Lemur866:
Tautology much?
Well, I would try further to apologize and explain to you, Jodi, but considering that you’ve already found a way to ignore it when I said
and
and
and
and
you’d probably find a way to strain offense from the most abject apology on my part.
I come to this discussion late and probably with little to add. Over the past day or so that I have been following this thread I have seen as fine an array of ignorance, deliberate blindness and pig headedness as it has been my pleasure to witness. It doesn’t look like it is going to improve any now.
We know what motivated the criminal psychopaths who destroyed the WTC and raided Washington. They want to hurt the US because it is now the leading and strongest liberal, secular Western democracy. Liberalism (in its classic sense), secular government, Post-enlightenment political and social and scientific thought, and popular democracy are anathema to the radical Muslims. The more progressive Islamic states (and progressive is a relative term) are held is the same contempt as the democratic West. The radical Muslim view of the world is by Western perception, irrational. There is nothing that Western and Westernized nations can do to mollify the hatred of the radical Muslims that will not destroy the very things that Westerners hold as essential to their social, political and economic existence. We understand all that. There is no way to reconcile the radical Muslim’s view of the world with the Western view.
In the meantime the US has been attacked (again) and some 5000 of our people have been murdered at one blow. This is not the time to engage in breast beating and self condemnation because the nations foreign policy toward the Middle East has not been as perfect as it could have been. To contend now of all times that the terror raids on NYC and Washington were somehow just deserts or self inflicted is, under the circumstances, just as irrational, offensive and obscene as the terror raids themselves. Why we were attacked is now irrelevant. The question is how the nation can be protected from this sort of thing in the future. Just as the answer to piracy on the high seas was to go after pirates and their bases and the governments that supported them, the answer to terrorism is to go after the terrorists, their bases and the governments that support them.
Understanding our enemy is relevant only to the extent that understanding facilitates their destruction.
And therefore, since our aim is their destruction, understanding our enemy is useful, q.e.d.
MATHGEEK –
I don’t think it’s “good to know” or “bad to know.” I think it’s largely irrelevant because it doesn’t change what we are going to do – unless you are suggesting that if what the terrorists wanted was to provoke an invasion, that alone is reason enough not to do it, even though every other consideration demands it. We will go into Afganistan if necessary to try to find the person responsible for this and bring him to justice. Whether or not the hijackers wanted us to do exactly that makes no difference. What difference do you think it makes?
Again, and with all due respect, this is not what we are discussing. We are not talking about attempting to suss out the possible ramifications of our future actions – obviously a very good idea. We are talking about the utility, if any, of devoting our energy at this time to trying to figure out what in particular motivated this group of hijackers.
Of course, but this is a matter of domestic policy (safety), not foreign policy. The relevant inquiry is “How do we keep ourselves safe from terrorist attackes?,” not “What changes do we immediately make to foreign policy to make sure they don’t try to do this again?” – an obvious victory for the terrorists.
GUIN –
As I have said, if our foreign policy is wrong, it should have been changed long ago. I didn’t hear you or anyone agitating very loudly for that, though. That is why it is very difficult to change foreign policy in the wake of terrorism – because it is almost impossible avoid the obvious implication that you are changing it because of the terrorism – that we have, in fact, given in. This seems to me obviously far more likely to encourage the proliferation of terrorism than the decrease in it. I also disagree with the statement “we cannot support conditions that encourage a terrorist mindset,” as if we have some obligation to do things that we deem to be NOT in our country’s best interests, or in that of its allies, in order to avoid the proliferation of terrorism by other people. To me, this is simply another form of giving in. We must do what is in our best interests and the best interests of the world at large, and we cannot hestitate to do so simply because we fear we might piss someone else off, and by God we must avoid at all costs pissing him off – even if what pisses him off is grounded in irrationality or in religious dogma to which we as a nation do not and cannot adhere.
No one is saying these issues are black and white. They are very, very complex.
