Isn’t that what I said? 
You go in peace, too, daddy kabbes
Forgive me for continuing here, Spiritus; if you were anyone else I wouldn’t feel such a need to explain myself to you. I must point out that, almost immediately after the attacks, we (the SDMB) were treated to cries for widespread assassinations and torture of suspected terrorists, to discussions about possible nuclear “solutions” to the terrorism, and to serious calls for indiscriminate retaliation -including a proposal to decimate in the Roman sense the population of Afghanistan. Our pleas for “understanding” of the sociopolitical and economic forces at work were (at least on my part) intended to point out that perhaps those reactions would be foolish, counterproductive and largely immoral. If I or the others arguing that point offended sensibilities, I’ll take that as fair trade for the fear I felt seeing rational people I respect succumb to blood lust.
add another name to the Cranky/xeno page.
knowledge, examination of the reasons behind the attack, and why moderate Islamic forces haven’t in the past roundly condemned Bin Laden, these are important things to know for our future safety.
xeno
You require no forgiveness. I am not unaware that passions and anger ran extremely hot in the days immediately following teh attacks, nor am I unaware that many voices of reason spoke up to counter that trend. For you, I wrote: *Looking over threads from the past week I have been happy to see that people here have spoken out to oppose irrational violence and to restrain passions so understandably inflamed. I thank those people for their courage and dedication to justice and reason. *
wring
I agree with your second element. I see no practical value in the first. As I wrote initially, I do not believe America has been operating under ignorance of either the existence or the motivations of radical groups such as Bin Laden’s.
We know what the radicals want. It is irrelevant to the course we must now steer.
Spiritus
I very much miss our debates. It is regrettable that neither you nor I have had the time. One thing’s for sure, I don’t find much to debate in your Opening Post. We are pretty like-minded on this issue. God go with you, my friend.
Well… how can I argue with you if you won’t disagree?
(BTW, Libertarian — your presence has been missed also. Be well.)
I beg to differ - we may know the purported rantings of the madman. We apparently have no real idea of what elements of said rant ring true and good to the moderates. and we cannot know that w/o investigation of the reasons for the attack.
This perplexes me. Here, as in other threads, I see intelligent people unable to accept a distinction between the motivations of the terrorists and the perceptions of moderates who happen to share a region/religion/ethnicity to terrorists. I agree that the perceptions of moderate elements are something we should both understand and integrate into any scenario for action.
The motivations of these specific terrorist groups are irrelevant to that question. As I have tried to make clear to cranky and cuautemhoc my remarks on this issue were intended to be specific both context and scope. I seem to be failing to get that point across, but I am at a loss as to how else to phrase the issue.
Perhaps the word “enemies” in my initial post was confusing. Allow me to clarify. I do not consider Islam or Arabs or Afghani’s or Middle East moderates or Palestinians or any number of other broad classifications of people in teh region to be enemies of the United States. Our enemies at present are those specific terrorist groups that have taken or espoused violent actions directed at the United States of America or its citizens. Any additional knowledge we might gain regarding the specific motivations of those terrorist groups are irrelevant to the question of how the US should respond to the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Well, we can always fall back on the cat food debate.
I call no debates in the pit 
Lib
I’ve missed our debates, too. (Are my masochistic tendencies showing?) I don’t think my blood pressure could handle one this week, though. erislover, that goes for you, too. 
xeno
What kind of friend would I be if I let a little thing like agreement get in the way of a good argument. Besides, I’m still mad that you stood me up for that beer.
Bite my apple, loverboy.
Spiritus
Um. No. I don’t assume that the only thing that is shared between the terrorists and the moderates are “region/religion/ethnicicty”. This may be the source of the confusion.
The KKK claim to be Christian, but in general, we see pretty much wholesale disapproval for their stance etc. from white/Christian/Americans. Bin Laden has (apparently) great support throughout the region. So, either Islam has a great proportion of absolute nutcases (and I see no reason to believe that) or there’s something in his message that rings true to the moderates. Allegiance to religion/region/ethnicity doesn’t cover it, IMHO. and that’s why I want us to tread carefully.
