I agree that it’s worth finding out why the terrorists hate the US. No doubt, they resent US policies which differ from theirs, such as:
[li]not executing Jews and gays, []religious freedom, []women’s rights,[]democracy, []legalized abortion []valuing human life[]racial integration failure to viciously murder all adversaries.[/li]:eek:
Seriously, the Taliban terrorists are about as immoral as any group in history. They rank right up there with the Nazis. It makes no sense to link this group’s dislike of the US with the moral failings of the US. The opposite seems more likely. IMHO the Taliban hate the US because of all that we have been doing that’s right.
(P.S. I acknowledge that this point has already been made by several other posters and I thank them.)
But december, you don’t understand. That point needs to be made over and over and over and over and over. Incessantly, until they get it.
And trust me, when the first casualty reports come in from whatever action we take, it’s going to get much worse.
I’m guessing more than a few of the people currently applauding the Bush administration for their current “prudent and measured course of action” are really people happy no projectiles are flying. That’s not going to be the case forever.
Makes you wonder what would have happened if Pearl Harbor happened now instead of when it did.
Maybe they should do a day collecting now-rotting bits of human flesh in the rubble pile in New York. Then resume telling us more about the failings of U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East.
Mandelstam, thank you. That’s all I can say. I was about to come back in this morning guns a’blazin’, and now I see you sitting peacefully with the objects of my intended wrath.
So I’ll have a cup of coffee instead, and think about how I’m going to calmly reply to Milo’s latest charge (now we’re apparently lying about our support for Bush, the same way we were lying about our sadness before).
Until then, please practice biting me, Milo. You fatuous ratbastard reactionary prick.
Milo, I’ve had my coffee now, so I’ll take back the “ratbastard” and “prick” parts of my previous epithet. (I’ll just put them over here. Real close to me. In case I need them for anything.)
If and when we send in troops and begin shooting projectiles (as I believe we must, very soon), I will be fully supportive of our armed forces and of our President, but I will be vocal in my opinions about the efficacy or wisdom of the actions themselves. I will also express my hopes and fears concerning our global strategy, to my congressman, to the senators of my state, on this message board and to friends and acquaintances. I will continue to criticize foolishness if and when I see it from our government (just as I did with the previous administration), and I will continue to resist the weakening of constitutional rights for the sake of “anti-terrorism”.
That’s what some of us patriots do, Milo; we voice our objections to those who would steer our country away from fairness, justice and liberty. We choose to say “my country 'tis of thee I sing” when we state our dissent, and we roll up our sleeves after we say “My country, right or wrong” so that we can fix the things we think are wrong.
If you don’t want to help with that, no problem. But don’t be getting in my way telling me I need to dig decomposing bits of my countrymen out of rubble to get my mind right. My mind —and my heart— are sufficiently American.
december:“They hate us because we’re GOOD”? Could that be the tagline taken from giant posters of the Taliban taken from the streets of Kabul?
Yeesh, centuries of democratic civilization undoubtedly has something over religious fundamentalism, but if december it would be hard to find the difference.
"I agree that it’s worth finding out why the terrorists hate the US. No doubt, they resent US policies which differ from theirs, such as:[li]not executing Jews and gays, []religious freedom, []women’s rights,[]democracy, []legalized abortion []valuing human life[]racial integration []failure to viciously murder all adversaries."*[/li]
Excellent, december. But pardon me if I reply duh, DUH, DUH and DUH. You have managed to demonstrate what I never doubted: that even a democratic society peopled by december clones would be preferable to a repressive, fundamentalist regime. Is there anything you’d like to tell me that I don’t know?
milo, this is a response to you too, as well as a follow-up to xenophon’s reply. I’m not sure where or from what either of you came up with the idea that anyone on the left was pro-Taliban. Feminists on the left have been the main Western denouncers of the Taliban for years now. Surely it cannot have escaped either of you in our previous interactions that most leftwing Dopers are committed to equality, democracy and social justice. Under the right circumstances I would fully support the use of force to help the Afghani people rid themselves of this scourge.
I have to say–before tempers get to high in this thread–what exactly are we arguing about here? No one is in favor of either terrorism or the Taliban; no one wishes to condone or justify the events of September 11; no one is suggesting that the US and its allies make no response. Our differences relate to the historical circumstances that led to this critical moment, and what they imply for future actions. I think when xenophon started this thread he did so because he was ready to debate the latter in good faith, but tired of absurd implications of the left’s anti-patriotism, lack of sympathy, pro-terrorism and now (!!!) pro-fundamentalism.
By this comment, I take it to mean that you think that people who want to examine our Middle East Policy (or have pacifist leanings) just aren’t sensitive enough? That they don’t get it? That their positions are based on such a flimsy foundation that spending a day amidst death and destruction will ‘cure’ them?
