It wasn’t my intent to imply that they had. I was simply noting a time that we should topple a government for non strategic purposes or purposes that have no direct impact on the US. Here, we aren’t attacking them because they are harming their people, we are attacking them because they are attacking us. According to Bob Woodward’s article in today’s Washington Post, BL has funneled over 100MIL to the Taliban. Basically, there is no difference between BL and the Taliban. That is why all this talk last night of offering the Taliban a cease fire if they comply is all diplomatic smoke and mirrors. It was said more for the sake of moderate Muslim nations than for the Taliban.
Er, this is probably a “hijack”, it’s possibly off-topic, and I’m very sorry in advance, if you all would like to ignore it please do, or I can make a new thread later … anyway.
I’ve noticed it here and other places as well, just looking for an answer:
Why is it that when a poster makes the statement that to some people, bin Laden may have a “point”, other posters try to vilify him/her by assuming that means he/she thinks it’s “okay” that bin Laden’s terrorist-agents killed upwards of 5000 people?
I don’t think anyone has tried to say - at least, not that I’ve seen - “Yes, bin Laden has a point, and furthermore, the only way to resolve it was to kill all those people, and those people deserved it anyway for having the audacity to be in the World Trade Centres.” That sort of statement would be clearly wrong. They stop after the first comma.
Yes, yes, yes, by all means, Usama bin Laden has chosen the wrong method by which to make his point known. What he has done is vile, is horrible, is unthinkably wrong. To kill any innocent person in order to “make a point” is wrong. Wrong. Definitely wrong. And it deserves punishment.
But does that really mean that his entire reasoning is crap? Is the difference between a “point” and a “waste of breath” really just the implementation of one’s stance?
While I agree that the desire to systematically wipe out an entire race/culture/country is not a valid “point” … perhaps there really is a credible reason that some people that share his religion dislike us so strongly?
(Apologies again for the off-topic. I’m just curious to the answer here.)
Er, this is probably a “hijack”, it’s possibly off-topic, and I’m very sorry in advance, if you all would like to ignore it please do, or I can make a new thread later … anyway.
(More apologies in advance if this posted twice - having a bit of connection trouble. Stupid dial-ups …)
I’ve noticed it here and other places as well, just looking for an answer:
Why is it that when a poster makes the statement that to some people, bin Laden may have a “point”, other posters try to vilify him/her by assuming that means he/she thinks it’s “okay” that bin Laden’s terrorist-agents killed upwards of 5000 people?
I don’t think anyone has tried to say - at least, not that I’ve seen - “Yes, bin Laden has a point, and furthermore, the only way to resolve it was to kill all those people, and those people deserved it anyway for having the audacity to be in the World Trade Centres.” That sort of statement would be clearly wrong. They stop after the second comma.
Yes, yes, yes, by all means, Usama bin Laden has chosen the wrong method by which to make his point known. What he has done is vile, is horrible, is unthinkably wrong. To kill any innocent person in order to “make a point” is wrong. Wrong. Definitely wrong. And it deserves punishment.
But does that really mean that his entire reasoning is crap? Is the difference between a “point” and a “waste of breath” really just the implementation of one’s stance?
While I agree that the desire to systematically wipe out an entire race/culture/country is not a valid “point” … perhaps there really is a credible reason that some people that share his religion dislike us so strongly?
(Apologies again for the off-topic. I’m just curious to the answer here.)
Minty Green
Morality is bullshit used by megalomaniacs to justify their own actions, so that they can kill people and sleep at night. There is no such thing as morality.
Again, we deny a purpose so to make our position stronger in our minds. I’m sorry, I just don’t agree with doing that. People seem to want to paint me in an “immoral” (not saying that you did that) light just because I’m not going to paint this as a black and white issue. It’s not black and white, and it will continue to exist long after we finish World War III trying to make it black and white.
Erek
Oh yeah, I almost forgot what i was going to ask: HOW IN HELL does reacting in an inappropriate manner equated to having an invalid point?
Erek
Minty Green,
thousands of dead in Iraq due to sanctions imposed by the US and Britain. There’s a shade of grey for you. I may be to you, an immoral son of a bitch for actually considering bin Laden as having a point, but in my mind someone who WON’T consider him having a point is the same breed as he is. So where do we stand now? You may not have killed thousands of people but your jingoism and intolerance shines through in the very statement that this is black and white.
Erek
**
Or, thousands of dead in Iraq because we can’t funnel money and support into a leader who will use it for his power base and armies, in ways that our government does not support. Or, thousands of dead in Iraq because the leadership there won’t do what is necessary to make it not so.
