I’ll grant you that I’ve not read the full text of either Alwaleeds or Giulianis statements, but the excerpts in the article linked didn’t seem (to me) to suggest that Alwaleed was foisting the blame, as it were, on us.
However, that is not the point I wish to discuss.
The question I have is with regard to Giulianis response, quoted above. It seems to me that he is saying “The attacks on America can not be justified by American alliances. However, attacks on Palestinians and their allies are just because our ‘liberal democracy’ form of government is better, and we don’t like the way you do things.” But I have to admit, I’ve had some trouble in trying to parse that last statement quoted in a meaningful way. What does “…people being engaged in a moral equivalency in not understanding…” actually mean? What is equivalent to what? I really don’t understand what he’s trying to say here.
In short, it reads like blatant hypocrisy to me, but maybe I’m reading too much into it without having seen the full transcript of either statement.
I think you misundrstood Giuliani. He was denouncing the kind of facile moral equivalency of the kind exhibited by many SDMB posters: “The US is just as bad as the Taliban regime, so not only do we have no business going to war with them, the WTC attack was justified in part by America’s support of Israel.”
Giuliani’s point is that it does not matter WHY the terorists did what they did, it does not matter if the complaints of American troops being stationed in Saudi and an American blind eye to Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians have any merit. Nothing, NOTHING can justify the WTC/Pentagon tragedies. The prince’s comments about America rethinking its Palestinian policy may have some merit, but linking that to the WTC tragedy is disgusting, IMHO.
Absolutely I think he did the right thing by refusing the money. In fact, he made the same point I (and many others) have tried to make repeatedly here – that there is no way to excuse or justify the attack by citing perceived failings in U.S. foreign policy, and that it is totally inappropriate to try do so.
I don’t think Alwaleed was excusing or justifying the attack. Even the vilest of actions (and I think we all agree this was one) has a cause, and it couldn’t hurt to find the cause.
In general, just because you are looking for a cause, that does mean the cause is a valid justification for the action.
Don’t confuse “cause” and “justification”. They are not the same thing.
I think that too much of what we’ve heard from countries like Saudi Arabia was by way of justification, not to be confused with searching for cause. And even searching for cause in the days and weeks after the attack was inappropriate, down right distasteful in many cases.
The phrase “America’s Failed Foreigh Policy” was heard all over the airwaves in the days following the attacks, and that was disgusting. Plenty of debates on that topic already, so I don’t want to start another. But the statements people make like the one from Alwaleed could not be timed any worse. He needs to watch his language, not us.
I think this is precisely the point at which th valid distinction between “cause” and “justification” becomes a distinction without a difference – when the man hands a check over with one hand while issuing a press release with the other urging the examination of American policies in Israel and Palestine.
The individual hooking the two together was him, not us, so it seems to me unreasonable to expect Guiliani or anyone else to respect a distinction the “donor” himself does not.
I tried to see the other side of this, because I try to look beyond the patently obvious, i.e. “the prince was looking to go home and tell the faithful that he scattered some alms before the beggarly Americans and then gave them a dose of what-for.” That’s what it looked like, so I tried to see beyond it.
Maybe, just maybe, I thought, the prince was doing two things that were unrelated in his mind. One, if you’re going to a disaster scene and you’re a prince you give a lot of money, because that’s what princes do. Two, be sure to do something that will allow you to say to the folks at home that you did your bit to correct the unwise Americans. Maybe, I thought, I should not look for malice where clumsiness will do. Maybe he didn’t know that we’d see the donation as his buying of a soapbox.
Nope, I then told myself. I just don’t buy it. The prince was given a Western education in addtion to that of his own country, and he would have known how we’d react. Even if he didn’t, he has PR people for that sort of thing.
I am happy to state, however, that the ten million dollars did more good by being refused than it ever would have done by being accepted.
I have an interesting hypothetical for you. Suppose democracy activists blow up a dam in China, killing 10,000 people. There is an outpouring of grief from around the world. President Bush offers to aid the relief effort on behalf of the people of the United States.
Politicians, journalists, business people, posters to the SDMB… all rightly outraged that someone would do such a thing, wringing their hands, denouncing terrorism and calling for justice. Maybe one or two of these people, in the midst of saying how terrorism is the scourge of humanity, blah blah blah, makes a remark along the lines of “…and it’s just a shame, that it took a terrible tragedy like this to provide the impetus for China to address their atrocious human rights record. Of course I’m not saying that they share as much responsibility as the terrorists who did this, but y’know…”
Once this person was roundly skewered in the Chinese press, maybe some of the hand-wringers ask themselves what they really think of these comments. How many of them - or should I say how many of you - would find a small part of yourselves agreeing with them?
If I did agree in some small way with their sentiments, I wouldn’t do so publicly. I would hand over the cash and hush up. And I don’t even have the responsibilities of a prince to not look churlish in public.
(He may have been sarcastic) but if not: What I was saying is that 2000 per family is not a substantial enough amount for it to be worth eating the comment, and my question is, how many of the people that provide you with your everyday needs i.e. money were killed in the WTC.
Well, perhaps if they need that specific $2000, which is doubtful, they could perhaps ask the Red Cross, or some other charity, to have different standards. Guilliani does not control all charitable donations going to the victims.
Have you heard what kind of benefits the survivors are receiving? Some are guaranteed $100,000.00. Also, some banks are waiving mortgage collections, as are utilities. Not to mention insurance benefits.
It is possible that someone may be in an untenable position, but I think that it could be resolved with a couple of phone calls.
Or, haven’t you been listening to the news?
"Superiority " has nothing to do with it. And you have no concept as to what I, nor anyone else, warrants.
Don’t like it? Take it to the Pit, with my compliments.