to which it is flawed, but rather XENO (and you, and others holding similar positions) can even see, or are willing to acknowledge seeing, that talking about the U.S.'s wrongdoings in the immediate wake of the attack can appear to be condoning it/ justifying it/ minimizing it/ defending it. I am NOT saying that is what it is, I am saying that is what it can appear to be by linking the two too closely. True or not?

Now you have gone off on a HUGE tangent, inquiring as to whether the punishment of a personal crime is or can be or should be the same as the punishment for a global crime – an argument that is, with all due respect, totally off the subject.

The analogy is limited to highlighting that focusing on the victim’s behavior in the immediate wake of a crime can very easily seem to be blaming the victim. The fact that we are talking about a global crime and not an individual one does not change that.