My biggest fear is that the prime motive underlaying the attack is to get the US to retaliate in kind by bombing civilian targets. And, many of the more realtively sane, thinking posters here have gotten to the point where that’s a given (‘if they’re hiding Bin Laden/support him, he’s made them a target, as have they made themselves targets by their actions’) And slaughter of innocents is a powerful motivator for a call to arms. If Bin Laden’s aim was to create a situation where the US took on a holy war with Islam (as in the ‘Greater Nation of Islam’) , well, look about us.
I don’t see how it could be, since I also make no such assumption.
I am wary of simply repeating myself as nauseum. It seems insulting to act as though you will understand my words if I just say them one more time (louder? Where’s my Ugly American Handbook?).
Perhpas if I look at your words instead of mine.
Yes–this is a good reason to understand the motivations and perceptions of the moderates. The motivations of the maniacs who planned and executed the slaughter of several thousand civiliians is irrelevant to that question.
Yes–thus I agree that it is wise to understand the motivations and perceptions of moderate elements in the region. The motivations of the maniacs who planned and executed the slaughter of several thousand civiliians is irrelevant to that question.
My biggest fear is that the US will fail to anticipate the consequences of whatever military action(s) we might take in the region. Those consequences will depend upon a number of factors, including support/resistance from moderate Muslim states and their populations. Thus–any scenario for action should be predicated upon sound analysis of the regions political, military, and religious structures. The motivations of the maniacs who planned and executed the slaughter of several thousand civiliians is irrelevant to that question. Whether Bin Laden wants us to bomb Kabul is irrelevant. The US must exercise identical caution and thoroughness in planning regardless of Bin Laden’s motives (assuming he is indeed the driving force behind the attacks.)
my point Spirtis is that apparently, those moderates apparently did not roundly condem the “the maniacs who planned and executed the slaughter of several thousand civiliians”
Prior to the acts of 9/11, Bin Laden apparently had wide support even among the moderates of the region.
Now, they may be at this point willing to turn him over because of 9/11 and the attack on great hordes of civilians , but that still means the prior position (of attacking US military and embassy personnel, prior WTC bombing) was apparently ‘ok’ in their book. Remember, many civilians were killed in those attacks as well. So, while apparently the sheer number of civilians killed this time around pushed the moderates away from him, don’t you see that the fundemental ‘ok to kill Americans’ basis was not apparently a problem for the moderates in the region? which means to me, that we need to have some damned understanding of why the moderates in the region were not condemning of Bin Laden prior to 9/11.
I am reminded of a small parable of sorts my Danish boss told me just two days ago.
Perhaps these words will have some impact on this statement you made.
I wouldn’t presume that anyone thought they were “ok” simply because they don’t make a stand agaisnt extremists. Did you get in with international media over it? Did you think it was ok?
Like, perhaps, some Christians for whom Jack Chick is a sore spot, they could also consider it somewhat of an embarassment to their faith. Not saying anything does not imply consent, or even a reserved approval.
Um, wring:
You said: “…we need to have some damned understanding of why the moderates in the region were not condemning of Bin Laden prior to 9/11.”
Wouldn’t that indicate you agree with Spiritus that: “…it is wise to understand the motivations and perceptions of moderate elements in the region.” and that: “…any scenario for action should be predicated upon sound analysis of the regions political, military, and religious structures.”
Really, just 'cause Spiritus said he wouldn’t let agreement stand in the way of a good argument doesn’t mean you can’t.
And erislover, I have absolutely no clue what you intended to convey with the Danish anecdote. But that’s not unusual for me.
another question: How long have I been misspelling your name Spirtus? sorry.
eris THe Pakistanii regime is being ‘careful’ in it’s response to the US because of the great support Bin Laden has in their country for example.
xeno, yes, we’re close to agreement, however, I still believe that it is vital to our future to understand why there is/was such widespread support for Bin Laden (again -the prior attacks on the WTC and embassies had a significant number of civilian casualties, and yet they still thought he was okey dokey.) To put it another way, we see that 5000+ was too many for the moderates. But why did it take 5000+ to get the moderates out of his corner?