You say to-may-to; I say to-mah-to.
And thank you for pointing out you don’t believe in morality, mswas. It all makes sense now.
I actually started to compose that Pit thread. But I found it to be kinda distasteful. The target was just sitting there, begging to be destroyed, and a Pit thread solution was sorta like dropping a bowling ball on a paralyzed cockroach. It might be entertaining, but it’s kinda messy and not terribly challenging.
On the other hand, however, I do so dislike cockraoches. And I do so dislike being accused of “jingoism and intolerance.” So I think I’ll give you a chance to apologize for that remark while I go down to the garage and find my bowling ball.
If a universal morality existed then the idea of a universal morality would be amoral.
Erek
If we can stand by the excuse that Hussein is fucking over the Iraqi people, then we should have taken him out rather than starving his people.
And I should have made myself clearer, UNIVERSAL morality does not exist. It cannot be applied from culture to culture. Morality is only within the confines of the society it is trying to support.
So I know for Jingo’s like you “It explains a lot” when someone does not share your narrow world view. So I’m sorry for calling you a Jingo, Jingo go ahead and start that thread if you like, I started one that’s not a direct flame against you but you inspired it. So I think rather than using a bowling ball to smash the roach, you should use the shoe that fits oh so well.
The Jingo thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=92915
Erek
OK, folks, let’s calm down and not resort to Pit threads right away.
mswas has a valid point. He is NOT (I repeat NOT) saying that the destruction of the WTC was justified or right. He is simply saying that there is a reason that people are doing this.
Do we know that reason? And be serious about this. The US has not been very supportive of most of the Islamic governments in power. We tried to support a repressive Iranian shah and the Iranians didn’t like that too much. Several other things as well.
mwswas has some valid points. The sanctions are clearly not working. If we were truly concerned about Hussein, why not just step in and rid ourselves of him? We have the power to do so, why keep sanctions going?
Sadly, a lot of people don’t like the Americanization that is occurring throughout the world. Even on this board, a lot of people feel that it is our duty to enforce “human rights” and Western values and instill them throughout the world. A lot of people react violently to this. It’s not right, but what else are they going to do? There is not much they can do diplomatically, economically or militarily against us. Terrorism is pretty much their only option to fight what they see as a corruption of their culture.
I’m NOT saying that I support their actions. I’m NOT saying that Osama bin Ladin shouldn’t be brought to justice. I’m NOT saying that terrorism shouldn’t be eradicated. Hell, I’m NOT even necessarily saying that we shouldn’t be going to war with the Taliban to do what is necessary to secure our security (eww, that was bad).
I’m just saying that we might want to look at what these people are willing to die for. mswas is correct in saying that anytime there is an assymmetry of power and one side is dominating the other, then asymmetrical attacks (terrorism) will be resorted to. It’s happened throughout history.
Thank you Neurotik
Erek
De nada
Neurotik-that was EXACTLY what I would say.
Remember-one person’s terrorist is another’s hero. We have to be AWFULLY careful how we handle things-it’s one hell of a mess.
**
That would be the narrow world view that Osama bin Laden is a mass murderer who should not be looked up to by anybody with a brain? Yeah; guess I am narrow-minded.
And there’s an enormous difference between bin Laden having a reason (who thinks it was a random act without purpose?) and him having a point.
By the way, as I’ve invited you to do in the Pit, outline what bin Laden’s “points” are, and what capitulations the USA could realistically make so that he calls off his effort to kill our men, women, and children, cripple our economy, and topple our government.
The effort is to hurt us, over and over, and hopefully start a West and Israel-vs.-Islam jihad.
Sorry if you fail to grasp that. It could save you a lot of trouble in your desperate search to see reason behind al Qaeda.
Milossarian, as my rebuttal to your post, I would like you to read my last posts in this thread.
no…no…no…that’s scrolling past them…stop and READ them.
Thanks,
Erek
I’m certainly not arguing that Arab nations have no reasons for being angry at us. They do - they have a long list of things America has done to piss them off. I said that the people, Muslim or not, who would make this man a hero are ignorant. And I believe they are - I, as an American, am perfectly willing to acknowledge that we have made mistakes in the Middle East. Historically, we have done some seriously depraved things to the governments (like the CIA installing the Shah) as well as to the people (the sanctions against Iraq are hurting the people, not those that we are aiming for). I will acknowledge that 100%.
