Call my condemnation tepid ONE MORE TIME...

The BBQ Pit
21

I haven’t had a chance to use the word “milquetoast” in a while. How does that grab you, if “tepid” is getting old? :slight_smile:

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.

22

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?

23

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.”)

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.

24

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!

25

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.

That’s sounding almost TEPID! :wink: Yes, we absolutely must use the same vocabulary, or indicate how ours might differ, in order to prevent endless sniping.

26

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.

27

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

28

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?

29

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Eonwe *
**

Do you a cite for a single poster saying this? I haven’t seen one.

Seems to me that it’s self-contained “Stop acting” - “and think”. The “and think” is the alternative to simply “acting”.

30

I do not disagree, and I certainly don’t want to just sit and swap allegations with you, with Milo, or with anyone else.

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.

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? :slight_smile:

31

I’m sorry, Stoid.

But when curious george posts diatribes about how all former U.S. Presidents are war criminals, 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.

32

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?

33

This is just what I meant when I said:

and:

and:

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.

<Mime Activist>
Free the silent Seven!!!
</Mime Activist>

34

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.

35

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.)

36

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.

37

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
38

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
39

tamerlane, please reread my post. If you still feel your response is appropriate, please read my post again.

40

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
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:

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.