# Call my condemnation tepid ONE MORE TIME...
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [September 25, 2001, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708 "2001-09-25T15:36:48Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2001, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/21 "2001-09-25T19:31:17Z")
I haven’t had a chance to use the word “milquetoast” in a while. How does that grab you, if “tepid” is getting old? 🙂
But as I guess you know, if there are “sides” to this thing, I’ve been in your camp for a while, dear xeno.
But enough talking past each other! Christ I am sick of it! The one side doesn’t feel that it is “blaming the victim” (despite strong arguments trying to convince them that it’s what it seems like) and the other side doesn’t feel that the U.S. should “Shoot instead of think.” (despite strong arguments that this is what it sounds like when they emphasize swift justice) The rest is just nitpicking. It’s getting old (to me, anyway). Let’s take some of this energy and do something productive, like beat up mimes.
---
### Author:  [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2001, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/22 "2001-09-25T19:37:39Z")
with all due respect **Jodi** I disagree - the discussions that I’ve been involved in have been about both ‘why should we bother to seek out motives of the terrorists’ and the aforementioned threads wherein **xeno** and others (including me) have urged restraint in our actions (ie, not carpet bombing Afghanistan for example - yes, **Milo** I am happy to see that our leaders are in fact using restraint - however, certainly we remember threads where nuking Afghanistan was discussed as the option), so taking the analogy to the ‘punishment’ phase would be appropriate.
Can I see some parralell (sp)? of course, in both cases some one did something wrong and there should be negative consequences for it.
But things get twisted fairly quickly because it was a group of people that did wrong here, many of whom are currently beyond punishment (dead), others we’re unsure of who they are or where exactly they might be right now.
I understand your point - you don’t want to even have the appearance of blaming the victim. And generally, that’s a really good thing.
Let me ask you this:
When the police run their ‘take a bite out of crime’ ads, wherein they suggest to people to lock their doors, travel in well lit areas and so on, are you claiming that they’re blaming the victim, or perhaps making reasonable suggestions to allow people to avoid being victimized?
---
### Author:  [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2001, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/23 "2001-09-25T19:52:45Z")
WRING, you can “take” the analogy wherever you want, so long as you recognize that you are using it differently than I was using it, and that I am not obliged to follow what I consider to be a hijack of it. (Is hijack now a loaded word? Hope not, but what I mean by “hijacking” it is “taking it down a tangent by extrapolating from it some point different from the one for which it was originally used.”)
> [@](#):
>
> When the police run their ‘take a bite out of crime’ ads, wherein they suggest to people to lock their doors, travel in well lit areas and so on, are you claiming that they’re blaming the victim, or perhaps making reasonable suggestions to allow people to avoid being victimized?
Surely you can see that there is no specific “victim” to blame in such circumstances, and that _your_ analogy is therefore a poor one. It is also a poor one because such generic advice as “travel in well-lit areas” applies to everyone, victim or not, and therefore singles out no one. A truly analogous situation would be one in which a victim suffers an attack and then is asked in the wake of that attack to reassess his/her/its own behavior. Because that is exactly what has occurred here. Again, I do not say that such reassessment is necessarily inappropriate. I merely would like some acknowledgement from those encouraging it that they must tread very carefully in doing so, because they run the real risk of being perceived to be blaming the victim – a response that, if actual as opposed to merely perceived, would go beyond “tepid” to being actually offensive. You and XENO and others are walking a very fine line, and I don’t think you can be surprised to be deemed “tepid,” if not worse, by those who are not careful readers and/or thinkers. That’s all.
---
### Author:  [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2001, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/24 "2001-09-25T20:06:18Z")
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
**dropzone** ,
I think what I was trying to say was that in my mind (and I assume in others’ minds as well, and that’s why they take issue at this), there is nothing wrong with seeing other people’s perspectives on this whole thing. What is frustrating is that when one person says, “let’s get Bin Laden,” and someone else responds, “wait you trigger happy SOB, why don’t you stop right there and look at it from his viewpoint.” In other words, the alternative to retaliation is to see it from his perspective. First of all, not everybody who advocates a military response is ignorant to history and the struggles in the Middle East. And second, it doesn’t really facilitate anything to just say, “stop acting and think,” without offering an alternative solution. If you’ve got some great insight after walking a while in Bin Laden’s shoes, than share it. What do you suggest be done, now that you see clearly from the perspective of the man who killed thousands of civilians?..
sorry if the tone got a little bit hostile there, it wasn’t my intent at all. To answer your question more directly, it’s not that folks are actually saying that the US deserved what it got, but it feels like that’s what they are suggesting when they suggest inaction as an alternative to action. Not the most sound logic, but I’m doing the best I can. I am dead set against military action at this point, but doing nothing just feels wrong to me… I’ve got to reconcile two conflicting emotions here… argh!
