Well fuck you, and your hairy ape asshole, for wanting to discombobulate the natural order of things.
Smegma lips.
Ain’t NO way it’s goin’ to GD now… 
When I grow up I wanna be Cervaise. First he figures out the movie A.I. for me, and then he says what I’d like to say, but I lack the words. Thank you for a contribution to the argument that helped to bridge the gaps between what we’re saying and what we mean.
And Jodi, you’re correct he wasn’t just addressing you. I do believe, if memory serves, that others did indeed express a desire to dig in our heels lest terrorists think that extreme violence “works.” And the words appeasement and other things Cervaise addressed were also put out there by other Dopers.
I want to compliment those of you who have kept this going without name-calling or derision. The few of you who keep coming back to that exasperated, let’s-talk-about-the-other-side-like-they’re-not-here derisive crap, leave it at the door. I don’t care if it is the Pit. Some of us are having a conversation, dagnabbit.
Oh, and I didn’t mean the joking insults, of course.
Imagine my horror when I smugly, sanctimoniously press “SUBMIT” and then see beagledave rip Fenris a new one as a joke.
Say, I just ran across something that is sort of a middle ground. It talks about the need for non-violent solutions to terrorism, BUT alleges that the timing has to be right (and there is such a thing as “too soon”), which is a point that Jodi has repeatedly been making.
FWIW:
BTW, is it true that Bin Laden’s family basically disowned him and thinks he’s nuts as well?
I suggest that we realise that even though it is not justified it did happen. Therefore we should take steps to stop it from happening again before we seek out justice. No, appeasement will not help any and I don’t see why you suggest it.
I said some choose to leave. They usually are better off than the people who then try to seek justice because they don’t have any more chance of being hurt. Sometimes they have to fight, but those who seek to place justice in their own hands are the ones who continue to get hurt only because they want to hurt others. I value protecting America and its freedom over my own sense of justice.
You bastard…
This had the chance to be the first Pit-thread moved to GD and you destroyed it!
I’ll get you for this Dave…
…and your little beagle too!
Fenris
**
He did say it would take that kind of support, and that would be the point of his essay. In addition, he has not “some” significant facts wrong, in fact, I’d say he hasn’t gotten any…
Everything I heard about that, I * heard, * meaning it was part of the constant drone of the tv, which has been switching between 8 channels for the past week, so i don’t have the exact quotes right at my fingertips, however…
from http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/south/09/18/pakistan.fm/index.html
From a Face the Nation transcript: http://www.cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,311567-412,00.shtml
From ABC:http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/dailynews/pakistan_profile.html
None of the above is as strong as what I heard on television, but it’s the best I can do and it confirms what I heard. (I believe I may also have read something similar, but if I did it was in one of about 8 periodicals, and I’m not gonna go searching for something I can’t link to anyway)
stoid
You know, there’s nothing wrong with re-examining your role in the world, and trying to learn from present events.
However, it dismays me that so many people’s first instinct was to immediately try to claim some sort moral equivalency, or to immediately look at what America had done to ‘deserve’ the attack. Not just people on this board, but public figures like Michael Moore.
This is not the time for it. Even to entertain those ideas now is to put them on the same scale as what just happened in New York and Washington, which is offensive in the extreme. And publically venting such conflicting viewpoints at a time like this gives fuel to the kinds of people who did this. If they see an America morally divided even after something this catastrophic, it makes them think that not only are they right, but that America has no stomach for a war. That will simply lead to more violence.
And anyway, if America IS going to change its behaviour in the Middle East, it can NOT be done now, for that will look like capitulation. Terrorists must never be lead to believe that acts of terror result in reforms beneficial to their cause.
A better response would be to say something like, “I wish these terrorists hadn’t done what they did, because there was a shred of reality in their grievances. But what they’ve done is so horrible as to wipe out any past injustices that we MAY have been responsible for. They have shut the door to reform, and merely sealed their own doom.”
I expect that this thing has been civil because it is important and because the people involved are pretty much rational. I haven’t seen any one blathering on about seeing space alien created anomalies in any of the photographs of the WTC, but I suppose that will come.
At any rate, this nations first duty is to protect its territory and its people. Both have been attacked by what can be fairly regarded as a foreign power. Having been attacked, it ought to make little or no difference that the attackers think themselves justified. Germany, after all, convinced itself that it was justified in attacking Poland in 1939, to use the infamous Hitler analogy. With the appropriate motivation and a little obtuseness, any one can persuade them that their own actions are justified, even praiseworthy.
