I’m watching Fox News and Kasich is mad because he saw some polls that said 50% of Saudis support Bin ladin. I saw these polls too, they also said that the vast majority didn’t want Bin Ladin to have any political power too.
I for one do not see the problem in them supporting Bin Ladin. Just because someone is America’s enemy doesn’t make them the world’s enemy. Saudi Arabian culture gave birth to Bin Ladin, most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Bin Ladin is a soldier fighting for what he believes in. So are US soldiers and over 90% of Americans support them. To me it just seems ignorantly ethnocentric to assume ‘our’ soldiers and ‘our’ values are all that matter to the world and that everyone should hate our enemies.
As far as a ‘moral argument’ that the US is superior because we do not target civilians and because we fight to promote justice, human rights and freedom (as opposed to islamic tyranny), i don’t fully believe the first part. The US, UK, France, Japan, etc all have civilian blood on their hands and only started avoiding targeting civilians with any real ambition in the last 30 years. It wasn’t uncommon in WW2 to intentionally target civilians by all sides. the Japanese, the UK, US, Germans & Russians all did this. I’m not 100% sure but i dont think civilian life meant much to the US in vietnam either (i could be wrong). it wasn’t until post-vietnam that watching out for civilian casualties seemed to become part of the US’s. Today, in 2004 yes the US cares about civilian life, probably more than any invading army in history. Plus, pragmatically it wouldn’t matter if the terrorists targeted military or civilian institutions. Even when they target military institutions like soldiers they are still considered morally inferior.
As far as the US fighting for more noble causes, i agree with this. I dont think anyone here (except maybe a few fanatics) think Iraq would be better with Bin Ladin in charge rather than the US. Afghanistan was a craphole when the Taliban ran it, one of Freedom House’s 7 worst countries on the planet for human/civil rights and one of the poorest, most illiterate nations on earth. However those polled did not want Bin Ladin to have political power, so this argument is moot.
So why is it bad if people support Bin Ladin (by support i mean support in principle, not with funds or arms or anything)? its not like they want him in power, they just hate his enemies (the US mainly. and Jews of course). Their culture is different from our culture. Why is it when we support ‘our’ soldiers that is morally acceptable but them supporting ‘their’ soldiers is horrid? That is Bin Ladins culture just like the US army comes from US culture.
50% of Saudi Arabians, or 12 million people agreeing with Bin Laden is not necessarily a bad thing. However, since Bin Laden believes that America and Israel should be destroyed; and that Americans are infidels who should either bow to Allah or be slaughtered, why shouldn’t this be of concern to Americans?
It is true that America’s enemy is not necessarily the world’s enemy, but you are watching an American news broadcast.
ObL purposesly targets civilians for killing as means of accomlishing his goals. If you don’t see why it’s bad for anyone to support that, then I can’t think of an argument that will convince.
The US and UK intentionally targeted civilians in WW2 from what i know. Granted in 2004 the US does not intentionally target civilians and tries hard to avoid hitting them unlike al-qaeda. However even when OBl targets military installations he is still considered morally inferior to the US.
The concept of Total War, which was how we (the Allies) fought World War II, calls for not only the destruction of the enemy army, but also the destruction of the enemy infrastructure and the demoralization of the enemy population. If you want to be really particular about it, you could say that Germany and Japan precipitated that kind of war with V-1 and V-2 attacks on London and the forced marches and inhumane treatment of our captured soldiers.
You mentioned about Bin Laden hitting military targets. OK, in a war the Pentagon is a legitimate target, as was the USS Cole, and arguably Khobar Towers. But the World Trade Center? Come on. The vast majority of the casualties that he has inflicted upon this country were a direct result of a deliberate attack on civilians, with the target selected for maximum psychological effect. In effect, he has made this war a Total War on his side. You’re more than willing to hurl criticism at the US for their actions in World War II, but you’re willing to write off Bin Laden’s similar actions as morally legitimate 60 years later?
Think about how inconsistent that is, and get back to me.
As a matter of fact, Diogenes, targeting civilians has been a “tradition”, as it were, throughout the world for as long as men have fought other men. The thing that makes us unique now is that we don’t target civilians intentionally anymore. Can you say that about any other country?
You need to stop bringing up examples from long ago, because in today’s warfighting they are passe, as obsolete as battleships and single-shot muskets.
How about Canada? Switzerland? France? England? The Netherlands?
Actually how many countries would admit to targeting civilians intentionally?
It’s bullshit that the US doesn’t, btw. We call it “collateral damage” but what it amounts to is a calculated decision to kill civilians along with another target. That means we kill civilians on purpose. Just because we might happen to hit something else along with them doesn’t mean it’s not a deliberate decision to kill civilians.
