Some Questions

Below, Lenny writes something that I suspect is widely accepted, even modest compared to the more hysterical responses to the recent airliner attacks (E.g., Thomas Friedman in the NYT: "Does my country really understand that this is World War III? And if this attack was the Pearl Harbor of World War III, it means there is a long, long war ahead." This from the liberal press).


Lenny wrote (presuming, I think, that Bin Laden is somehow guilty): "Would anyone who knows his whereabouts and his contacts, yet chooses not to interfere be innocent?" He also said: "I don't advocate killing every person who falls under one of the categories listed above, though I do advocate killing some of them, imprisoning many of them, and suitably punishing the rest. This would include removing from power the leaders of any country which has aided terrorists. How can we do any less?"


I think the following quesions are basic to this topic:


1. If a foreign state, group or individual committed terrorism on U.S. soil, which I'll define as the deliberate killing of civilians and property destruction without military pretext in order to create widespread fear, and foreign legal process failed to inflict suitable punishment on those responsible, should the U.S. as a matter of principle accept the result? Or does the U.S. have a moral right to use military force to inflict punishment?


2. If the latter, do we believe that the foregoing standard applies to all countries or just countries other than the U.S.?


3. If the United States facilitated or committed terrorism on foreign soil, do we think that punishment should be limited to those directly responsible or should it also be inflicted, as Lenny implied, on those who had the ability but chose to refrain from interfering or hindering such acts?


4. Do we believe that those responsible for U.S. political and military actions are (1) officials only; (2) officials and those with the greatest ability to influence them; or (3) all people with an ability to influence U.S. officials?


5. If (a) the U.S. facilitated or committed terrorism and (b) it's legal process failed to inflict suitable punishment on those responsible, should foreign governments as a matter of principle accept the result or do they have at least the moral right to use military force to inflict punishment?


6. If (a) the U.S. facilitated or committed terrorism, (b) U.S. legal process failed to inflict suitable punishment on those responsible, (c) foreign governments have a moral right to use military force to inflict punishment but (d) such foreign governments had no effective means of inflicting a suitable punishment on the U.S., or if the victims and their sympathizers don't have access to or control over their governnment, should foreign citizens as a matter of principle accept the result or do they have the moral right to inflict suitable punishment in the form of violence against those responsible?


7. If the U.S. committed terrorism and but we nevertheless deny that foreign governments or citizens have a right to invoke violence in response, should we be surprised if they did so? If we should not be surprised, should we be outraged?


8. Are allegations of U.S. complicity and responsibility for terrorism relevant to recent events and worthy of discussion or should discussion be concentrated on whom to punish and how to punish them?


9. If (a) allegations of U.S. complicity and responsibility for terrorism are in fact relevant to recent events and worthy of discussion but (b) are not as a general matter being discussed by officials, pundits and media gadflys, is it better to ask "why not?" or should we concentrate on whom to punish and how to punish them?

These are excellent questions. They amount to asking: should the US respect the rule of law and the sovereignty of nations? Or is it a special case, and if so, why?


I would add another less abstract question: in the light of the terrible shock it has suffered, will the US review the fact that it has allowed fundraising for the IRA to continue more or less openly on its territory? Those funds have been used to buy weapons to kill civilians in the UK by terrorist means.


RFL.

It's them or us. They made this decision.

I'm not sure who "they" are or what "decision" you refer to, but this is yesterday's New York Times description of life in Kabul, the most likely target of U.S. retalliation:


". . . roaming clusters of widows beg in the streets, their palms seemingly frozen in a supplicant pose. Withered men pull overloaded carts, their labor less costly than the price of a donkey. Children play in vast ruins, their limbs sometimes wrenched away by remnant land mines. The national life expectancy, according to the central statistics office, has fallen to 42 for males and 40 for females. The prolonged drought has sent nearly a million Afghans — about 5 percent of the population — on a desperate flight from hunger. Some have gone to other Afghan cities, others across the border. More than one million are ‘at risk of starvation,' according to the United Nations."


From "Taliban Plead for Mercy to the Miserable in a Land of Nothing"


Just what decision did these people make that warrants their incineration?

What greater ability to determine the course of events distinguishes them from the victims of the airliner bombings?

What would distinguish the bombers?

You have fallen into the trap of thinking that all sides start out equal. The U.S. and the West represent the forces of civilization and the terrorist represent the forces of evil.


It's this simple we are the good guys and they are the bad guys.


Does this mean we always do the right thing? Of course not. But in light of this attack the issue is clear civilization or terror.