The trick is convincing the guy you have just sucker punched that he had it coming. This is something that is all to often seen in cases of wife beating when the poor woman announces that she knows he really loves her and it is all her fault because she made him angry. The poor woman then goes into a fit of anxiety trying to figure out just what it is that she has done that could possibly made the brute angry. In the case of the poor woman and in the case of our friends who want it figure out how it is that US policy and action could have irritated bin Laden and the boys enough to do this thing, the exercise is an escape from confronting the reality that something has got to be done now, before it happens again, to deprive the abusive husband/ bin Laden of the ability to do it again. What needs to be done is pretty obvious. Bin Laden and his organization need to be destroyed.
All we have to understand is what is the best way to take bin Laden, his organization and the governments that overtly and covertly support his activities out of commission. This is not an intellectual exercise. This is a real question of the government’s first duty and a pragmatic problem of how best to carry out that duty.
CrankyAsAnOldMan
I was not trying to twist anyone’s words. the phrase represents quite plainly the call to acheive a greater understanding of the motives and desires of those who perpetrated the attacks and those who support them. If that is not your position then the description does not apply to you.
stoid
Correct. Has somebody in this thread advocating declaring war on Afghanistan (or any other nation)? On the flip side, if a nation chooses to harbor those responsible for the attacks do you feel America should act in force regardless of territorial boundaries?
Well, the link Guinastasia posted presented a slightly different view of how the Afghanis view (or are repressed by) the Taliban. To answer your point, though, if we use military force to strike military targets to achieve a just objective then, yes, I could call it justice. If you are talking about something else then you will have to provide specifics.
I see it as both a crime and an act of war. Thus, I want it treated like a war crime.
Nor has war stopped aggression nor policing stopped crime, yet we maintain both a military and a police force. I do not believe it is possible to stop terrorism. I do believe it is possible to stop specific groups of terrorists.
Please tell me explicitely what the second “wrong” in your equation is. Are you saying “not learning more about the motives of these terrorists” is a moral wrong?
Balduran
Perhaps I am missing something. Wouldn’t it be better to acheive an understanding of the reluctant allies and ambivalent observers themselves, if this is our goal?
Well, to follow your hypothetical lead–when we have brought each and every principal behind the attack upon our citizenry to justice (or retribution, if justice was not an achievable goal).
Cervaise
I think your post best embodies the contextual shift I mentioned. It seems to me that you are arguing a very different point from the one that Jodi has staked out and with which I agree. I will answer your points out of courtesy, but I hope you can see that they are addressing a separate debate.
I do not argue that we should not change a single aspect of our behavior. I do argue that we should not change a single aspect in a manner which can be perceived as favorable to the aims of our enemies for so long as those enemies remain at large. Neither of your “logical parallels” actually parallels the situation at hand. We did not initiate a new probe of Ruby Ridge in the first weeks after the Oklahoma City bombing, for instance.
Yes. however, it is not a logical fallacy to note that some of those calling for the former use language which hints at the latter. Jodi pointed out just such a case in Sterra’s analogy of the abused woman. This does not make the logical equation you any more valid, but in a discussion of what people should consider, emotional nuance cannot be discounted.
On a related note, it is also a logical fallacy to equate the position that futher examination of the motivations of these terrorists serves no purpose with the position that we should act with complete disregard for the desires of all nations and people in the region.
You are correct. I note, however, that you chose the word “admitting” to summarize the result of “examining the international scene”. It seems an odd word choice, given nothing but the context of this paragraph.
Then any such discussions should be separate and apart from discussions of how we should respond to this attack. If you have a reason why that separate discussion should be held simultaneous with discussions of our reaction to these attacks, please state it specifically.
This is an excellent example of an occassion when US respect for established national borders and the rule of international law backfired against us. I agree that we should keep it in mind as we consider our potential responses.
I do agree, though, that voices of criticism have been raised against America’s policies in the Middle East prior to this event. More to the point, I do not feel that even if someone had been silent before they should stay silent now.
The fallacy that I see is your attribution of this attitude to this argument. I see Jodi’s position as being absolutely grounded in political reality. She has asked repeatedly what purpose other than appeasement might be acheived through a particular examination of the motives driving the terrorist groups responsible for these attacks. If she has received a response which was likewise grounded in political reality I am afraid that I missed it.
As an aside, if David Duke slaughtered thousands of people in Afghanistan would you argue that the United States should shield him from extradition and prosecution?
As a direct response, who gives a rat’s ass? I remember that some dinosaurs were no larger than chickens, too. Both facts have equal relevance to the issues being discussed.