I honestly don’t understand this mentality that says the US intentionally targets civilians. How do we do that? Why do we spend endless billions on less than lethal weapons, or smart bombs, or bombs designed to destroy machinery but not the people inside if we want to hurt civilians? Why do we medivac and treat injured civilians free of charge if we intentionally targeted them just an hour earlier?
The US has collateral damage, but intentionally hitting civilians we do not do, we try to keep that to a minimal. Comparing that to what happens in places like the Sudan or in WW2 where terrorizing civilians was the goal is quite a stretch.
Airman Doors, USAF - When did i ‘write off’ Bin Ladins attacks on civilians. All im saying is that i don’t buy the moral argument against Bin Ladin on the front of attacking civilians rather than military installations for 2 reasons.
The US used to target civilians up until 30 years ago
Bin Ladin targets military installations as well as civilians
They already have. Where do you think OBL got his moolah? Playing craps? Two of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi (the ones who trashed the Pentagon, I believe). The Saudis have been diverting millions of foreign aid to terrorist camps. And you better believe that some (if not the majority) of those foreign aid samoleans have Ben’s face on 'em.
Geez, don’t you guys know anything?
For cites, see this. Ignore the crap until “Turning a Blind Eye”.
That is different though, because the target is the millitary target. Civilians dying is an unfortunate consequence of destroying the military target. That’s different than targeting civillians. If there were some hypothetical way we could attack the military target without any civillians dying, we’d still attack the military target.
So we’re not targeting civillians. There is a difference.
I don’t buy this rationalization for a second. If we commit an act which we know will kill civilians, then we are killing civilians on purpose. We are deciding that it’s acceptable to kill children and old ladies if we hit a military target as well. That’s the same logic that Tim McVeigh used.
I’d like to ask anyone who buys these kind of rationalizations to consider this:
Would you be willing to take out that same military target if it meant you would also have to kill your own child?
If the answer is no, then you have no moral right to support killing someone else’s child. If the answer is yes then you’re a sociopath.
Yeah, I found out 14 out of 19 when I read the cite. :smack:
But your posting worded it as a theoretical: “They could…” They have. They did. They probably will again. Why not, if so many of the Saudis are members of the OBL fan club?
:dubious: I’m not Airman Doors, but I feel a need to respond anyway.
Point 1, you keep bringing up the same argument over and over again, we use to target civilians 30 years ago or more. That was the past, we don’t do that any more, sheeze! How can you possibly judge our current morality based on past actions? The logical way to judge a nations morality is by how they’re behaving in the present. We did then, but we don’t now. How hard is that for you to comprehend?
Point 2, so you’re saying that because he carries out legitimate military strikes, that excuses his civilian strikes? :dubious:
If the OP is asking “Is it wrong for Saudis to have different moral values than us?” well, no, it’s not wrong in principle. But when those values lead them to support a guy who kills thousands of innocent Americans to further his political aims – primarily because he killed thousands of us, not so much because of his politics – I think it reasonable for us to look askance at them, perhaps even to consider them a bunch of fucking shitheads who need a major attitude adjustment.
Look, I really think there’s not much distinction to be made morally between the Bush Administration and bin Laden wrt killing innocent civilians – both have done so to further their political aims – ObL with 9/11, Bush with his unprovoked attack in Iraq. But I feel sure America is a hell of a lot better than both the Bush Administration and the Taliban. Remember – we didn’t elect either man to office.
The value one puts on the life of “someone else’s child” (a description that inevitably holds true for the target as well, unless there’s been an immaculate conception or two in recent years…) varies with whose child it is.
The military is under the control of a nation’s government. It is the government’s duty to prioritize the lives of the people it serves above those it does not. That doesn’t give it free license to shit upon outsiders for its own gain, but in a justified war (which is again debatable for most) it has to make decisions: if we attack this headquarters/ammo dump/train junction with our infantry, many of them will perish; if we do nothing, the intact enemy facility or people will endanger those of our troops or our civilians; if we drop a bomb there, we will kill several of their civilians in addition to the mark.
It depends on the circumstances, but a rational person (one capable of value judgment) will usually opt for the third choice while developing more precise bombs.
I value people differently depending on how I am connected to them. Without specifics, it’s something roughly like: my mom > me > other immediate family and closest friends > other friends > distant family > ethnic group > most people in the US > most people in my home country > people outside those borders who bear little relevance in my life > people who’d like to see me or those I value most dead but do not act on such desires > people who put forth active effort toward bringing harm to me or those whom I value most. If you are going to claim that one should invoke Kant’s categorical imperative with respect to a choice between the lives of those one values greatly and those one does to a much lesser extent, it is you who are not entirely sane.
