** A. Ya know that big “E” at the top of the eyechart? I know it’s there, but can’t see it anymore, yes I’ve got my browser window set to ‘Highest’ and I sit about 6 inches from the screen. in the preview/posting window, the letters are still teenier, so I miss a lot of those types of typos. B. I’ve got the world’s crappiest keyboard, too (the “B” key sticks a lot presently) C. I also misspelled your name (and probably a few words in this response. D. I also have arthritic fingers.
So, if you could please use generous quantitites of A, B, C and /or D at your discretion, I’d be much beholden.
Yes, the 'why’s " of Bin Laden will be partly subjective, but the OP here was to dismiss them totally as irrelevant. And I think it’d be a huge mistake.
Jodi quick response Theif A is in prison. But finding out that THeif A did it for x reason, may assist you in preventing THeif B from doing the same. This is what we’ve been insisting on - no, it will not change anything that has happened. But there’s a good chance it will prevent something in the future from some one other than Bin Laden.
and coming down hard w/both feet on this terrorist -well, since they’ve demonstrated quite effectively that they don’t fear their own death, nor do they fear the deaths of countless innocents, forgive me if I fail to see how this will serve as an effective deterrent.
A substantial proportion of a board dedicated to fighting ignorance on the basis of reason, reflection, memory, consideration, and doubt has apparently decided that all of these can be abandoned - nay, must be abandoned on pain of heresy.
Blindly striking out when one is attacked is an understandable response; it is not a laudable one. And, honestly, these analogies have been apples and oranges. Individual crimes committed on individuals have very little in common with acts so severe, so unprecedented, that the Guinness Book may have to come up with a new category for them, and whose repercussions will affect every person on the planet.
In light of this, first-world nations have an absolute responsibility to overcome their initial (and, once again, understandable) pain and rage and think clearly prior to undertaking the action necessary to extinguish world terrorism in the wake of this attack. The consequences from wise or unwise action in this case will impact every corner of the globe.
Someone once said, “The United States is a big friendly dog in a small room. Every time it wags its tail, it knocks over a chair.” The United States has just been attacked by a weasel; I pray it won’t go mad and destroy all the furniture.
The attack on the WTC blew the world to the edge of a precipice. If we thrash, we may overbalance and fall.
I am of the opinion, and I grant it is only an opinion, that it will not.
This is fine and I don’t entirely disagree. But if I’m right and they won’t be deterred by simple force, you are dooming future generations to “tit-for-tat” responses. Which may well mean a higher death of innocents. Genocide aside, which obviously nobody but the utterly deranged advocates, IMHO I don’t see how simply retaliating without taking an extra step or three will solve the problem.
Not that you were accusing, but that’s not what I, at least, was talking about. My apologies if I was unclear.
WRING, the point is that no one has the right to steal from you in the first place, so it is not incumbent upon you to do anything to appease or placate potential thieves. Could you do so? Sure. Just like we can appease the terrorists. The question is whether that’s a good idea.
I understand that you favor delving into the motivations of the terrorists – what pissed them off – so that we can avoid pissing them off in the future, and thereby avoid future attacks. I trust you can as readily see why I find the entire idea counter-productive as a practical matter and repugnant as a personal one.
And yet you apparently have no idea what would be an effective deterrent. Aside from appeasement, that is. As I have said, if you don’t like the current game plan, propose another one, with the understanding that doing nothing is not an option.
To the extent this is directed at me, it is utter bullshit and I resent it. Please point out where I have abandoned “reason, memory, consideration, or doubt” in anything I have said. Assuming you cannot – and you cannot – kindly stick such overbroad and overblown pronouncements where the sun don’t shine.
I have explicitly stated that I do not and will not confuse disagreement with a lack of patriotism. To then have someone imply that I consider an opposing view “heresy” is beyond the pale.
Ah, yes. This would be so much more relevant if anyone was advocating “blindly striking out.” In this thread, at least, no one is.
We must analogize where we can, MATT. But tell me: How does acknowledging that this act in its enormity dwarfs individual crime translate to excusing it on grounds that would not excuse a mere individual crime?
If we abandon our principles and agree to live without justice, then we have already fallen.
To say that we have done some things wrong does not excuse or justify the bombings.
the bombers shouldn’t have bombed us. Obviously, they disagreed. They felt they should. And, given that they do not fear death, have no problem with causing wholesale innocence slaughtered, I do not at all understand why you would NOT want to figure out what set these folks off.
I’d personally rather discover why they felt justified, so at the very least, we can make some attempt to figure out who all may be pissed at us in the future. That is the option that I’ve been suggesting. YMV.
I apologize again if I’m adding to a sense of frustration, but there’s no reason to shout. I am not trying to throw any stones here.
I thought I had provided an alternative idea. Are you asking for specifics? Sorry, I have none to give you at the moment. My immediate concern would be to deal with this atrocity. Although I do not advocate the deliberate targetting of civilian centers as some do ( see GD ), I do think the guilty organization ( most likely bin Laden’s ) needs to be expunged. The details of that I would leave to those better qualified to work them out.