MATT –
This is very simple: You came into this thread where I was, at that time, the chief person defending a given position, and you responded that my position is “insanity,” the abandonment of reason, based upon “blindness,” and “willful and intentional ignorance.” You then disinegnously pretend surprise to find you have offended – “I didn’t mean you (even though I was responding to you), I meant generally (even though this isn’t a general discussion but a discussion of a very specific point).” In so doing, you compound your offensiveness and condescension in mischaracterizing what I have said with disingenuity – and you have the gall to tell me to “get over myself,” as if I am out of line to think that comments directed to ME might actually be about me.
And I was not alone in reasonably construing your comments in this thread as being directed at people participating in this thread. FENRIS told you:
You come into a thread dealing with an extremely sensitive topic and you post, in effect, “I’m right and your stupid,” and then you pretend surprise to have caused offense. Do not now continue to pretend by speaking of apologizing “further” when it is obvious to anyone who can read that you have never apologized in the first place.
Oh, and if SPAVINED says “X” is of use only ‘to the extent’ that it illuminates “Y,” then if it does not illuminate “Y” at all, it is of no use. That is the Q.E.D. of his statement.
And thank you for posting, SPAVINED. I agree with everything you said and think you have said it better than I did – and in considerably less space.
You know what? I’m ashamed to admit I haven’t really bothered to LEARN much about our foreign policy in the mideast-though I’ve always thought we should work better with others and stop thinking bombs and missiles are the answer.
But yes, I failed. I never thought of it before, and it disgusts me that I didn’t.
As I thought I had made clear, it makes a difference in whether or not we should anticipate reprisals. If the hijackers thought that U.S. military action would invite reprisals from other terrorists then maybe, just maybe, we should ask ourselves “Why did they think that, and do we think they were correct?” The events of last Tuesday caught the world largely unprepared. We should be better prepared for the next attack.
One of the factors that determines the possible ramifications of our future actions is the mindset of terrorists. There are undoubtably terrorists outside of Afghanistan who have a mindset similar to that of Osama Bin Laden and Tuesday’s hijackers. Osama Bin Laden’s motivations are a clue to his mindset.
Therefore, determining Osama Bin Laden’s motivations will help determine the possible ramifications of our future actions.
And as to whether or not we should be devoting our energy to it at this time: I say the sooner the better. Last Tuesday demonstrated that we live in a world where terrorists are willing to perform horrific acts of violence, and we need to learn how to live in that world now. Actually, we needed to learn how to live in that world some time ago.
Even leaving aside the foreign policy issue (which was quite frankly not my point; that’s your bugaboo, not mine), don’t you think that being forewarned could help keep us safe from terrorist attacks?
GUIN, I do not disagree with that, nor am I taking you to task for not knowing much of foreign policy. What average American really does? But at least tell me that you can see how changing foreign policy now may be seen as giving in to terrorism. Even if you believe it is so massively bad that it ought to be changed anyway (which I do not), at least tell me you understand why some of us think this is precisely the wrong time to do it.
MATHGEEK –
Really? There is some doubt in your mind as to whether, in the event of an invasion, we should anticipate reprisals? Because I think I know the answer to this. And I don’t need to delve into the hijackers’ motivations to know it, either.
So what? Do we do something different because of that mindset? Yes, I think it is important to understand the ramifications of our actions and if you believe we need to understand the motivations of these terrorists to do so, then by all means investigate. I obviously disagree. I doubt very much that there is anything we could learn about their “mindset” that will change how they will react to our actions. We are not functioning in a vaccuum. It is not as if we know nothing about their motivations – we know quite a lot. We know they are movitated by hatred of America and by religious extremism. Tell me: Of what use is it to know why they hate America, so long as we know that they do, they really, really do, and we can predict they will act and react accordingly?
:: Shrug :: Fine. You think about all the things the United States has done to earn this unthinking hatred and what we should do in the future to avoid it. For my part, I will think about how we can achieve justice for these victims at the lowest possible cost to the world, and how we can make ourselves safe (or at least safer) from further attacks. As I have said, I am not trying to order anyone else’s priorities. I simply refuse to allow anyone else to order mine.