But for Arab nations to not take responsibility for their part in this is ridiculous and ignorant. There’s a great article, “It’s Not All America’s Fault,” in TIME this week. The writer is a Muslim, Hazem Saghiyah, who argues that the Muslim world is guilty, too. He argues this for many reasons:
-
“…We in the Muslim world have not been able to overcome the trauma caused by colonialism. We could not open up to the tools that modernity suggested, for the simple reason that they were introduced by way of colonialism.”
-
Muslim nations could not overcome their suspicions of “outside political and ideological goods: democracy, secularlism, the state of law, the principle of rights and, above all, the concept of the nation-state…”
-
Religious reforms, spearheaded by Muhammad Abdu, failed, which led to chaos and and opened the way to extreme versions of Islam.
-
Efforts to modernize the Arab language failed.
-
Public spheres for debate were never established.
-
Local regimes are largely inadequate, which “leaves the most essential themes of social and political destiny hanging, creating a vacuum to be filled only by populist politicians and extremist groups, by wars and civil wars.”
-
Arab intellectuals have focused on creating a huge disparity between “us” and “them” - the enemy - instead of addressing the “incredible shortcomings” of their countries.
(I can’t find a link for the article online, but it’s on page 69).
Those are certainly some adequate arguments made against the Muslim world. And until these arguments are addressed, there is going to remain a mass hatred toward the US as “Great Satan” for our hateful arrogance and intrusion. Thus there is also a mass igorance toward the reality of the situation. It’s certainly much easier to blame someone else than take responsibility for your mistakes. This sort of blame allows men like Osama Bin Laden to push his doctrine of hatred and contempt toward Americans, and largely succeed in the Muslim world.
This article discusses Osama as a “rock star” in the Middle East. There’s a bit at the end about an 8-year-old:
Honestly, if that isn’t blatant ignorance about Americans and Osama bin Laden being reflected onto this little girl, I don’t know what it.
As an American, it’s difficult for me to grasp what these people are willing to die for. But I’m willing to learn, listen, and try to understand. I’m certainly in support of not repeating our past mistakes, which involves a serious acknowledgement of what America has done, specifically, to anger Muslim nations so greatly. But to make bin Laden into a hero - to glorify him for what he stands for (mass murder) and for the actions he takes - that’s pure ignorance to the reality of the situation in the Middle East.
Yes, we have done some terrible things in the Middle East. But we are not the only guilty party here, nor are we the only victim. When the Muslim world addresses exactly what part they have played in perpetuating the attitude that led to the WTC attack, instead of simply blaming America, then progress will be made. But to deny any duplicity is pure ignorance.
Anyone else getting tired of the “you’re not reading what I’m writing” schtick? The problem is, Erek, you’re not writing anything that answers what we’re asking. Seriously, man, use that miraculous “quote” function you’ve discovered to quote one of our questions, then attempt to respond to that question. You’ll find it does wonders for your ability to speak to others.
nacho4sara: You’ve had some pretty interesting posts in this thread. I am sorry I focused on one thing you said in the past bit about bin Laden most definitely NOT having a point. I have enjoyed most of your posts. I particularly liked the last one and agree with it completely. I don’t want anyone to think that I believe America is completely at fault, but I would like to see America showing a little more foresight in it’s foreign policy and I don’t want to see a “war on terrorism”, a war on bin Laden is fine, I just hate how open ended this is turning out to be with our continued bombing of Afghanistan for over half a week now and the talk of other targets in other countries which are going to make moderates there turn less moderate. Those moderates are willing to turn the other cheek to our past transgressions for hte most part, so we need to turn the other cheek in the name of avoiding an all out regional war. I think this could turn into the largest conflict since World War II if we are not careful.
Minty Green: Please refer to Caiata’s, Nacho4Sara’s, Neurotik’s, and MEBuckner’s and Jodi’s posts in the other thread. They all seemed to be able to understand me pretty well. Why is it that you, Milossarian and a handful of other people seem to be continuously misquoting me. I know I am not the best writer in this and sometimes I do come across badly, but then I correct myself if I catch it in time, and while others go with the correction and continue on with the discussion, you choose to attack the correction and attack me for saying “you’re not reading my posts”, which for the most part, you are not, as you have consistently misquoted me. That is why I stopped responding to you for the most part. I hope this helps you to understand why I don’t wish to have a conversation with you. Whether you care or not is immaterial.
Erek
-
Quote question.
-
Answer question.
Go ahead, give it a try. It’s ever so much more enlightening than watching you try to deny the import of your own words.