After this has been accomplished, I feel there may be additional steps that could/should be taken to help secure a superior peace. The details of those would depend on the situation as it develops. For example, if it proves necessary to cripple and replace the Taliban in Afghanistan ( and it may ), I might be in favor of a massive and comprehensive aid package which would include not just monetary help in rebuilding infrastructure, but also educational, agricultural, and medical training to help alleviate some of the worst problems in that area. I don’t feel this would be undeserved - after all we did fight a proxy war for ten years in that country and the Afghan people are victims as well ( and please don’t make the error of assuming that I think that justifies any terrorist act ). Helping to rebuild in that part of the world may reduce the ease with which the U.S. is demonized and made into a convenient scapegoat.
But that’s just a for instance and I won’t make the mistake of claiming I have all the answers.
But discussing these issues and securing more information is the first step
TAMERLANE – I wasn’t shouting; I all-cap people’s names so that they it is easily apparent to whom I am speaking. Unnecessary in a post, such as this one, when I’m only addressing one person, but it’s a habit.
But I take no issue with your latest post. I too would favor attempting to ameliorate the suffering caused by whatever action we may take. But I am afraid such suffering is inevitable, since the only other apparent option is inaction, which is not an option, or symbolic gestures amounting to inaction, such as sanctions.
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
To not want to know why flies in the face of fighting ignorance. NO ONE, NO ONE is excusing what those bastards did. HOWEVER, why should anyone have to pretend the US is an innocent victim?
If you refuse to go and try to discover the reason behind the problems, people, then you are doomed to suffer again and again.
“No man is an island.” Likewise, No nation can exist in a vacume. Isolationism and nationalism at the expense of others is stupid and dangerous and self-destructive. Why are we so opposed to working with other nations? Why do we always say-“Well, they’re just oppressive and stupid so we don’t need to blah blah blah…”
Because unless I am willing to change my behavior to prevent them from being “set off” again – which I am not – then it doesn’t matter why they did it. I don’t care what “set them off.” At all. I realize that you do not understand why I do not care, but I trust you at least grasp that I really, really don’t care, because I really, really don’t see of what practical use knowing is. And, with all respect, neither you nor anyone else has given me any persuasive reason why I need to understand their motivations at this time, before a response is undertaken. As I have already said, the enormity of the crime IMO dictates the harshest response commensurate with justice, regardless of motivation.
I don’t think there’s been much question as to who is pissed at us. I think I’ve got a pretty firm grip on that.
I respect your position, but as must be clear my M does V. But there is room in this world for both our positions. As I have said, I don’t care if you wish to discuss motivations 'til the cows come home. Everyone must deal with this event as they deem best, and explore what they consider to be the relevant lines of inquiry. But you will forgive me if I do not join in that discussion, so long as I fail to see its relevance. I only resent the attempt – by others, not by you, nor for that matter by anyone in this thread – the attempt to tell me what I must believe important.
Jodi, part of the reason I am majoring in history is that I find it an excellent way to learn how to change things-how to find solutions to problems.
I can imagine that the way a lot of Americans are feeling now is how the British Empire felt at their decline, when dealing with Ireland before the 1920s.
Why must we change many of the things we do? Because a lot of what we have done is just plain wrong.
Loving this country does not mean one must be blind to its faults.
I’m aware that you personally are not “confusing disagreement with a lack of patriotism,” either verbatim or implicitly, and for this I thank you. (I will assume that you would have me, as a foreigner, substitute the word “diplomacy” for “patriotism.”)
However, the venom I’ve felt directed (not by you) at those who think as I do, via this message board, elsewhere on the Internet, and in person, has had this effect. My roommate said today that he feels like he’s in Starship Troopers. Yes, Buenos Aires has been hit by an asteroid, but that doesn’t mean we can abandon ourselves to the sort of jingoism that’s been pressing in on me, at least, from all sides for the last week. Sorry if my reference to this pressure was poorly placed.
I have no other way to characterize an intentional refusal to understand as much of the attack as one can; to analyze the politics and dynamics of the region, country/ies, people, religion, and situation we’re about to bomb or invade.
If we are going to disturb the shit, we really ought to know something about the fluid dynamics of the septic tank so that no more sewage spills onto our shoes.
The point is not, for the present at least, to expiate or correct the US’s sins, real or perceived. The point is that the world is incredibly fragile right now. We need to understand everything we can, simply as a matter of good strategy, and understanding how the US and its past actions are perceived by the various sectors of Muslim and (if you will) “Muslim” society is of central importance to this.
I find it appalling that some would counsel intentional omission of some of these factors, a thorough knowledge of which can surely help us win the war, because it might make some people feel bad or cast an unfavourable light on a country’s past.
It doesn’t excuse the thing; don’t be ridiculous. It makes it more important and of pressing urgence to understand it in greater depth than an individual crime.
Then let me take a page from your book and ask you where I’ve advocated the same. It is my conviction that understanding what Fenris would have us refuse to understand will perforce make the exercise of justice easier and more efficient.
I do understand, Jodi, Fenris, and others, what you are saying. I do understand your points. I think our differences are smaller than they seem (sorta semantic, sorta an issue of timing, sorta a moral dilema where neither option is easy to choose).
I do think this is all merely a theoretical discussion; no matter how eloquently we try to argue, I don’t think we doves aren’t going to see our way in the real world.