I heard a widow of one of the Windows on the World victims saying some of the same things people in this thread have said, about not wanting blind retaliation, etc etc etc. So has she not been touched enough by the tragedy to feel the true, the patriotic, the legitimate and “correct” variety of outrage that you’re arguing for?
You seem to be saying that there’s only one correct way for us to feel about the national response to this tragedy, and that those who haven’t chosen it have something wrong with them. I support your right to feel differently than me, but I resent an implication that others don’t get it, don’t care enough about the deaths of 6,000 people, haven’t sifted rotting thumbs and legs through their hands enough, or whatever it is you’re trying to say.
Forgive me if by extending your argument I’ve put words in your mouth, but I hope you can see how your suggestion that spending a day picking up up body parts would “help” some people’s attitudes might lead me down this path.
Allow me to say, BULLSHIT. I remember your presence in my thread, where your attacks were based on distorting my desire to reconcile the dispute over how force should be used. You had JACK SHIT to add to that; instead you came in with commentaries ranging from asinine to off-topic.
No pity party here.
Yep, here you go, criticizing people by misconstruing many of their arguments and then, viola!, micharactierizeng their arguments. Again and again. “Fighting ignorance” was not replaced by “we don’t need to understand nuthin’” you fuckwad. It was replaced by, “Right now, we know all we need to know.” This is not the same thing. Your desire to make it so WILL NOT HELP any cause you wish to promote.
[/quote]
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.
[/quote]
Ha, false patriotism? Is that like, I can’t be a hippy because I said that not ruling out nuclear weapons was a strong diplomatic maneuver (someone did tell me that, BTW).
xen, I am seriously not going to flame you in this sentence, but can I see a citation where you were accused of doing such a thing?
Whoop-de-do.
Then I’m sorry its come to that.
Perhaps some day, when you are ready, you will read my thread again and realize that I wasn’t calling anyone anti-patriotic. Perhaps you will read scylla’s nuke thread again and note that his response to my first post (don’t use nukes) was “good idea, I like that reasoning.”
You might look in Zenster’s thread, where posters like me present a calmer, more rational view of his opinions which are very emotionally charged. He repeatedly thanks me for seeing through his emotions. Does anyone care to do that? Hell no, not when they can get just as riled up as he is and then yell at him for it.
I will ask you one, more, simple, time. Please demonstrate, here, in IMHO, in GD, or in GQ (if it is so obviously true) that American actions were responsible for the creation of terrorism. You can’t, because-- you say-- that isn’t what you are saying. “Oh, I only feel that we create anti-US sentiment in the Middle East and around the world with our policies.” Well, I don’t give a FUCK about that right now, I’m concerned about terrorists. “Yes, but you have to understand that they have some very strong anti-US sentiment.” So we did make them? “No, we created the climate that made them.” We did? We created a lack of free press? We created the warfare in the middle east that was somehow present before we got there? What exactly did we create, again?
Apart from one lone, regrettable comment to olentzero about sympathizing with terrorists I have not accused anyone of it (and I did, after all, retract it). I have accused them of trying to blame america by looking towards america’s actions as indicative of anti-american sentiment which is shown to foster terrorism. My fucking GOD it isn’t like you are hiding some agenda!
So, you tell me. What causes terrorism. You say we aren’t resonsible for it, and yet you want us to examine our foriegn policy in light of the terroist attack. Well, since you are soooooo very keen on calling us ignorant Jack Chicks, go ahead and be the SDMB martyr, xen. Show me, the dumb ignorant fundamentalist violent reactionary SDMB poster what causes terrorism. Specifically, explain why you feel the US isn’t to blame since you are so very keen to point out you are not saying that.
Until then, I take the opinion you offered me in my thread: I’m tired of dealing with you. Be sure to put away your toys when you are done pouting.
xeno - Why do you assume my every comment is directed at you?
**
So, apparently, you do believe some level of military action is going to be justified here. Do you honestly think that everybody who shares most of your viewpoints does?
You can believe whatever you want to believe, say whatever you want to say, and criticize whatever you want to criticize. If you criticize military action because it is military action, however, I would call that misguided. And that would mean diddily shit to you. So calm down and drink your coffee.
**
And, if fixing things includes eradicating all terrorists everywhere that can do a Sept. 11 to us, and want to, we’re right on the same page. The difference perhaps being, I put less restrictions on the actions undertaken to do that, in the interests of American national security and expediency.
**
And again, I don’t see you using Sept. 11 to do nothing but bitch about how bad America is. So that comment wasn’t directed at you. (Same goes for you, Cranky)
I’ll admit to absolute astonishment that anyone could not be really, really angry about what happened. And not be really, really resolved to eliminate everyone responsible for it. First and foremost. Before everything else.
xeno keeps saying that’s the way everybody on this message board feels. So … OK, then.
