At 02:07 PM 12/18/2001, you wrote: > > Of course, the ancient adage the "two wrongs do not make a right" applies > > just as much here as it ever has. I would personally much rather see the > > "civilized" nations of the world decide to take the moral high road and > > proclaim that just because the terrorists have killed or injured hundred >or > > even thousands of innocent people, we are better than they are and can > > refrain from doing the same thing. > >The real question is what would happen then. Would terrorists view this as >an expression of weakness of will? Would they accept us as morally superior >and then agree to be reasonable so they would no longer be viewed as morally >inferior?
Whoops. Sorry, I don't recall arguing that we should not respond to the attacks. In fact, I was, on the whole, fairly pleased with how the response went. What I meant to say was that I don't believe that an attack which killed and injured thousands of people with no regard for their status as civilians or soldiers, what have you, does not call for retribution *in kind*. More succinctly: just because the terrorists killed thousands of innocent people does not mean that we have to. Instead we can go after the terrorists themselves. This is what we have done (more or less), and that's what I support. "Moral high ground", it seems to me, does not imply passivity. Not to respond in the face of brutality in order to protect innocents from further attacks and remove the threat is not taking the moral high ground. I'm deleting the rest of your reply on this point, since it seems as though we agree on it. :) >Why set up a straw man? In the attacks by the US on AQ and the Taliban in >Afghanistan, significant efforts were made to minimize civilian casualties, >just as significant efforts were made to minimize "friendly fire" >casualties. The number of civilian casualties are hard to measure, but I >don't think it is reasonable to just take the Taliban figures at face value. >If you look at other claims, like capturing US soldiers or shooting down a >helicopter but only being able to show the wheels, one would get the >impression that their claims need to be taken with a metric ton of salt. Yes, yes. As I said above, I've been, on the whole, pleased with the level of US response. Of course we can't accept Taliban and Al Quaeda figures at face value. Naturally, though, I don't believe that would should accept US figures just as blindly, either. > > To me, the most rational and just course of action would be to focus more > > time, energy, and other resources on eliminating the conditions that give > > rise to terrorist tendencies in the first place. > >Well, one needs to consider what leads to the terrorism in the first place. >With respect to the Palestinian terrorism, I would argue that the basic >reason for it is the existence of Israel. If you consider the number of Arab >countries, and the size of those countries, and the size of the initial >number of Palestinian refugees after the 1948 war, one would have to >conclude that it would have been a relatively small problem for the Arab >countries to absorb those refugees. Compare that to the relative number of >Jewish refugees that were absorbed into Israel. Yes, indeed. One could also argue that the region has been in dispute for thousands of years. One cannot dismiss the conditions of poverty, poor nutrition, and so on (not to mention governmental corruption and just plain old stupidity) when discussing the roots of terrorism based in the Middle East. I don't believe that Israel has been entirely without guilt in the matter either. >Does this mean that the US has been faultless in the world? No. Does it >mean that there isn't poverty and injustice? No. But, I think it means >that the faults of the US and the existence of poverty and injustice has >only marginal association with the terrorism. The best possible candidates >for injustice that caused this terror is the injustice of Arab governments. >However, the West has only marginal influence on these governments, at best. You present an compelling point of view regarding US culpability in the region. I think that the arguments about cultural differences is probably the most interesting. > > > > If we really want to live by "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", > > then, as Tevya noted, "Soon the entire world will be blind and toothless." > > > >One thing needs to be recalled is that "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a >tooth was a plea to end blood feuds. What it had been was "a life for an >eye" "your whole family's life for a life." Even if you consider the >response of Israel too strong, I think it is worthwhile to ask the question: >"if the Palestinians had the power to overrun Israel, would they?" Would >they negotiate if they had the upper hand, or would we be worrying about >whether the people of Israel would be killed en mass? As I said, I don't believe that Israel is entirely free of culpability in the development of the current situation. I can't say that I blame them for their attitude. Six thousand years of persecution has got to have an effect on how you perceive the world and react to things. As much as I favor cultural diversity and all that, I do believe that there is a time when such things must be put aside for the good of humanity as a whole. Sliante, Richard S. Crawford http://www.mossroot.com AIM: Buffalo2K ICQ: 11646404 Y!: rscrawford MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "It is only with the heart that we see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." --Antoine de Saint Exup�ry "Push the button, Max!"