---
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2001, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/25 "2001-09-25T20:08:14Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by wring \*
> \*\*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. \*\*
Dear, as much as I appreciate your coming to my defense, I thought that went without saying. Although the existence of this thread would indicate otherwise.
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by jodi \*
> \*\*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? \*\*
That’s sounding almost TEPID! 😉 Yes, we absolutely must use the same vocabulary, or indicate how ours might differ, in order to prevent endless sniping.
---
### Author:  [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2001, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/26 "2001-09-25T20:08:27Z")
careful please.
Surely the USA is not the only victim of terrorists. Surely the USA itself has not only been victimized by one set of terrorists.
For me (or others) to suggest that we have things to learn should not be tantamount to disloyalty.
You only want to focus on your analogy where it seems (to you) to fit exactly? The WTC bombing is like a crime, the terrorists are like a criminal, when we investigate a crime we don’t care about motive (well, actually, that’s not accurate) but we can’t ‘go there’ when the topic is ‘what do we do with criminals?’
I think we’re arguing across each other. You seem to only want to focus on this exact set of circumstances, and I want to use this set of circumstances the best way possible to insure to whatever extent possible, that it’s not repeated **while** we’re busy insuring that those responsable are held accountable. And I don’t believe they’re mutually exclusive.
---
### Author:  [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2001, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/27 "2001-09-25T20:23:46Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by wring \*
> \*\*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.
> \*\*
Ya know what? I’m deeply resentful that this needs to be said \* at all \* , much less that it apparently is the required disclaimer for every single statement referencing that day that does not begin and end as a rant against those murderous fucks.
We all \*\* know \*\* , or at least I certainly do, that there is not \*\* one \*\* Straight Dope poster on these boards who believes for a SECOND that what happened was JUSTIFIED. And I will continue to \*\* know \*\* that until an SD poster REFUTES that belief \* directly and specifically \* . And I think that this applies to just about anybody [sub](Susan Sontag)[/sub] that is NOT a psychotic Muslim on a jihad, or maybe a Palestinian, because that’s about the only humans on the face of the earth who have shown any indication whatsoever that they believe these acts to be JUSTIFIED. To have this accusations that anyone, especially any American, thinks that what the terrorists did to us was \* a justifiable act \*, is unbelievably offensive, and I don’t think the people who are saying it really DO believe that. I think they are using such accusations to try and shame and bully others into shutting up.
Well, forget it.
stoid
---
### Author:  [@CrankyAsAnOldMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrankyAsAnOldMan)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2001, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/28 "2001-09-25T20:30:22Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Stoid \*
> \*\* To have this accusations that anyone, especially any American, thinks that what the terrorists did to us was \* a justifiable act \*, is unbelievably offensive, and I don’t think the people who are saying it really DO believe that. I think they are using such accusations to try and shame and bully others into shutting up.
> \*\*
And to punctuate that point, I’m going to do this…
_grabs passing unsuspecting mime with left arm, punches him in the nose with right fist_
See, doesn’t that feel good?
---
### Author:  [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2001, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/29 "2001-09-25T20:31:28Z")
[QUOTE]
\*Originally posted by Eonwe \*
\*\*
> [@](#):
>
> What is frustrating is that when one person says, “let’s get Bin Laden,” and someone else responds, “wait you trigger happy SOB, why don’t you stop right there and look at it from his viewpoint.” \*\*
Do you a cite for a single poster saying this? I haven’t seen one.
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by \* \*\*
> And second, it doesn’t really facilitate anything to just say, “stop acting and think,” without offering an alternative solution.
> \*\*
Seems to me that it’s self-contained “Stop acting” - “and think”. The “and think” is the alternative to simply “acting”.
---
### Author:  [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2001, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/30 "2001-09-25T20:37:49Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _from **Jodi** :_
> 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?
I do not disagree, and I certainly don’t want to just sit and swap allegations with you, with **Milo** , or with anyone else.
> [@](#):
>
> 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?
Of course I see the point of your analogy. Don’t blame the victim. It’s a really basic and correct point, and a matter of simple ethics with which I fully agree. It’s not the _presentation_ of your analogy I find fault with, it’s its unsuitability to convey the overall sense of the situation beyond the victim-perpetrator relationship, which our thinking _must_ go beyond if we are to sensibly discuss the relative morality of proposed US actions.
