A giant step for mankind

Backwards.


The hijackers didn't do anything wrong. Just ask one of the ones who didn't get the job. They see us as evil. We see them as evil. Both are right, and wrong, depending only on who is judging.


The enemy is known and familiar. Bigotry. In the biggest of pictures, the most terrifying result of 9/11 is the wave of nationalistic bloodlust that grips our country.


We of the western culture pretend to be ethically enlightened compared to other groups that share our gene pool. We brag of our achievements in tearing down the walls of bigotry; racial, gender, religious, cultural. We smuggly brag, right up until a crisis. Then, all of a sudden, just because another culture does not share our respect for an indiviual life, we see fit to adopt THEIR view, and join in the slaughter with guns and flags held high.


This, then, is a test of our claim to enlightenment. We can fight hate with hate, or we can fight hate with tolerance, globally and personally. If bigotry is to ever end, someone has to not hate back.


Tommy

I agree. well said.

Noble thoughts, Tommy. But listen to what our leaders are saying. We're good, they're evil. We have God on our side. You have hit the nail on the head: they think the same thing.


We will most likely fail the enlightenment test. Note that the news today was that the suspects are "Arabs." Not Egyptians, Lebanese, Palestinians or Afghanis, Arabs.


"because another culture does not share our respect for an indiviual life, we see fit to adopt THEIR view, and join in the slaughter with guns and flags held high." When Word War II started, Roosevelt pleaded with the antagonists to not involve civiilians in the war. By the end of the war, we were firebombing Japanese cities, killing 100,000 in one night in Tokyo.


"the most terrifying result of 9/11 is the wave of nationalistic bloodlust that grips our country." No, in any size picture, as always, the most terrifying result is the dead and mamed. But the bloodlust runs a close second.

In a many dark hour

I've been thinkin' about this

That Jesus Christ

Was betrayed by a kiss

But I can't think for you

You'll have to decide

Whether Judas Iscariot

Had God on his side.


-Bob Dylan, "With God on our side"


Regards

Sorry, couldn't disagree more when it comes to your statements that we have no ability or right to judge. Of course we do. All progress in this world has come because people are willing to make value judgments. Our species can only live if we make decisions based on what we value and the things we value support life for us as humans. The evil cretins who did this destroy objective values out of a desire to harm life. They are not entitled to be judged on a relative scale of what they think is OK. I am willing to judge: 50,000 people working to produce wealth in a structure that is the triumph of man's ability =good. Fanatics who have never produced anything but the hatred you decry who kill thousands of people and destroy what those people worked hard to achieve=Bad. If we do not make this judgment we are doomed to live in a world where killing thousands of people for emotional reasons is just as good as producing tangible benefits for people. I don't want to live in such a world, I don't value that. I do value a world without bigotry or hatred of others based on stupid factors.


I do not think any revenge should be taken out of some emotional need for blood. On this I think we agree. But that does not mean retaliation is based on bloodlust or hatred. Because I want to live in a world without violent terroist attacks, I will support a violent response against those who do value such attacks. It is a matter of defense, which is a basic human right. So no, we should not hate back by being irrational bigots. But we should strike back. We have both the right and the obligation to do so, that we may live as humans should.

I gather from your post that by striking back we will make things better. If that is the case I couldn't disagree more. I've set out reasons in my post below. Also Andy Fox in a response to my post makes the following point:


"We frequently hear commentators talk about how Israel is not wimpish and deals with terrorism quickly and resolutely. But Israel's policy has not made it less susceptible to terrorism. One could argue the opposite much more easily."


I agree completely with this statement. If ALL we do is strike back then nothing will change. More fundamental changes are required.

I didn't read Tommy saying we have no ability or right to judge. He was worried that we would adopt the standards of our enemies.


By assuming everything we do is good because we do it is wrong. To assume everything our enemies do is bad because they do it is wrong.


What was done yesterday was despicable and I favor a military response. But we also must understand why we were the targets. To just say God is on our side and we are good and they are evil is shortsighted.

I agree that we should not hate back, and that bigotry is a common enemy. I don't think we should join in the slaughter in a way that would be the counterpart to the terrorists' actions--we should not exact analogous retribution.


However, this does not mean we should not find and punish the perpetrators or refrain from destroying the organizations whose primary goal is to destroy us.


I also don't think it is entirely a point of view as to whether they are right or we are right. After all, you could apply that same argument to the actions of any despots throughout history including Hitler and Stalin. I don't think you would be saying that whether they were wrong or right was entirely a point of view, would you?