I neither stated nor implied that there was some "moral equivalence" between the U.S. and those that terrorize U.S. citizens. It's a classic straw man argument: you pretend the other guy claims that the U.S. is no better than the U.S.S.R., Afghanistan, or the PA, and then point to the contrary evidence of civil rights, democratic norms and so forth. Not hard to do that.


I simply think as a general rule that citizens in a democracy should take responsibility for the actions of their government, and that those with a greater ability to influence events for the better have an obligation to do so. I think this is a more important and moral endeavor than villifying citizens of foreign regimes for failing to reign in governments that they often hate more than we do. Disagree?

And who has recommended the carpet bombing of Kabul?


The people of Afganistan are poor? No kidding.


Do you realize that you are in combat with a straw man?


Please, keep your fanciful attributions to yourself.


Or do you seriously recommend doing nothing?

You're living in a fairy tale world created by U.S. and other western world propaganda. The world ain't that simple. Wake up, man, wake up. But I suspect that you simply do not dare see the world in its true gray colors. But your self-righteousness seem so typical of many, not to say most, Americans. But then of course, it is a world-wide phenomenon. You're no worse than most other nations. Which is sad.

Colin Powell defined the acts as more than assaults upon America, but as assaults upon civilization.


He was correct.


By the way, were you replying to Chris Alger or Gil Scott? And why are people posting here so quick to find personal fault? It reminds me of talking to my (late) parents.

"And who has recommended the carpet bombing of Kabul?"


Was it some other "Jake" that wrote above that "I cherish the nuclear concept. Talk about your totally antiseptic cleansing . . . ." Not technically carpet bombing or Kabul, I suppose.


It's pretty obvious that the U.S. is on, as the lead editorial of this morning's NY Times puts it, a "collision course" with Afghanistan. It's also obvious that this will involve something more severe than cruise missiles at Bin Laden's camps (tried and failed). Why do you think that foreigners in Kabul are leaving in droves?


"Do you realize that you are in combat with a straw man?"


No, but only because I'm not sure what you're talking about, as I indicated in my first reply.


"Please, keep your fanciful attributions to yourself."


Was it the "bad" Jake who wrote above: "The completeness of the procedure is foremost, the precision secondary and coincidental. I want no one left alive to nurture, harbor or finance the terrorists. I want no one left alive to perform the terror."


I was talking about indiscriminate killing and genocide, but I guess you've narrowed it down to a few hundred million dead.


"Or do you seriously recommend doing nothing?"


No. I recommend that we have a national dialogue about our role in the world, the arguments for retaining or changing that role, whether and how our role in the world is related to the recent attacks, such as why terrorists chose us, now, instead of other Western powers, to vent their hatred. I prefer not to simply assume that the recent attacks are a case of the worst picking on the best and that an all-out war with whomever would be the opposite.

Your arguments might have more validity in just the abstract or in another context. However, right now we are in the aftermath of a direct attack. Therefore in this context to raise an issue such as


." If (a) the U.S. facilitated or committed terrorism and (b) it's legal process failed to inflict suitable punishment on those responsible, should foreign governments as a matter of principle accept the result or do they have at least the moral right to use military force to inflict punishment"


Is to lend aid and comfort to the enemies of civilization and not just an academic exercise.

It's interesting that you know so much about me from a single post. You assume I am deluded, but the issue isn't me but your mushy view of the world that can't identify evil when it literally hits you in the face

I was replying to Gil. And I probably should cool down a little. But this "we're the good guys and they are the evil enemy" view really angers me. But then, of course, a simple view of the world probably does make you feel better. Opening your eyes to you own, your friends, your familys, and your neighbors evil sides, and your "enemies" good sides, sure ain't easy. But you'll have to to have a chance of stoping this cycle of violence. And it sure ain't a matter of civilization vs. non-civilization. There is too much shit going on in the "civilized" world.

To lighten it up a bit and still make the point Harry Anderson once said


"It's important to have an open mind but not one so open that your brains rattle around."


Refusing to see that there is black and white is as bad as only seeing black and white.

Come on we are to have a "dialogue"? Certainly things are past that stage.

Maybe I was a bit harsh. But your clear-cut black-and-white view of the world cannot stand uncontradicted. This kind of simplistic view are the source of much wrongdoing.

Thousands dead and you want to talk about it??


My reference to using nukes was sarcastic, but if they were to be used I couldn't think of a better target than Bin Laden.


Dialogue??


I don't think you get it. Thousands dead and dialogue?


Colin Powell called it an attack upon civilization. This is 100% accurate. Definitive action is mandatory. Bin Laden GOES!!! His lieutenants, protectors, supporters ALL GO!! They die and terrorism dies with them.


What in the world are you talking about? Geez!!!!!!!!!


