Call my condemnation tepid ONE MORE TIME...

The BBQ Pit
101

I consider this to be wishful thinking. When Arafat turned down the last offer, which gave him virtually everything he had asked for, he proved that he is unwilling or unable to negotiate a workable compromise.

Powell doesn’t have to kick Arafat’s ass to get him to the negotiating table. Arafat loves to negotiate with Israel. Every agreement has resulted in Israel giving something up and getting nothing in return. Arafat will play this game forever.

BTW IIRC the US gives aid of over $1 billion per year to the Palestinians, and Arafat can take as much as he wants for himself. He’s living like a king. He must love the current status. OTOH if he signed a real agreement with Israel, he’d likely be assassinated, as Sadat was. From Arafat’s POV this is a no-brainer.

102

Yes, and I think it is simplistic, idiotic, stupid, and … Well, you get the idea. Hell, I’ll even quote from it to try to explain why it is so idiotic:

The pacifists are pro-terrorist?!? You are either with us or against us? What kind of fucking 2nd grade logic is this? Hell, if my nephew in second grade said something this simplistic, I would be disappointed in him.

Here, he takes a group that is advocating a different way of solving our problems…a way, by the way, that almost every parent has explained to their kid before…and he says that makes them “pro-terrorist”! How fucking warped is that? Does he have no conception that there are different ways to resolve issues? Now, I personally do not believe that pacifism works in all situations…certainly a conventional attack by a militarized country like in WW II is a prime example. And, I personally am not completely against any sort of military response even in this more complicated case…In fact, I am sort of torn on the details of what we should do. But, for the love of God, to characterize people who are against any such response as “pro-terrorist” and “evil” is really warped!

Do any of you who are so calmly and rationally arguing for the hunting down and exterminating of all the terrorists (and at least some of the groups /regimes that support them) want to explain how this can practically be done and what you plan to do about the fact that doing this will likely only create more recruits to replace them?

I don’t think it is right to claim that the people advocating pacifism are just trying to claim the moral high ground. There is a real argument to be made that a less militaristic solution will actually result in a more practical way of achieving our aims…assuming that our aims are to protect our citizens and the civilized world at large from future terrorist attacks…and not simply to extract revenge.

By the way, another warped part of his logic is his claim equating the pacifists and the terrorists because both wish for America not to fight. That is, IMHO, an incredibly naive reading of the situation! Do people honestly believe that the terrorists want the U.S. to do nothing? Do they honestly think that the terrorists didn’t do this in order to try to provoke a response, and the sort of backlash such a response might cause in parts of the Muslim world particularly if the response looked in any way indiscriminate? If anything the correct logic is more like, “The terrorists hoped to provoke a response; the militarists want to provide such a response.”

[BTW, in the interests of not being as black-and-white as that Michael Kelly fool, I will point out that my personal opinion doesn’t go this far…or at least it depends on your definition of “militarist”. I don’t think those advocating the very strategic and discriminating use of military force are necessarily playing into the terrorists hands. Where exactly the line gets drawn is something I am personally struggling with at the moment.]

103

By the way, I think that Kelly article gets at exactly the type of thing that xeno is complaining about (or at least, a closely related aspect of what he was talking about): people essentially having their patriotism questioned because they are being insufficiently sympathetic to a military response.

I’m not going to question the patriotism of people who are advocating policies that I believe may result in a situation that will be a terrorist-recruiting bonanza for bin Laden or whoever replaces him. I will question their wisdom and judgement though.

104

John,

This is a statement that I think warrants more discussion, but not here, so I started a new thread about it:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=89863

105

Well, let’s look at this in a certain perspective. We have three potential factions here. One is the terrorists who want to destroy America, or at least have said as much. The second is the portion of America that wants to do something about it using force in some form or another. The third would be the strict pacifist who does not, in any way, advocate force.

We know the terrorists’ actions: kill Americans and American allies. I think it is safe to assume this is going to occur regardless of our actions, short of closing our borders and cutting off all ties with the rest of the world (and I hope you can see that is not a viable choice).

We know that if we do not destroy existing terrorists who support such action as named above, they can carry out their actions.