I guess I got in touch with my inner Buddha. Believe me, I don’t know where this comes from. I can’t explain why I feel this way. For now, I just feel like retribution may not be the only answer, even though it’s the one that came up first for so many (myself included). I know it’s hard to justify. I can’t put it into words. But there is something in me that says I have to think more about alternatives. The fact that I can’t think of any yet, to me, signals that I’ve just had too little exposure to concepts of peace and forgiveness on a broad scale. We’ve got a kick-ass military and a long proud of history of using it, so naturally I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about other paradigms. Heck, I’m reading a Michael Shaara book right now about us kicking ass in Mexico, and I’m eating it up.
If it comes to a wide-scale deployment of American soldiers, I will do my part and help adopt a platoon like I did for Kosovo. I will support our people doing what they are told to do. I will not march or denounce or any of that crap.
I’m just not ready, yet, right now, to shut off consideration of other options. Even though, I am embarrassed to admit, I am not sure what those are yet. I can’t tell you what I have in mind, even though you certainly have a right to wonder and to ask. It’s an odd spot to be in, but it what my heart tells me is right. (gag, I can’t believe I wrote that last part. Cue the violins)
That’s my personal treatise that no one even really asked for.
Exactly. If there’s a group of people committed to killing my family, friends, and countymen (country-persons?), then I want my government to stop them by whatever means necessary, even if it means killing them all.
dropzone’s argument boils down to the idea that killing them all is unthinkable, so it’s out of the question. Sorry, but real world porblems sometimes require “unthinkable” actions.
S/he then uses wishful thinking to imagine an alternative. There’s no evidence that the alternative is either workable or effective. E.g., dropzone’s strategy might require the overthrow the governments of Iran, Iraq, Libaya and the Palistinian Authority.
In reality, it’s not true that every Arab holds that extremest philosophy. We know this because the great majority of them aren’t attacking us. So, dropzone’s conundrum was contrived right from the start.
erislover: I remember my presence in your self-congratulatory little thread also. You’re a liar. No, wait, you’re a FUCKIN’ LIAR. My objection to your OP was your characterization of the discussions in two specific threads as a fight between those advocating tough but “reasonable” action and unnamed others viciously attacking those noble gentlemen for the mere suggestion that we use force. That was bullshit, I told you it was bullshit, and you then showed your inability to argue honestly. FUCK YOU. When people post straightout fucking statements like “ignorance is best” and “is there a nuclear solution?” in their thread titles, I’m not gonna give 'em two pages to somewhat modify their stance to make themselves seem more reasonable. They said what they said. When Zenster says “decimate the population of Afghanistan” I will not take your “more reasonable” restatement of his idiotic assertions as a proxy. He said what he said.
You want my views on what causes terrorism? Sure thing, kid; it’s hopelessness, anger and the ability of human beings to label other human beings so that they don’t have to consider them human. It’s the proclivity of people to talk about “the enemy” in terms of “opposing values”, to think that there are “fundamental differences” that make dialogue “impossible”, to depersonalize opponents so that they can lump all who oppose into neat categories. It’s easier to kill a category than to kill humans.
Milosarrian: Speaking of weaseling out, you don’t seem to have the courage of your convictions to stand by what you say, do you? You and Jodi must be cut from the same cloth, except that your techniques are bit different. Where she merely cheerleads for the side which condemns anyone who calls for understanding (“You’re a fine line away from being lying coldhearted terrorist symps, but of course I’d never call you that.”), you thump your chest and imply in general terms that anyone who thinks we’ve ever been wrong in our foreign policy must not have America’s interests at heart. But then you say “Ah, but that wasn’t directed at you.”
Bullshit. The problem is, you want to make that argument, but you don’t wanna own it. You want to vent your resentment at a very few people who actually have made arguments blaming America, but you don’t want to limit it to specific posters. You wanna be able to talk about “some people posting here”, and you want to do it in a thread where no one has made empty anti-American statements, but you don’t want us to take offense. Well I do. If you want to argue with terrorists, go fucking find some. There aren’t any of 'em in this thread.
So you DO advocate “killing them all” to solve this problem?
So we shouldn’t try it. We should only do what YOU think we should do, regardless of how workable or effective it is. :rolleyes:
Well, DUH! It was contrived to show how Shayna’s statement as to the impossibility of changing these people as well as her implication that, as this is the “state religion of the Gulf States,” the very people that you and I know “aren’t attacking us” are all the enemy. They aren’t the enemy. A tiny minority is. Prudent actions to remove them without earning more enmity from the “good” ones, thus reducing the chance of our actions causing the creation of more people who hate us, is what I want. Understanding the enemy as well as our friends is vital to controlling them effectively.