Oh, heck no! Pardon my sarcasm, but who would disagree that a forewarning is of great help in avoiding terrorism. The question is whether an understanding of the motivation for hatred of us provides such a forewarning – or one that is of any practical use. It seems obvious to me that it does not.
Whether you’re intending to or not, you’re putting words in my mouth. I am not sitting here trying to make up a list of America’s supposed crimes. My desire to understand the terrorists’ motivations is not an attempt to shift blame. It is an attempt to, in your words, make ourselves safe (or at least safer) from further attacks…by understanding the enemy.
I really don’t know why that’s so difficult to understand.
I don’t mean to be antagonistic here, but I must disagree with the premise underlying the question. It seems obvious to me that we cannot know whether knowledge is of any practical use until we have it. The assertion that a piece of information we do not possess has no value is an assertion that cannot be supported logically. Further, it’s been demonstrated a few times in this thread exactly how knowledge of motivators can help predict future behavior.
Read this:
http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2001/June/Afghan/index.html
If this doesn’t make you feel at least SOMETHING, you’re made of stone.
That’s just it, I don’t KNOW!!! I don’t know what I think would be best. But I do believe, in my heart, that war is not the answer. These people are dying, they’re weak, and oppressed, and to go in there, and kill them…well, to me it’s chickenshit-like hitting my grandmother or something like that, or picking a fight with someone on his death bed…
XENO –
Well, let me try again: A man has come into your home and killed your child because he hates you. You now need to decide what you will do to punish that man, because there is no question that he is, in fact, guilty of the crime.
At this point – at this point – do you need to know why he hates you? Do you need to examine what you have done to “earn” that hatred? If someone comes to you and suggests your time is better spent in examining your own actions in order to decide why he hated you enough to kill your child, do you agree? Or do you think that your time is better spent in the immediate wake of the crime in doing other things – like trying to bring the murderer to justice?
I am going to repost my initial response to this thread, because I think my position has been so misinterpreted as to have become entirely lost. I said:
So, MATHGEEK, while I understand fully you are not talking about foreign policy, I hope you understand that I am, and have been since the very beginning. I am not saying information about motivation is useless; I am saying I would not concentrate on getting it now. I certainly would not concentrate on trying to figure out “why are we so hated by extremist Muslims?,” with all the attendant baggage of the almost unavoidable implication that we somehow deserved to be attacked.
GUIN, perhaps you could explain the relevance of that article to this discussion, or of your comment that “anyone who doesn’t feel something must be made of stone”? Who here has posted anything that can be construed as a lack of sympathy for the Afghanis?
Perhaps I should post one of a thousand and articles about the children still waiting for their fathers and mothers to come home from the Pentagon and the WTC; or the hundreds of cars parked at train stations as far away as Philadelphia for over a week now, cars that the authorities refuse to tow, in the forlorn hope that someone will come back for one; or the four-year-old girl who’s friends and family sang the “I Love You” song from Barney at her funeral, because it was her favorite.
If anyone doesn’t feel something then, they must be made of stone.
It wasn’t directed at you, Jodi. MOre, I guess, it’s to illustrate the futility of such a situation. We’re damned if we do and we’re damned if we don’t. No matter what we do, we lose.
It sucks. I guess I’m just more upset than I thought I was. I’m sorry, I don’t like arguing with you guys-well, not like this. I’m just feeling sick right now.
I guess it’s the whole, two wrongs don’t make a right. People suggesting we “bomb them back into the stone age,” an “eye for an eye”, etc etc…
GUIN –
I say this as gently as I can – You do not believe that war is the answer, and yet, you do not have another one.
I understand that. I truly do. I don’t criticize it, or imply that you should have another one.
But if that is the only solution we have – and it appears to me that it is, or at least I have yet to hear any single person suggest a viable alternative that is not a total abdication of our responsibility to seek justice – then IMO that is what we must do.