President Bush has stated that our conflict is also with those who willfully shield, supply, aid, and abet such extremists. As a matter of realpolitik, I find that position persuasive. Do you disagree?
No.
The crime committed by the terrorists was murder on an obscene scale. Murder. Not “judgment by community”.
[ul][li]Everyone has always stood at a crossroads of history.[/li][li]Moral judgment is not a grave error, it is a moral responsibility. Particular judgments can, of course, be erroneous.[/li][li]We are, in point of fact, not fighting any wars at the moment. It is my personal hope that that status continues.[/ul][/li]
I disagree that we are, or should, be fighting a war for the “hearts and minds of fence-sitters around the world.” As a matter of practical necessity, we require political alliances in certain strategic locations. In the context of the present situation, we need to be aware of how populations in the region will likely react to our actions and prepare for teh consequences thereof. As a driving force behind international diplomacy, "winning the “hearts and minds of fence-sitters” doesn’t make my top 10. On a personal level, I find the description “decades of abuse and oppression” to be quite illuminating when presented as objective fact. Did you forget to include the word “perceived”, or is it your position that this is an accurate summation of American international relations in the Middle East?
Realize the spectrum of perceptions? We must realize the practical consequences of our actions (or inactions). Some of those consequences are predictable as a matter of perceptions within a population. Many are not. The assumption that we–must–make ourselves popular with many/most/all populations of countries in the region does not follow. I fail to see international popularity as a practical (or necessarily desirable) objective of American diplomacy.
I find both the premise and conclusion of your doomsday scenarion to be unbelievable.
I see. The reason that we are not popular in the region is because we have not explained our position well enough. What about those “decades of abuse and oppression”? Were they really just silly little misunderstandings that we can now clear up without “changing a damn thing”.
I am confused. Perhaps you could explain exactly what resentments toward teh US you see as resulting from poor communication rather than actual policies?
I am not a historian, but I confess that I am unable to think of examples of conflicts won by alliances of reason and compassion. Most of the alliances I recall were founded upon things like economic benefit, shared cultural heritage, and ideological agreement.
I am having a hard time seeing this “battle for hearts and minds” as anythin other thanm “if we get them to like us they’ll stop bombing us.” Is that actually what you are trying to say?
I have not seen anybody argue that we should not seek to understand the reaction which moderate Muslims might have to any proposed US action. I agree that it is a prudent thing to do.
capacitor
We have been seeking an active party in the Israeli/Palestinian situation for many years. How exactly do you think understanding the motives of the WTC terrorists will further illuminate that situation?
Now apply the above question to the internal stability of the current Pakistani regime.
sterra
Some of the fallacies behind you r model have already been pointed out. Rather than repeat Jodi, let me address
Options for battered woman:[ul]
[li]Run. Abuser remains free, ready to abuse again.[/li][li]Go to police.[/li][li]Take justice into their own hands. (continue to get hurt because they want to hurt others? I don’t know what you mean by that phrase.)[/ul][/li]Options for a nation which has been attacked:[/list]
[li]Run. Nope. Nowhere to hide 280 million people and their stuff. Metaphorically this could be a model for appeasement. I reject that option, too.[/li][li]Go to police. Nope. No effective international force exists to combat terrorism on the scale we have just witnessed.[/li]Take justice into their own hands. Yep. That is the only place it can be, given the realities of our world.[/list]
That really sounds like “We’d better make damn sure we don’t do anything to piss this psycho off”. A policy that would put the psycho in charge of the situation, IMO.
Spiritus
Yup, in my ham-fisted way this is what I was trying to say. Understanding the terrorists motives is only useful if we could not understand the region through other means, but there are plenty of other means.
I think this is one of the main sticking points. Some seem to be equating “understanding the terrorists’ motives” as “understanding the people in this regions’ issues”. This is dangerous because they are not the same and it also makes the unintentional link that the people in this region are terrorists.
Your other point Spiritus
I think people will still see the causal link even after justice has been served. In fact, it may even paint the terrorists as martyrs. “They sacrificed themselves for their people”
I do agree with those who are arguing that this is not the time to change these policies. However, if these same policies must be changed to reduce resentment and improve prospects for long term peace (and if they are the moral thing to do), it must be done sometime and the sooner the better. Is there a way out of this damned if we do or don’t scenario?
Hey Jodi, here’s someone else for you to jump on. This is the same assertion I made to you, and you characterized it as bullshit.
Sorry, sorry, sorry. That was posted in a moment of bad grace. I either have or haven’t disgraced myself in this thread, depending on your point of view, and in any case I apologize for the ruckus and I think I’ll just quit the thread entirely.