If pacifists prevent that action, the terrorists are free to do their thing.

Sure, it is a simple argument, but I wouldn’t consider it absurd just for that. I consider a simple pragmatic argument based on projected results.

I dont like that he equates pacifists with terrorists for that. That doesn’t change the solidity of the argument. I don’t like that he seems to frown upon other possible actions. That doesn’t change the validity of his argument.

Perhaps I am missing something?

106

Well, I think you are missing a couple of things:

(1) Being a pacifist doesn’t mean you don’t believe the terrorists ought to be brought to justice. Admittedly that may be hard to do practically for some of them without any use of the military (which is one reason why I wouldn’t personally put myself in the pacifist camp in the strict sense of the word).

(2) As I have pointed out, it is far from clear how going after the terrorists in the ways proposed by some (many?) would prevent them, even those specific people, from carrying out future terrorist actions (unless we are way more successful than I think is realistically possible). It is even further from clear how it would prevent similar actions from being performed by others of their ilk. In fact, it seems rather likely that it might help recruit people in this regard.

107

I had said: "…I hope you can see that there is not a very fine line–but, rather, a thick brick wall about a mile wide–between examining the US government policies that contribute to anti-American hostility and “blaming” innocent New Yorkers for their own deaths."

Jodi: *"Actually, no, I don’t. Because the larger “victim” of this attack was the United States.
…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."*

Well actually, if you re-read what I said above you’ll see that I wasn’t arguing any such thing. I was pointing out a difference so vivid that I’m astounded by the need to repeat it to someone as obviously intelligent as you are.

Yes, as Americans, you and I are “victims” of an attack on our country. And, if you like George Bush’s take on the matter “freedom” itself was the victim of this attack; or, a la Tony Blair, “civilization” was the victim in question. But it hardly needs saying that neither “civilization,” nor the “political entity of the United States,” nor you, nor I, have been victimized in the way that those who lost their lives, their loved ones and their livelihoods have been victimized.

In the church next to where my son goes to school there’s a sign now that says, “God Bless America and God Bless the Victims.” I ask you: if you walked by would you task the pastor of the church with your surprise as to his readiness to “argue that the United States was not a victim of the attack”? Or would you, as I suspect, recognize his reasons for drawing a basic distinction between those who have suffered with their lives and their loved ones, and the rest of us who have simply to deal with the aftermath?

And if you can see this difference, as surely you can, can you not also see further? Can, you not, for example, see that to examine the political history of “a political entity” in light of a brutal and–yes indeed–a politicized assault on its citizenry cannot in any meaningful sense be likened to “blaming the victim”? Or are you so deeply invested in what you yourself have called mental masturbation that you will resort to any sophistry, no matter how crass, rather than pause for a moment and admit that you’re too stubborn even to say as little a thing as, “I see your point. I hadn’t thought of it that way.”

108

I have no problem criticizing US foreign policy in the middle and far east that may or may not have materially contributed to the current situation, because, no matter what the US did, the terrorists are 100% morally responsible for the effects of the attack.

I don’t care if US Marines skullfucked the terrorist’s wives, daughters, sisters and mothers to death, right in front of them. The terrorists decided to cause many deaths, they planned how to do it, and they executed that plan, with wilfull participation and full volition the entire way. They are fully and completely responsible for the results, and any response by the US that would be justified if the attack was completely unprovoked, if America were absolutely innocent of any contribution, would still be justified if Dubya had parachuted into Mecca to take a wet dump on the Ka’ba.

The money the terrorists raised could have been spent on food and medicine. They time and energy they put towards killing 6,000 people could have been used to figure out how to make Afghanistan self-sufficient without massive opium exports. They are completely guilty, and I would love to know that, in Hell, they’re "being hollowed out and used as prophylactics by thorn-cocked Gulbuth The Rampant"

Hope that wasn’t too tepid for Milo and Jodi.

That said, understanding the terrorists and the effect of American foreign policy on their cause is necessary as a practical matter, for reducing the probability of future attacks, and for conceiving of a successful strategy to defeat them.