I think we should try NOT to exact retribution from the common people. We should invoke tolerance with respect to the cultures and beliefs of the entire Islamic world, and to their rights. We should even try to arrive at a solution to the Palestinian problem--perhaps all neighboring nations could give up a tiny bit of land and the Palestinians could have a homeland at last in the desert which they could build up as did Israel. Perhaps the U.N. could compensate those nations who would give up some land in a monetary way, with funds contributed from all nations.


All this does not mean, however, that the perpetrators of these horrible acts were not wrong, nor does it mean we should turn the other cheek. When attacked we must defend, and since these attacks will undoubtedly continue in the future as long as these terrorist organizations exist, our defense should include the destruction of the most aggressive and powerful terrorist organizations in existence today.


I know many things ARE a point of view, like which religion is best (if any), but terrorism is an attack upon innocent people with the intent to kill and cause terror.


If you feel this may be right or wrong depending only upon point of view, at what point would you NOT feel this way? In other words, where would you draw the line? Pol Pot? Hitler?

I don't think Tommy is saying their point of view is correct. He said from their standpoint, their point of view is correct. If we then adopt their standards of behavior, we have lowered outselves to their point of view.

Reagan? George Bush? Clinton?

Tommy, I agree 100% that bigotry is an evil we need to combat, and we can combat it most effectly by simply not being bigots.


Righteously judging bigotry as a bad thing is proof that moral relativism is bullshit. It's simply NOT true that some people think the terrorists are evil, but the terrorists think the victims are evil, therefore both sides are right and wrong depending on who is judging. It's this kind of moral relativism which can be used to justify and condone and accept some horrible things in this world.


natedogg

Everyone keeps saying that striking back won't solve the problem. That's only true if we strike back by attempting to kill as many civillians in some random country as were killed in ours. However, an irrational massive strike is not the only way to "strike back".


I saw a comment somewhere that killing bin Laden, while correct if he's responsible, would be a useless response. That may or may not be true, but was is true, IMO, is that we should strike, hard, at any and all people known to be involved in terrorism. There is no more room for allowing the continued existence of anyone or anything which could be described as a known terrorist or terrorist organization. There should never again be a situation in which we say, "Well, we know this guy is a threat, but he's hiding in some country which won't produce him, so our hands are tied." That is completely unacceptable. Any country which houses or aids, in any way, a known terrorist, is responsible for any acts committed by that terrorist or members of his organization. I'm not saying we need to kill everyone in Afghanistan or whatever, that's clearly ridiculous. What I am saying is that anyone who we know has been involved with terrorism or terrorists is to be found an eliminated. No pulling our punches because someone sees fit to protect a murderer. It's over. I can only echo McCain's comments regarding whoever is responsible, but I would extend it to anyone who has ever been responsible for something similar, regardless of scale: "May God have mercy on your soul, because we will not."

There have been many overtures to the Arab world to find a suitable homeland for the Palestinians and I would like to think that many Palestinians whose only dream is to raise their children in a better world than the one in which they were rased would be thrilled with a chance to make a new life in peace. However, the militants will not be happy with a homeland in the desert. they are Palestinians and want palestine as their homeland. This is why Israel "must" be destroyed so that the land can "rightfully" be returned to the Palestinians.

"Righteously judging bigotry as a bad thing is proof that moral relativism is bullshit."


Could you rephrase this for me, I don't quite get what you're saying(other than you see moral relativism as...Harmful(?), ignorant(?), Unwise(?), Nonsense?


"It's simply NOT true that some people think the terrorists are evil," but the terrorists think the victims are evil, therefore both sides are right and wrong depending on who is judging.


How can you say this? It's not true that there are people who believe the terrorists are evil? It's not true that Bin Laden and his followers(if they did it) believe we're evil? It's not true there are those on both sides who are convinced they are right? Or are you maybe saying that it's nonsense that both sides can be right? That if one side is right, then the other side has to be wrong?


"It's this kind of moral relativism which can be used to justify, condone, and accept some horrible things in this world."


So in other words, it keeps us from taking action?

Many militants probably do feel this way, but not all Palestinians are militants, and probably less would be if they had a nearby homeland. Whether this would be sufficient to substantially reduce the pressure would remain to be seen, but it would surely reduce the pressure somewhat, would it not? And we can still deal with the intractable militants in more forceful ways if necessary when and if they take aggressive actions.

All morals are relative to the person who has them.

One culture or religions' morals are unique and different to anothers. So is one individual's morals different to another

Unfortunately, the Palestinians, peaceful and not, have made it quite clear that any homeland would have to include Jerusalem to be acceptable. Even a shared Jerusalem would probably be acceptable if Israel could be assured of a peaceful and permanent coexistance. But, can anyone ever make that kind of guarantee to Israel and make it stick?

Well maybe I am wrong to think that they might accept a nearby homeland which does not include Jerusalem.


