----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard S. Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 4:44 PM Subject: Re: Tragedy in Israel
> >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. > OK, I'll chalk up my mistaken understanding of what you meant to an information transfer error, without worrying about troubleshooting to see what part the transmitter and what part the receiver played in the error. :-) > > "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. > > > > 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. > No, but the US military seems to be doing a much better job of maintaining its credibility. The quotes on civilian casualties was "nothing we have indicates they are that high, but since we do not have people on the ground we cannot get our hands on what the casualties actually are." That sounds like something someone who is trying to be correct says. Also, if the US military is caught lying outright, then the cozy relationship they have with the press will be come adversarial immediately. (The only real exception to that is a temporary lie about troop movements in order to keep the enemy from knowing the real movement.) > 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. > That's fair enough. A feeling of deprivation can affect attitudes. However, as 20th century European history shows, even an "advanced" country can feel the need for scapegoats and justify horrendous actions. That's why I think that ending deprivation will not end terrorism. > I don't believe that Israel has been entirely without guilt in the matter > either. No, it hasn't. The worst action of the government, IMHO, has been settlements. Directing attacks against those they consider responsible for either directing or failing to stop the suicide bombings is much more defendable than settling the West Bank. > > 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. > Thanks. > > 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. > I don't think accepting diversity should mean accepting horrendous actions that masquerade as diversity. Here in the Woodlands TX, we have a good model for accepting diversity with Faith United. They sponsored an inter religious response to 9-11 and have now sponsored 3 interfaith Thanksgiving observances. In addition, the local Islamic society and the local synagogue had jointly sponsored a prayer service for peace in the Middle East last spring. Dan M.