Saying that we shouldn’t change anything is bullshit. We’ve already radically overhauled airport security, and no one is saying that that’s an admission of guilt on our part. It’s also bullshit to say that we should avoid the appearance of “blaming the victim” by criticizing US foreign policy. If you can acknowledge that it’s an appearance, then you can acknowledge that someone being critical is not claiming that the US is somehow at fault.

109

dropzone - Eat shit.

jshore - Actually, you picked an excerpt from the Kelly column that I totally disagree with. I don’t believe that the terrorists don’t want us to fight. I think they do want us to fight. Because they think that will start a jihad that all of Islam will take up.

Their hope, however, should not deter us from eradicating a group of people who’ve shown an ability and willingness to kill thousands of us on our own soil.

**
You’re going to be equivocal about Sept. 11 now? This I gotta see.

We’re not talkig about Islam, we’re talking about the terrorists that did it. Country A can hate the U.S. to its little black hearts’ desire, but if they actively hamper our efforts to get the perpetrators of Sept. 11, yeah - they are either with us or against us.

Again I note that Kelly is referring in his column to people who advocate taking no military action - and essentially nothing else. At least that’s the way I read it. Which leads me to ask you regarding this:

**
“No war!” isn’t advocating the solving of any problems. It’s advocating not using our military.

**
What do you mean, how can it be done? The Allies beat two of the most powerful militaries on the planet at once in the 1940s. The law enforcement and intelligence components seem to be making a lot of progress already, all around the world.

**
Who the fuck is distorting whose argument here? What is the Bush administration doing now? Have I ever advocated “bombing them all back to the stone age?”

I watch Donald Rumsfeld (aka The Evil Cold Warrior Bloodthirsty Bastard) on television every day, spelling out how this will be a complex, multi-faceted approach unlike any other. He says military action will not be done for military action’s sake, but only if it will accomplish a goal. Raining missiles on the rubble that is Afghanistan won’t accomplish a goal, so it ain’t going to happen.

The fact that not one shot has been fired in about three weeks leads me to believe he’s not lying.

**
I agree. See above.

110

milo: “What do you mean, how can it be done? The Allies beat two of the most powerful militaries on the planet at once in the 1940s.”

Yes, Milossarian, and lest it be forgotten more than 70 million people died over the course of that war.

I’m all for “eradicating” those directly responsible for these attacks by any one of several rational and just means. But, as jshore suggests, if in the process of doing that we inadvertently trigger either greater terrorist threat and/or fullscale war with thousands of deaths then we will have only succeeded in adding fuel to the fire.

There are, IIRC, 160 million people living in the vulnerable areas in question. 35,0000 American soldiers died even in the Korean War–and at that time terrorist reprisals against US civilians was not a factor. Putting entirely aside the question of which side is to blame, have you noticed that the Israeli policy of fighting terrorism with hardass military reprisals has done nothing to resolve the problem or to lessen the threat of terrorism? These are the kinds of things I think about when I, like jshore, struggle to get my head round this problem.

Yes, I too have noticed that erstwhile hawks are now talking cautiously. That they are doing so thus far suggests, to their credit, that they have brains as well as brawn. It also suggests that the American people and its allies are being heard. I was one of thousands of people all over the world to send e-mail petitions to President Bush, the UN Secretary General, my senators and representatives. (The White House has a lovely auto-reply, thank you very much :wink: ). Last week there were 200 peace rallies on US campuses and doubtless there will be more. According to this link, “An international Gallup poll released Sep. 21 found that 46 percent of Americans were either undecided or opposed to military action. In 29 of 30 other countries polled (Israel being the exception), the public was opposed to military action, preferring extradition and legal remedies. Margins against war were in the 80-90 percent range in Europe and Latin America. People have their doubts, abroad and at home.”

As jshore has suggested, the number of people so pacifist that they want no response whatsoever–not even the multilateral criminal response advocated by some pacificist intellectuals–is small indeed. Personally, I think that absolute pacificism under any circumstances is untenable and therefore unpragmatic. But I no more doubt the “patriotism” of those few who advocate it than I doubt the “patriotism” of the few idiots who are advocating nuclear war or a rush to World War III.

You write: "“No war!” isn’t advocating the solving of any problems. It’s advocating not using our military.