I had to go grab a dictionary to make sure I wasn’t reading too much into this word. It claimed that empathy means an intimate understanding. I guess that’s not too terribly far beyond what I meant (although I see no need for intimacy–I’d prefer that our understanding come amidst rational objectivity), but there’s something about the word that still makes me cringe. It’s never one I’d use to advocate my own desire to have the U.S. understand the Middle East better.
Looks like it’s time for me to drop it. 
Sorry if I went overboard on one stupid word. But I’d be a happy woman if I didn’t see it again re: this topic!!
What got us started is the fact that those very statements were actually made at the beginning of this thread. Many of the initial statements have been modified or expanded on, but the initial impression is still being argued against.
Probably those of us in the “knowledge is good” camp should back off and realize that’s not being disagreed with. And probably those of you in the “stop telling me to understand those thugs” camp should back off and realize we haven’t advocated changing foreign policy to placate terrorists, merely to more effectively pursue our national interests.
[/quote]
On “the notion that we should dig in our heels and refuse to change a single aspect of our behavior simply because it would be a ‘victory’ for the terrorists”, we have:
Jodi’s initial remarks “If we do one thing differently regarding our foreign policy because of this, then the terrorists have won… IMO this is PRECISELY the time to maintain the status quo in foreign policy, agree with it or not.” and “In the immediate wake of this event, any deviation from the staus quo is a capitulation.”
Jodi later clarified this: “If policy needs to be reexamined, then it needed to be reexamined before, for good and independent reasons other than acts of terror. I am not saying such reexamination is a bad idea; I am simply saying that I disagree with those who would link it to recent events…”
Rather than continue to respond to Jodi’s first hardline stance, it would have sufficed to point out that all our actions for the next decade are going to be linked to recent events whether we like it or not.
[/quote]
On “equate an examination of the incident’s background with a statement of justification”,
Jodi said “The problem with linking the events of the past week to a need to ‘understand’ our policy in the Middle East is that the clear subtext of such linking is that problems with the latter somehow justify or excuse the former.”
Jodi, however, made sure to say that: “America has room for lots of opinions, and I will try to respect even those with whom I cannot agree, and I will never imply that disagreement equates to a lack of caring or a lack of patriotism.”
(Which actually set the classy tone this thread has managed to maintain.)
[/quote]
On “the notion that “understanding” the political realities is somehow tantamount to appeasement”, we have:
Jodi saying “To change our stance in the wake of this atrocity sends a clear message that such tactics are in fact effective. That in turn puts us all at greater risk of reoccurrence the next time some fanatical group disagrees with national policy.”
Fenris saying “And we absolutely must not change our actions any time soon, lest we teach these monsters the lesson that if they kill enough of our people, we’ll listen to them.” and “The terrorists want us to (in part) change our policy towards the Middle East. The minute we do, we’re giving the terrorists what they want. QED.”
Later, Jodi clarified. “We all know in the most general of terms why this was done. What I and some others object to is the idea that we as a nation must examine our actions, and think about changing them, in the wake of this and because of this.”
To which my answer must be “our actions in the wake of these tragedies must be in our best interests, which requires that we must be prepared to do things differently if doing so will more effectively prosecute our interests.”
balduran
Undoubtedly. I posited a “no ealier than” time; it was not intended to imply that as soon as that standard was met any change became acceptable. The unfortunate truth is that eery policy shift in the region now has to be seen through the filter “does this create the impression that the terrorists have been succesful”. I wish it were otherwise; the issues in the Middle East are already too complex and emotionally volatile, but that is the world we now live in.
Well, I am leary of speculating about a hypothetical policy shift that might “reduce resentment and improve the prospects of long term peace”. Those are not the only goals of US policy in the region, nor should they be.
Again, it depends upon the specific policy shift under discussion. In a general case, though, no–I can’t think of one.
cranky
I am not wedded ot the word. If you have others that you would prefer I will try to use them.
balduran
Undoubtedly. I posited a “no ealier than” time; it was not intended to imply that as soon as that standard was met any change became acceptable. The unfortunate truth is that eery policy shift in the region now has to be seen through the filter “does this create the impression that the terrorists have been succesful”. I wish it were otherwise; the issues in the Middle East are already too complex and emotionally volatile, but that is the world we now live in.
Well, I am leary of speculating about a hypothetical policy shift that might “reduce resentment and improve the prospects of long term peace”. Those are not the only goals of US policy in the region, nor should they be.
Again, it depends upon the specific policy shift under discussion. In a general case, though, no–I can’t think of one.
cranky
I am not wedded to the word. If you have others that you would prefer I will try to use them.