> [@](#):
>
> _from **Jodi** (to **wring** ):_
> …the question is… [whether] 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?
True, but pointless, if we’re talking about the reactions of people such as yourself who acknowledge that such comments ARE NOT condoning / justifying / minimizing / defending the attack. If you’re going to ask me (and **wring** and others) to understand the sense of what you (and others) are saying, please don’t quibble over how some other unnamed people might be able to construe _our_ arguments, if they did not have your own perspicacity. (And BTW, I understand, respect and largely agree with the arguments you and **Milo** have made; I don’t think I’ve disagreed with anything either of you have said regarding the terrorists, just with your assessment of other counterarguments.)
**Cranky** , know where I can find any mimes? 🙂
---
### Author:  [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2001, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/31 "2001-09-25T21:07:39Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Stoid \*
> Ya know what? I’m deeply resentful that this needs to be said \* at all \* , much less that it apparently is the required disclaimer for every single statement referencing that day that does not begin and end as a rant against those murderous fucks.
I’m sorry, **Stoid**.
But when **curious george** posts diatribes about how all former U.S. Presidents are [war criminals](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=89012), and states, “this was horrible, but let’s not forget how we got there”, how am I supposed to read that? It sounds like an _apology_ for the attack, along the lines of “yeah, it was bad, but we’ve deserved it and far worse for years.”
I think part of the problem is sociological, and part of it is communicative.
Sociologically, there seems to be a large set of opinion that understanding the criminal is _wrong_- that misguided fools attempt to _understand_ the criminal, and try to explain how it’s _society’s_ fault, and not the actual criminal. We see this all the time on the TV and in the movies- the left-wing lawyer who unleashes a monster onto the public in the name of “rights”.
Is this a **true** circumstance? Not really. But it’s one that has become entrenched in the American minds. Therefore, when one talks about “understanding” the criminal, the immediate assumption is that the next step is to blame “society” and exonerate the perpetrator, and specifically to blame American society. And in some ways, you are. You’re stating, “had we not taken certain actions ten years ago, this would not have happened.” So you start by taking _some_ steps in that direction- trying to understand the reasons, trying to correctly assign blame- and people **immediately** jump the gap to “you want ot exonerate them so you can blame us.”
I’ve been doing that quite a bit over the last few years in talking about affirmative action. I don’t like affirmative action, thus I must be a racist, some people state. It’s knee-jerk and stupid but it’s a myth played to a _lot_ by politicians and the media.
Communicative: The second problem I have with a lot of the discussion is they present themselves in a negative without a positive. For example:
Poster A: “I think we need to make massive strikes against Afghanistan.”
Poster B: “That will just kill off thousands of innocent civilians! That’s horrible, and we can’t possibly go down that track!”
The problem here is that Poster B shuts off one avenue of recourse without actually opening another. Poster B doesn’t suggest what _other_ methods could be used- diplomacy, sanctions, etc., and why he/she thinks those are better and/or feasible.
So instead of a continuation of the debate- an offering of multiple options, a discussion over which might be more effective or more humanitarian, and the trade-offs between the two, you instead have a yes-no argument, which is much more frustrating. Especially given how often value judgements are dragged in, with Poster B impugning the morality of Poster A for even _thinking_ that a certain way was an option.
---
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [September 25, 2001, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/32 "2001-09-25T21:47:26Z")
But **curious george** is a nut with trollish tendencies! And the rest of us end up getting tarred by that same brush if we use any argument that can be related to one of his.
But the people posting to this thread seem to have all reached much the same conclusion and we’ve begun our usual pointless arguing in circles around each other. Can we sit back and read what everybody else has said so we can realize that?
---
### Author:  [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2001, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/33 "2001-09-26T13:00:55Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by John Corrado_
> Poster A: “I think we need to make massive strikes against Afghanistan.”
>
> Poster B: “That will just kill off thousands of innocent civilians! That’s horrible, and we can’t possibly go down that track!”
> The problem here is that Poster B shuts off one avenue of recourse without actually opening another. Poster B doesn’t suggest what other methods could be used- diplomacy, sanctions, etc., and why he/she thinks those are better and/or feasible.
>
> So instead of a continuation of the debate- an offering of multiple options, a discussion over which might be more effective or more humanitarian, and the trade-offs between the two, you instead have a yes-no argument, which is much more frustrating. Especially given how often value judgements are dragged in, with Poster B impugning the morality of Poster A for even _thinking_ that a certain way was an option.