Right now they have no homeland at all. They are not going to get Israel or Jerusalem, so perhaps the more level-headed Palestinians might realize that ANY homeland is better than none and than living in Israeli-controlled settlement areas.


Would the Palestinians really turn down a homeland if it were offered to them, choosing instead to live in their current locations and under current consitions? I think they would probably jump on it if it were actually offered, all the while insisting that someday they must eventually have Jerusalem. They wouldn't get Jerusalem, of course, and in time perhaps the more level-headed Palestinians would focus more on building their own country. Perhaps even some of the not-so-level headed ones would too.


I just find it hard to imagine that they would actually TURN DOWN a homeland or country of their own.

As a Canadian,i would like to express my sadness at the tragic events in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania. i am however oppose to escalating the level of violence through counter violence because for one it will not be the end of it. It might just multiply it. Another is that there are a number of possible perpetuators and putting the blame and punishing the wrong party just adds to the tragedy, going down to the level of the evildoers. Another reason for using restraint is that in all cases of retaliation it is mostly innocent civilians who pay the price. The casualties just keep on growing. It becomes a cycle of neverending violence as we see between the Israelis and Palestinians and to some extent in Northern Ireland.As hard as it is to control one's emotions in light of last Tuesday's events, we need to do it if we are to all live in a civilised society.

"Everyone keeps saying that striking back won't solve the problem."


It depends on what is perceived as the problem.

How quickly we forget how well appeasement worked. A non-violent policy with Hitler really worked. Terrorists operate at about Hitler's level, but they lack the organization. These people are not going to respond well to diplomacy or sit-ins or peace vigils. They will respond appropriately to being destroyed. We can expect them to hit back, but that is why we must strike as decicively as possible. If not stiking back would end terrorism, you would have a stronger argument. But passively taking it will give terrorists a license to do more. Your goal of protecting a civilized society is the correct one, but cannot be accomplished the way you propose because the people with whom we are dealing are not civilized and want to establish a primitive society (albeit one with modern weapons).


As for punishing the "wrong party", I am not sure what you mean. We already have grounds to destroy Bin Laden and his minions based on prior acts. If he's innocent of this one, well, whatever. But he's not, so we should respond before having a case that is perfect. We should also take the opportunity to destroy any terrorist group that we know of if we can. We need to have a solid idea of exactly what happened so we can hit those who harbored the terrorists. We can take a bit more time on this because it will involve declaring war on another nation. Nobody is advocating the wholesale slaughter of civilians, but when acts of war are committed on you, the response is not to be Mr. nice guy. This was an act of war. And our 20000+ innocent civilians count for something too.

Rounder,


Be quiet.


We need American dissent and cleverly worded pandering. It helps us achieve.


Don't give our apologists a bad name. Leave Angelo alone. Let his numbers grow....at least until we get weapons of mass destruction.


Until then,


Sleep well.

Mike, people are seldom brought around in their point of view by insult. We have to persuade people in the same manner that commercial laxatives induce bowel movements: gently.

Tommy, please rethink. There can be no excuse for mass murder.


I am an aetheist for intellectual reasons. But, I'm glad I am. How can (did) the suicide murders justify what they do (did)? Working the Will of the Almighty!!


Believers are unbounded in their behavior. Nonbelievers are stuck will simple morality. Believers scare me, all of them, regardless of persuasion. Which group makes you feel more comfortable?

Well, the Arabs certainly have enough undeveloped land to offer to the Palestinians, so if an offer hasn't been made who's at fault? The palestinians are the "untouchables" of the arab world. No one wants them unless they can use them as a rallying post on which to skewer the US and Israel.

Tommy Angelo did not condone the massacre. He considers that jingoism, intolerance, stepping all over the international law and total disregard for morality, innocent lives and human rights, is the same whether practiced under the Star & Stripes or the Islamic jihad green banner. Any objections?


You must think that saying this right on the aftermath of such a huge tragedy is uncalled for. You might find it blasphemous to debate right now whether the U.S. is the most "bigotry-free" country in the world or not. And you might be right in this. Nonetheless Tommy Angelo's point is right on target! A retaliation by the United States solely on the basis of "might makes right" brings America closer to the thinking of the terrorist criminals. The jingoistic cries for lynching other nations wholesale are echoing proclamations by rogue states. A Saddam would gladly adopt the rhetoric.


That free and righteours country you're rightly so proud about could get to be just a little less free and righteous.

This is quite likely true.


I am just suggesting that in the interests of overall peace, perhaps the U.N. could pay the Saudis and/or others for a small piece of land which could be given to the Palestinians as a homeland (less than ideal in the minds of the Palestinians, but probably far better than their current situation).

Your post is worthy of the convoluted best new philospohers' texts! (Lame joke.)