A friend of mine told me about another widow that she saw who was saying very similar things, specifically on behalf of her dead husband. She was saying that he was a philospher and a teacher, and he would never, ever want innocent lives taken in his name.
Of course, what would she know? She probably hasn’t seen his mutilated body…once she does I’m sure she’ll see it clearly, the way Milo does. :rolleyes:
Actually, no, I don’t. Because the larger “victim” of this attack was the United States. It – the political entity – was clearly the target, unless you would argue that the terrorists desired to kill these specific 7000 people? And it was, in the larger sense, the victim. As an American, I knew none of the individuals killed, but I nonetheless feel victimized by the attack because it was an attack on my country. The United States was the target of the attack, and the United State sustained a deep wound through the loss of some 6500 of its citizens. It was and is the victim of the attack, and expecting it, in the immediate wake of the attack, to reexamine why it was attacked can look an awful lot like blaming the victim.
Frankly, I’m a little suprised to find anyone even willing to argue that the United States was not a victim of the attack.
If some people were about to murder my daughter and the only way I could stop them was to kill them, I would do so. In fact, I’d do the same if they were about to murder dropzone. Of course, one would hope that the murder could be averted some other way, but there might be circumstances where there was no other workable way.
dropzone, I gather that your recommendation is that the US stop supporting Isreal in hopes that terrorists will then stop attacking us. Is my understanding correct?
[quote]
3… They aren’t the enemy. A tiny minority is. Prudent actions to remove them without earning more enmity from the “good” ones, thus reducing the chance of our actions causing the creation of more people who hate us, is what I want. /QUOTE]Sounds good to me. I believe this is also Bush’s announced policy.
Heavens, NO! I support the existence of Israel. I support our continuing aid to Israel. It has been a good ally. I love Israel and the Israeli people of all faiths.
What I recommend is that Secretary Powell do EXACTLY what it seems he’s doing and kick Sharon’s and Arafat’s asses back to the negotiating table and use the political, financial, and security leverage we have with both to, um, strongly encourage* them to come to a workable compromise. By eliminating Palestine as a thorn in the side of the Moslem world we take the wind from the terrorists’ sails, reducing recruitment and support. This reduces terrorism in Israel as well as the rest of the world as we’re left with a few psychos with nowhere to go.
I’d’ve LOVED to have been a fly on Powell’s wall the past week, watching him squirming to keep his temper as he cajoled those two to start talking again. You DON’T piss that guy off! And yes, I’m a liberal Democrat who likes and respects Colin Powell and is real pleased to have him as secretary of state.
I’m sure there is a responce on the way from those you directed this at, but I’m interested - what , exactly, is your stance? I mean, this thread, and others, have gone around and around, everything from complete destruction of entire countries to “give paece a chance” has been brought up. We know it will be something in between, but none of us can know exactly what our responce will be.
Can you please explain what it is you are after, with your greater understanding of our policies’ effects? What do you believe our Government is doing that is wrong RIGHT NOW? I know they may have done things in the past you don’t agree with (surprise! we all disagree with some policies), but 1) that does not make it wrong and 2) that does not mean we are going to go back and change it all now.
So, today, after we have seen so many people (who have had nothing to do with those policies) killed, you wish to start examining the policies. TO what end? And why do you assume no one ever examined them before? Of course you don’t, you are smarter than that, you know that as much as you may disagree, the things we have done had been thoaght about, and will be, by hundreds of people. Not that we (as the public) give politicians a free pass, but at a time when we are so brutally attacked to start pointing fingers and saying “see, see what we did” is not the way to go.
**
Well, actually, I think that anyone who thinks we’ve ever been wrong in our foreign policy, and makes that their primary focus while we still have thousands of dead American citizens in a pile of rubble from an act of war on American soil unprecedented in U.S. history, needs to seriously evaluate their priorities.
And speaking of lacking courage, let’s talk about those people who mention those foreign policy failings in discussions about the Sept. 11 massacre … but then want to make it clear that they are not attaching causality from one to the other.
Then start a thread about the foreign policy failings of the U.S. And shut the fuck up about them while we go about the business of exterminating those who declared war on us.
Or at least quit lying.
P.S. Yeah. Blind retaliation. That’s what I’ve been clamoring for. :rolleyes:
Milo, you never cease to amaze me with what a one-track-minded blockhead you are. Good Lord, you are are a dullard, and a mean-spirited one, at that. I would suggest you join the military to have a chance to fulfill your psychotic fantasies except I LIKE the military and how it’s handling the situation. The depth of your ignorance makes mine seem shallow. Please go hang out at the corner bar with the other loudmouthed ignoramuses and leave the SDMB for people who try to think now and then.