This is just what I meant when I said:
> [@](#):
>
> What is frustrating is that when one person says,“let’s get Bin Laden,” and someone else responds, “wait you trigger happy SOB, why don’t you stop right there and look at it from his viewpoint.” In other words, the alternative to retaliation is to see it from his perspective.
and:
> [@](#):
>
> …it’s not that folks are actually saying that the US deserved what it got, but it feels like that’s what they are suggesting when they suggest inaction as an alternative to action.
and:
> [@](#):
>
> …it doesn’t really facilitate anything to just say, “stop acting and think,” without offering an alternative solution. If you’ve got some great insight after walking a while in Bin Laden’s shoes, than share it. What do you suggest be done…
If I wasn’t clear enough, then it’s nice to know that there are other people who can make my arguments much more clearly than I.
\
Free the silent Seven!!!
\
---
### Author:  [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2001, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/34 "2001-09-26T13:43:17Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by wring \*
> **… the discussions that I’ve been involved in have been about both ‘why should we bother to seek out motives of the terrorists’ and the aforementioned threads wherein xeno and others (including me) have urged restraint in our actions …**
I agree with **wring’s** statement above, but would go even further. IMHO recommendations to “seek out motives” generally are equivalent to pleas urging restraint. Here’s why I think so:
[li]There’s plenty of thought being given to the terrorists’ motives. The motives are speculated about ad nauseum in the media. It’s striking to see **xeno** and others recommend this analysis as something special, when it’s already being done.[/li][li]Seeking out motives is generally given as an alternative to military action or, at least, a reason to delay it. E.g., I see no “better understanding” advocates claiming that better understanding of motives could lead to even harsher military action, although that alternative would be logically possible.[/li][li]Many of those who call for better understanding seem to blast right into criticism of the US. That is, their version of the motives turn out to be Americal failings.[/li][li]Many of these criticisms confuse _moral_ error with _operational_ error. E.g., some criticize our alliance with the Taliban against the USSR as a moral error, when, at most, it may have been an operational error.[/li]
These points have really been made already by other posters.
In summary, my irritation at those who urge us to seek out motives is that most of them are dishonest. They really want to urge restraint (a perfectly reasonable view), but they’re not willing to come right out and say so. OTOH I appreciate \*\*wring’s \*\* honesty in presenting her opinion forthrightly.
---
### Author:  [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2001, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/35 "2001-09-26T14:07:42Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Milossarian \*
> 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.
Well put! I have not tracked any particulars poster’s thoughts enough to take a position on any specific person’s stance. But the above quote just about sums up my general position.
IOW, it’s not just whether you are right or wrong about what you actually say that means something. It’s what you chose to focus on. If at a time of a national crisis and tragedy you chose to focus on the fact that your government might be at fault, or the like, it suggests that you identify more with this issue than you do with your sense of solidarity with your fellow citizens (& victims).
(Again - I don’t mean to acuse anyone of actually doing this. But I suspect that this - or at least the perception of it - underlies much of the feeling that the OP describes.)
---
### Author:  [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2001, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/36 "2001-09-26T14:39:17Z")
**xen** , I can honestly say that you are one of my favorite posters. However, I still maintain that those of us who you feel are respectable posters seeming to have gone off the deep end _possibly have not gone off the deep end_. Can you admit, without referencing anything here, _that this is possible?_
Secondly, I do believe that many of these unnamed posters have been filled with plenty of venom over American politics, American foriegn policy, and so on. Since you didn’t name names, I don’t know if I am included (_I_ think I am ;)), but certainly you have participated in threads with me where my distate with this country was clear enough.
**That distaste has not vanished** , man. It is still there. I am still critiquing my government, federal and local. I am still thinking of what it would take to please me as a citizen, and what I would simply be able to tolerate without pure dissent. None of these things have changed.
However, what has changed is that the country that I _would seek to fix_ has had a bit of it broken off. We can’t just put a shine on it. We can’t buff it out. No bondo here will help.
Your condemnation of the terrorists is weakened in my eye because you seem to mention a direct causal link between how this country acts and their arrival, **and I disagree** with that link. Should you not be trying to demonstrate conscious, deliberate, or explicit causality then I would certainly love to retract my opinion.
My country does wrong. I know that. The terrorists did wrong. I know that. I like my country more than I like the terrorists; therefore, the sides I choose are blindingly obvious. My ability to recognize mistakes others make does not automatically make me attempt to understand opponents’ causes’ cause (sheesh! what a mouthful). If I see an action which I cannot justify at all under my ethical and moral system, understanding another’s cause _will not make the situation any more clear to me_. Does that make any sense at all, **xen**? I cannot conceive of why anyone would want to do such a thing, and so telling me that _someone else_ has a reason _isn’t going to affect me_.