'Was it the "bad" Jake who wrote above: "The completeness of the procedure is foremost, the precision secondary and coincidental. I want no one left alive to nurture, harbor or finance the terrorists. I want no one left alive to perform the terror."'


I stand by this absolutely. Do you realize that in the last 24 hours there has been at least one more attempt by these people to enter flights leaving New York? For these reason the New York airports are again closed.


Fortunately the choice isn't yours. I just hope we can find them all and then kill them all. And sooner is much, much better than latter. You are aware that we may be committing ground troops to accomplish this. It is THAT important. You can chose death for yourself, Buster, but not for the rest of us.

We need "academic exercises" to stop us from just emotionally charging ahead with vengeance. It's the "civilized" way.

Since you are so quick to assume my view is black/white and can't seem to grasp my point maybe it is you who suffers from being too dogmatic.

Certainly one can understand the "hysterical" resonses to the attacks. We are all in a state of numbed shock. It is a natural first reaction to want to stike out in revenge.


But you bring up a number of good points about the necessity for thinking as well as action. During the 1990s President Clinton blamed Bin Laden for almost all terrorist activity in the world. Most terrorism experts felt Bin Laden could not possibly have been responsible for everything that the administration blamed on him.


There's no question, in my mind, that the attacks were indeed an act of war and retaliation is called for. But I want my government to make sure that they're retaliating against the correct people and I don't want my government to adopt the moral standards (or I should say the immoral standards) or the terrorists. The Europeans were correct in asking us to think as well as act.


It is beyond doubt that one of the reasons we are the target for terrrorists is our support for state sponsored terrorism in many places around the world and our support for many groups who we didn't know enought about. Of particular interest now is our support for the rebels in Afghanistan during the 1980s. We gave stinger missiles to people without caring about what kind of people they were; that they were anticommunist was enough for us. From these people emerged the Taliban, who harbor Bin Laden.


A military response should be accompanied by a reassessment of our place in the world and our policies. But of course it will not be. We will go forward convinced ofour righteousness: good vs. evil with god on our side. The same attitude the terrorists take. No room for gray areas.


Please do not misunderstand: there is no room for gray in terms of what happened Tuesday. But I hope we ask not only who did it by why they did it and see the big picture. We need to not only eliminatge the terrorists, but to not participate in terrorist activities ourselves.

What possible difference could their motive(s) make?


This is no time for subtlety. Kill the right ones? Of course, we should kill the right ones. But kill them we should, all of them, even if their involvement was less than complete. Anyone and everyone who knew their goals and aided them anyway has a life that is forfeit. Street sweeper or head of state, we should make no exceptions.

But your self-righteousness seem so typical of many, not to say most, Americans.


How enlightened of you to make such a sweeping generalization. It also sounds like you are being a bit self righteous here. I think this brings up some great points about taking a long hard look at US policy. At the same time we need to punish those responsible in a way that will crush their organization.


Zach


P.S.- You are quite correct when you say that the world isn't just black and white. No one is going to come out of this without blood on their hands but maybe we can prevent more from being spilled in the future.

Chris,


What I think you might want to consider is that it could have been your family. I look at my opinion on what is to be done and try and figure out if my opinion would be different if my sister died in the WTC. My opinion would not differ in the slightest. These people need to be brought to justice. The threat of terrorism needs to end. The methods are to destroy terrorists and the people who support them. Another method is to reevaluate our position and if we are supporting any terrorist nations then the buck stops here. We need to make sure our security is sufficient to stop this threat so you and I can enjoy a peaceful exsistance. Being apathetic about this is just as bad as people saying launch the nukes its WWIII time!


Zach

Oh. It just sounded really black-and-white. If it wasn't you can ignore my comments on a personal level and view it as general comments. Sorry if I have offended you.

I suppose if it were my family and had no other ability to punish their killers I might be inclined to bomb someone or fly a plane into someone's building. And that's why I think it's important to consider the underlying causes of terrorism -- if for no other reason than to combat it more effectively -- instead of considering this most recent in a long line of atrocities committed by many sides as something that occurred in a historical vaccuum, something so unspeakably evil that any serious reflection amounts to disregard for the victims, and for which no retribution can be too swift or indiscriminate.


In any event, I don't think we pay any respect for the dead by adopting the revenge mentality of their murderers.

Why doesn't it follow from your statement that those responsible for the airliner attacks are blameless if they happen to be, for example, Iraqi, and are responding to a "direct attack" by the United States on them, and further that they should never have considered U.S. motives or perceptions or perhaps any alternative to their actions lest they give aid and comfort to "the enemies of [their] civilization."