I am confused by this statement. You seem to imply that it would impossible, even in theory, to solve prpoblems without using the military. In the Susan Sontag thread and elsewhere, I’ve posted an example of someone advocating a criminal rather than military approach to “eradicating” those immediately concerned. This would entail “a multilateral campaign” to pursue terrorists’ capture but not “war” in the military sense. The follow-up to this would be diplomatic action involving anti-fundamentalist and anti-terrorist Muslims in the area and working through international institutions such as the UN.

Now you may or you may not think that this is a workable approach. But whether you do or not, can you at least admit that to question the patriotism of the person who believes it–to suggest that that person isn’t with you and is therefore against you in some crude polarized fashion–just doesn’t make sense?

111

Where I think a purely law-enforcement approach will fall short is if we determine that governments have their fingerprints on this atrocity.

With the evidence we have been allowed to know, it appears that the Taliban* and Iraq can expect a military reprisal.

Despite Americans’ - myself included - amazing ability to move on and get over anything, I try to keep reminding myself that Sept. 11 was about five times as terrible as Pearl Harbor. If any governments are culpable in this, they are just as much a target for U.S. wrath as Japan was after Dec. 7, 1941. It’s not only appropriate, it’s necessary. What message does it send to them if we don’t respond in a major way? (Again keeping in mind that this is all contingent upon incontrovertible proof of their complicity.)

It was a war to preserve our national security that we undertook against Japan in 1941, the same as it is now.

Regarding terrorism cells in other countries without a witting government connection, I concur, intelligence, law-enforcment and maybe small, special ops forces will do the job (and appear to be doing so already). I just hope all nations involved can maintain their diligence.

You’re right. We lost so many lives defeating the Germans and the Japanese in WWII. I don’t think we would have to worry about such a toll again, because virtually all governments are on board with us in this fight. And it’s not a matter of defeating large armies, as it has been in the past.

Do you think it is no less necessary to defeat the forces against us now, even if there is a terrible cost again? The difference between WWII and now is, back then, we were fighting an enemy that, even after Pearl Harbor, did not pose a particularly credible threat to the American homeland. This one will keep picking us off - by the hundreds, thousands, and who knows - on our own soil.

[sub]*The more I know about these sick excuses for human beings, the more eager I am for the U.S. military to turn them into a quirky little page in world history. Did you happen to see the CNN report of the videos smuggled out of Afghanistan by RAWA - the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan? They face the penalty of death if they are caught even filming some of the stuff they videotaped. One scene showed the women secretly teaching little girls how to read, punishable by severe beatings and even stoning under Taliban rule.[/sub]

112

I would like to direct everyone here for a moment.

Thank you. :slight_smile:

113

MANDELSTAM –

First of all, do not bother to praise my intelligence on the one hand and accuse me in engaging in sophistry on the other. Any compliment offered under such circumstances is worthless, as you surely know, so do me the favor of omitting the carrot if what you truly intend is to apply the stick.

Let me break this down in to very small words, since it appears that you have missed it:

  1. The United States was a victim of this attack. You have admitted this.

  2. To look at the United States foreign policy “errors” in the immediate wake of the attack – specifically, to look at “errors” in foreign policy in areas important to the hijackers – looks very much like “blaming the victim” – the United States – for the attack.

The rest of your post is totally irrelevant. You do not have to waste your time pointing out that the United States was not the only victim of the attack, or that it was not the same kind of victim as every individual victim, or that it suffers victimhood in the same way as the other victims, since I quite obviously never said anything of the kind.

If that “political entity” is a victim of the attack – as you have admitted it is – then to examine what that “political entity” has done in the past to prompt such anger that it would be attacked does look an awful lot like blaming the victim – regardless of whether it is or it isn’t. As I have said (approaching a million times, at this point), that is a very, very fine line. I understand that you do not think it is blaming the victim, but then if you read carefully, you will note that I never said it was. I said it could very easily look like it, which might well explain why people observing such searching for bad behavior might find such an exercise to be a “tepid” response to the attack.