No, listen : things are simple than that.


1. If we accept relativism, then we cannot function as a society.


2. Without the ability to function as a society, we are incapable of living even for one moment. It is a matter of survival.


3. We believe they are totally wrong They believe we are totally wrong. Who is right? It is the side that can demonstrate the soundness of its arguments by reason and logic. A monotheistic fanatic who believes in the sanctity of women's virginity just because "it is written" cannot win the discourse against the enlightened western liberal who argues on the basis of biological, ethical and social reasons the opposite.


4. A suppporter of western liberal thinking (that includes most western democracies) could conceivable use some criminal means to convince those who hold opposite views - like, say, a crusade against the "barbarian natives" or the shooting down of a commercial airliner, etc. Automatically, that supporter is not to be trusted anymore and belligerent action must be taken against him.


5. Ergo, going after terrorists (of the right, the left, the middle, or the basement) is absolutely justified.


And relativism is just another word for not wanting to get out of the bed of terminal passivity. Relativism negates Enlightment and al l the advances in our thinking achieved in the last 300 years.

From what I read on www.msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.com), there are numerous bin-Laden terrorist cells already established in the U.S. and around the world just waiting for the commands to take action. Fascinating and sobering reading, I suggest everyone read about what terrorist cells are and how they operate.


We truly could be in danger of far worse than we have yet experienced. I see no reason why they could not smuggle nuclear bombs into this country (if all those drugs get in, so can nuclear material, perhaps right along with the drugs. bin-Laden's extreme wealth means he can surely purchase these materials somehow). These bombs could easily be detonated in vehicles in all our largest metropolitan areas, and the cells bin-Laden already has established in this country would surely carry this out on command.


For these and other reasons I believe the only prudent course is the decimation of bin-Laden's organization; the capture or death of bin-Laden and all of his leaders.

I totally agree that if everyone in the Middle East, why stop there, the world had what they wanted peace would be more achievable. But after 5700 years of turmoil, hate and distrust I'm pretty sure that if there was a solution one would have been found by now.

thanks Cyrus. That's what I meant! lol. I guess I was a little tired. My post was total gibberish.


natedogg

"America is the most free country ever - we are the MOST devoid of bigtory and racism"


Ever been to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Sweeden? Just some of the countries I've been to which you've obviously not been to. Like most Americans you think the entire world is comprised within the geographical border of the lower 48.

"3. We believe they are totally wrong They believe we are totally wrong. Who is right? It is the side that can demonstrate the soundness of its arguments by reason and logic. A monotheistic fanatic who believes in the sanctity of women's virginity just because "it is written" cannot win the discourse against the enlightened western liberal who argues on the basis of biological, ethical and social reasons the opposite."


History has shown that reason and logic cannot win an arguemant against blind faith and superstition.

The person who is right is the one who wins the war.

""America is the most free country ever - we are the MOST devoid of bigtory and racism"


Ever been to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Sweeden? Just some of the countries I've been to which you've obviously not been to. Like most Americans you think the entire world is comprised within the geographical border of the lower 48."


This is a very good post Clinteroo.

This attitude does Americans no favour whatsoever especially when you consider Australia allowed women and our native people the freedom to vote long before America. I also believe New Zealand was the first country in the world to allow women to vote.

Also, I really hear about or see any rascist acts or comments in Australia but I am constantly hearing about them from America.

Cyrus,


I agree with your post. Logically how could this possibly benefit the people who are behind this? They will die and their comrades will die. They may get their kin killed as well. If this was the doing of the Palastinians they are basically assuring our backing of Israel. Does anyone think we will just sit around and take it? As I have said many times before whomever did this has sealed the fate of their group.


Zach

No nation is devoid of bigotry and hate. To claim our nation doesn't have these things in large supply is foolish. This is kind of a mute point considering there isn't a way to test this anyways. Although I would like to think that in my experience a great deal of americans struggle to get rid of intolerant ideas. Understand that the great majority of everyone I have talked to are NOT racist. I just hope recent events don't change this!


Zach

I agree with your post Zach.

I was stuggling to express myself when I wrote that.


It annoys me when I read posts from Americans that state how great they are and everyone else in the world are either worthless or ignorant savages. It becomes blatantly obvious that these people have no real idea what any other country in the world is like.


I too am guilty of this in some respects toward America as I have never been there. I am sure there are many highly intelligent people who reside there as evidenced by the high quality debate that have been raging on this forum for the last week. The only difference is that here in Australia, we are bombarded with American television (the serious and trivial).


In my opinion, Americans would be seen by the people of the world in a much better light if they lost the ignorant self-righteous attitude and firstly acknowledged that they are simply one country in this world out of many and then tried to understand that other countries have different viewpoints and cultures.