I do not see how one can claim that the terrorists think they have a reason, _and_ we should examine that reason, and we should mourn the dead and condemn the terrorists anyway, when this is presented _as an alternative_ to attacking them. **This, also, doesn’t make sense to me.**
Do not present it as an alternative, and I will agree. Do not try and find rational causality and I will agree. Do not consider that the call to arms represents unchecked agression and I will agree.
Otherwise, I will continue to disagree. Doesn’t make you a lesser man in my eye, just adds another mystery.
**Furthermore** , I have yet to read a demonstration of understanding terrorist motivations as a path to better fight them. Even in the hypothetical. _Anyone_ is welcome to tackle that issue in GD where **Scylla** has started a thread similar enough to it to warrant it not being a hijack.
---
### Author:  [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2001, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/37 "2001-09-26T15:06:26Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by IzzyR \*
> If at a time of a national crisis and tragedy you chose to focus on the fact that your government might be at fault, or the like, it suggests that you identify more with this issue than you do with your sense of solidarity with your fellow citizens (& victims).
>
> (Again - I don’t mean to acuse anyone of actually doing this. But I suspect that this - _or at least the perception of it_ - underlies much of the feeling that the OP describes.) ( emphases by Tamerlane )
I absolutely agree **Izzy**. I’m sure that IS where this argument is coming from. My only problem is, with only a few exceptions that I’ve seen, I think this is _only_ perception, not reality. Maybe I’m wrong _shrug_.
That’s why, speaking as someone who is somewhere in the middle on this issue ( I _am_ in favor of harsh, _carefully directed_ military action, but I also think that an understanding, not of the specific terrorists per se, but of the culture and conditions which create them, is important - Which is why I think the **Ask the Muslim Guy** thread is so useful ), I’ve been finding these discussions so incredibly frustrating. In my experience, most arguments stem at least in part from people talking past one another. But this seems to be particularly pronounced in this case.
- Tamerlane
---
### Author:  [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2001, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/38 "2001-09-26T15:23:08Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by erislover \*
>
> **Furthermore** , I have yet to read a demonstration of understanding terrorist motivations as a path to better fight them. Even in the hypothetical. _Anyone_ is welcome to tackle that issue in GD where **Scylla** has started a thread similar enough to it to warrant it not being a hijack.
Exterminate the terrorists and their organizations. I’ll happily applaud and support that. But understanding the culture and conditions that create them _could, conceivably_ be used to reduce the numbers of future terrorists in later generations. Which means fewer terrorists to kill next time - Nip the next generation in the bud. Because military activity is only _part_ ( an integral part to be sure ) of the solution. And I’m not talking the politics of appeasement here. I’m interested in as simple a thing as agricultural carrying capacity and family planning. Or any of a thousand other little details.
One argument I’ve seen repeatedly is that focusing on these motivational concerns detracts from the energy and focus needed to succeed in our short term goal to destroy our current enemies. Bullshit. There is no shortage of energy or brainpower. If I can think on two ( or two hundred ) topics in a day, so can others.
- Tamerlane
---
### Author:  [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2001, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/39 "2001-09-26T16:28:16Z")
**tamerlane** , please reread my post. If you still feel your response is appropriate, please read my post again.
---
### Author:  [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)
#### Post date: [September 26, 2001, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708/40 "2001-09-26T17:16:17Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*
> **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._**
According to this article, Noam Chomsky leads an movement based on “psychotic hatred of America”-- a movement that holds the US guilty of most of the sins of the world. See [http://64.39.30.79/columnists/horowitz/2001/dh09-26-01.htm](http://64.39.30.79/columnists/horowitz/2001/dh09-26-01.htm)
The cited article is a passionate attack on NC’s actions and values.
Unfortunately, a request for “understanding” is one of Chomsky’s buzz words:
> [@](#):
>
> To those who believe his words of hate, Chomsky has this instruction: \*
>
> The people of the Third World need our sympathetic understanding and, much more than that, they need our help. \*
So, **xeno** , although your suggestion of greater understanding is perfectly reasonable, that phrase appears to have been hijacked. It’s being used as code for hating America and working against its interests. I believe that’s one reason why you’re getting a strong negative reaction.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/call-my-condemnation-tepid-one-more-time/83708.md?page=3)