So I would appreciate it if you could point out to me my “crass sophistry” in light of the following:

  1. I see that historical examination of past foreign policy need not be an actual excercise in blaming the victim (the United States) for the attack.

  2. I also see that it could very easily appear to be exactly that – a point that seems to me to be so self-evident that I’m amazing I’ve had to repeat about 900 times.

  3. For the above reason, I think it is a bad idea to engage in such soul-searching in the immediate wake of the attack – it sets up an apparent cause and effect of “bomb U.S. = U.S. reexamines foreign policy” that I, personally, think is a bad idea.

I have never insisted that everyone agree with my point of view; I have merely insisted on claiming it as my own and, in the absence of what I consider to be any persuasive argument to the contrary, declining to change it. You are free to construe this is refusing to even see a conflicting point of view – even though it clearly is not – and you are of course free to use insulting language to do so. I’m afraid that will not make me agree with you.

114

So what?

So what if it looks like blaming the victim? Read my post above: am I blaming the victim? Lots of people here have said they’re not blaming the victim, but they’re still critical of US foreign policy.

You’re not accusing people of blaming the victim, you’re accusing them of creating the appearance of blaming the victim. If you can tell the difference, then you can tell that they’re not, in fact, blaming the victim, and should be able to argue accordingly.

I hadn’t suspected you, Jodi, of being so dogmatic.

115

Jodi, the world is full of intelligent sophists and some of them are crass. What was sophistical in your last post was the pretense that I had “argued” that the United States wasn’t, in some abstract sense, a “victim” of the attack when I had “argued” no such thing. What was crass was your unwillingness to acknowledge the legitimacy of the distinction between abstract entities (the United States, freedom, civilization), and real-life sufferers (those who lost lives, loved ones and livelihoods).

In your present post you have backed off from your pretense and you have recognized the legitimacy of the distinction. The good news is that your present post is neither sophistical nor crass. The bad news is that it is self-contradictory.

On the one hand you imply that you do not yourself believe in the legitimacy of the “blame the victim” argument but that you simply want to impress upon others, especially xenophon, the possibility of such an argument. You write, “I never said it was [blaming the victim]… I said it could very easily look like it…”

Fair enough. I, for example, do not believe that those who criticize the past policies of the US, or who advocate non-violent solutions to this problem are unpatriotic. But I recognize that, for some, criticism and dissent “could very easily look like” unpatriotic conduct.

But then you write, “For the above reason, I think it is a bad idea to engage in such soul-searching in the immediate wake of the attack – it sets up an apparent cause and effect of “bomb U.S. = U.S. reexamines foreign policy” that I, personally, think is a bad idea."”

Here you imply that the mere appearance of a victim-blaming effect is somehow tied to the creation of yet another appearance: a message that terrorism will spur self-examination on the part of the US. But for all the tortuousness of your position, you are in essence saying that you buy into the blaming the victim interpretation which for you, for all its “appearance,” is sufficiently operative to constitute what you “personally, think is a bad idea.”

Okay, I think I’ve gotten to the bottom of your position. You fear the appearance of caving in to terrorist demands and somehow the appearance of a “blame the victim” scenario reinforces that fear for you.

Fair enough.

What I ask you now to consider is how long you think we have to wait before the US can safely include self-examination as part of its defense against terrorism. Because if you’ve been paying attention to other arguments and to the links being circulated hereabouts, you’re already well aware that many people fear that a straightforward military approach that doesn’t involve reformed foreign policy 1) won’t work and 2) could seriously aggravate matters.

What I further ask of you is if you still think it is necessary to defend–even by way of logical exercise–those who criticize the self-examination approach as being “tepid”, unpatriotic, or what have you. That is, now that you have fully explained your analysis of the problem, are you yourself ready to acknowledge that, in spite of your disagreement, you do not personally think that people who feel it is time to examine US policies are a) less seriously horrified by the attacks than you are and/or b) less sincerely engaged in trying to alleviate the problem than you are.

milo, I agree that if evidence emerges that governments are involved, then we’re in a different ballgame. For the present moment at least, the difference between us is mainly rhetorical. And the sight of you citing RAWA in the BBQ Pit is so heartwarming for me that I almost want to kiss you ;).