I understand you anguish. I feel it too. This is not an event I contemplate with anticipation. But if you come into my house and kill my family, you will be brought to justice for it. You must be.
The phrase from which my sig is taken is fiat justicia, ruat coelum – “Let there be justice, though the heavens should fall.” That doesn’t mean we should or can rejoice in it. It means it must be done.
And I have no wish to fan any flames, but I do want to ask a couple of questions to those arguing for greater empathy toward terrorists.
Are you convinced that radical Islamic terrorists organization have some hidden motivations, either in general or specifically involved with the WTC attack? Are you saying that the public pronouncements by Bin Laden (if he is indeed ultimately responsible) are not sufficient on either practical or ethical grounds?
Some of your arguments seem to hinge upon the practical necessity of anticipating the consequences of any action the US Government might take. I submit that it would be irresponsible for us to proceed under anything but the presumption that we will be the target of further hostilities. Do you agree? If so, does this have any ramifications on the pragmatic need for understanding the motives of terrorists?
Guinastasia, I gather, is a pacifist who sees no justification in any war. Do the rest of you share this position? If so, do you see a practical value for understanding the motives of terrorists as a matter of formulating diplomatic policy? If so, do you agree that such a shift could be acurately described as appeasement?
I don’t mean to bombard anyone with questions, but I think that Jodi has done a masterful job of arguing her position from a context of practical consideration and short-term response. Some of you folks on the other side are smart cookies too, though, and I am trying to understand the disjunction in your positions. I think it is a case of differeing contexts for evaluation, but I may be wrong.
If your mainly concerned about justice then no you don’t need to know. If you want to prevent future similar occurences then yes you should. You should examine the actions you have taken before and you should make sure that you don’t repeat the same mistake that caused him to kill your children. Even if the only mistake you made was to live in a highly dangerous neighborhood. If you don’t you will just continue to be a victim.
The reason why this is different than the abused woman saying “if I didn’t do this he would stop” is because she is deluding herself because she can’t accept the alternatives. A more similar anology would be an abused woman having the choice between fighting back or leaving. Some choose to fight back and some choose to leave.
After the Civil War Lincon could have sought justice against the South and our country would probably still be a collection of states threatening to secede. In WWI the stance towards Germany could have been of forgiveness and the second world war probably would have never happened. In this situation there is a similar choice. As long as we consider them evil they will try their best to live up to that image.
We could understand the terrorists motivations and invade in such a way to prevent reprisals. It seems likely that almost all terrorist actions would be against the soldiers fighting if we invaded and after we took control of Japan we stopped almost any chance of a Pearl Harbor happening again.
Someone who is dying rarely cares wether or not they are dying from the Taliban or from America. If we fight a war and focus on helping those people instead of justice then the war will probably stop the terrorism and save lives in Afghanistan in the long run. We should bring the terrorists to justice, but a more important goal is to remove what caused them to be terrorists.
Well, try this on for size. Since I seem to be in la-la land anyway, join me for a minute.
Let’s suppose the Taliban has a change of heart and hands bin Laden over. And other countries come forward with information about terrorists hiding out in their nations. Perhaps even turn over some of the ratfuckers and their followers.
What then? Would we still march off to war for vengeance? To make a point? To show our might?
As I see it, this would be an overture towards a peaceful resolution. We’d bring these guys to justice, and stamp out other terrorists as needed. Wouldn’t the chance of this admittedly-unlikely but (in my eyes) highly-desirable scenario increase if our government was willing to say “Help us get the bad guys, and then let’s work together toward a more stable and just world” instead of “Look out, we’re flexing our muscles and showing our firepower no matter what, because it’t the only response we can conceive of?”
And Spiritus, I can’t speak for anyone else, but the phrase “empathy for terrorists” is extremely distasteful to me. It is either a twisting of my words, or I misspoke myself badly. I don’t have an ounce of empathy or sympathy for the animals who did this. How could I? Ludicrous. Do I have a hunger to understand why this all came about? Sure, but that’s a long way away from empathizing with the monsters who killed 5,000 innocent human beings in my country.