Or are you simply embracing the hypocritical notion that when something this horrible happens to us, it demeans our dignity to consider what conditions might have caused it and instead requires nothing more than immediate identification and persecution of the offenders, but when we do it to someone else, well, that's a complicated matter that requires careful reflection before we go about pointing fingers ....

True, but we also don't need to lose sight of the context. We need to move forward to eliminate terrorism period. Indeed, we need to do this cooly and rationally but not to engage in sophistic attempts to equate whatever failings we may have with the evil that has been done. Nor to argue that we need to be pure in order to act.

What possible difference could their motives make? All the difference in the world. Remember that after Oklahoma City almost everyone's first reaction was terrorism from overseas. Investigation came up with the correct culprits. One can not understand one's enemies without understanding their motives, what drives them.


Subtlety is exactly what is called for, especially at this time. To just strike out without making distinctions between street sweepers and heads of state, is to lower ourselves to the standards of the terrorists.


It seems to me that the administration is going about things the right way: appropriations and the power to conduct military operations from Congress; support from our Allies; investigation of who was responsible; and then, hopefully, appropriate military retaliation for the acts of war perpetrated on Tuesday, coupled with longterm vigilance. I have less confidence in their ability to couple this with appropriate diplomacy and a poltical and economic policy that deals with the world as it is in 2001, but I prefer their method of military response to the one you seem to be suggesting.

I think you are overcomplicating this issue (it's already complicated enough;-))


It's not a matter of moral or legal issues at this point. It is war. We have been attacked. The attackers have even verbally declared war on us (while apparently denying responsibility for this specific incident). When Pearl Harbor was attacked, we did not have to take the Japanese to court over it;-) Once the government is sure who did it, that is enough in wartime.


Yes, we should try to not harm many civilians in this war. But make no mistake, if we do not eliminate from power and/or existence our enemies in this war, there will be other attacks upon us, possibly even worse than what just happened. Nuclear or biological weapons are not out of reach for an organization with hundreds of millions of dollars at its disposal and a worldwide network.


So all that legal stuff can go out the window, and the only moral question that really matters at this juncture is how do we capture and/or kill those who are at war with us, without killing too many innocent civilians in the process.


Later on we may wish to address some of the finer moral points.


It is impossible to fight a war and remain 100% on the highest moral ground. We can't be 100% good guys and be strong too; sadly, that's just the way it is. And if we are not strong and smart now we are doomed to many more attacks in the future.

Great, the world's first war against "John Doe."


I was afraid the recent attacks would send the U.S. into a frenzy of bloody shirt waving, but your militant opposition to reflection seems to take the concept of blind revenge to it's very terminus: we must make war against countries and people we cannot yet identify because they attacked us for reasons should not try to comprehend and should continue until we "eliminate from power and/or existence" our "enemies," saving such "finer moral points," such as who these people might be and whether we have any moral right to kill them, for "later on." I suppose this suggestion can't be completely immoral, given that your hope that we can distinguish those civilians that are our "enemies" from those that aren't, to the extent that it's possible ....

>I suppose if it were my family and had no other ability to >punish their killers I might be inclined to bomb someone or fly >a plane into someone's building. And that's why I think it's >important to consider the underlying causes of terrorism -- if >for no other reason than to combat it more effectively -- >instead of considering this most recent in a long line of >atrocities committed by many sides as something that occurred >in a historical vaccuum, something so unspeakably evil that any >serious reflection amounts to disregard for the victims, and >for which no retribution can be too swift or indiscriminate.


>In any event, I don't think we pay any respect for the dead by >adopting the revenge mentality of their murderers


Chris,


I don't remember saying that I wanted to sink to their level or commit atrocities to have righteous vengeance on these people. We need a solution that eliminates the problem! Nuking the hell outta em won't solve the problem. What I was saying was that a completely pacifist solution is naive and dangerous. We need to take decisive action! If it wasn't for people of action you and me would not be having this friendly chat!


Zach

It may be sad, but it's undeniably true.

I have a hunch that we already know the names of certain terrorist leaders and lieutenants, and that the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, will provide NATO with the names of many more.

"One can not understand one's enemies without understanding their motives, what drives them."


Their motives? They want us to die in large numbers.


And why? The why is irrelevant. Their treachery will repeat in some clever form until the culprits are themselves dead.


The key is to make THEM die first.


"I have less confidence in their [I assume you mean our Congress] ability to couple this [I assume you mean assignment of culpability and formulation of a plan of attack] with appropriate diplomacy and a poltical [sic] and economic policy that deals with the world as it is in 2001, but I prefer their method of military response to the one you seem to be suggesting."


I propose that they die so we may live. This is what I am "suggesting".


We will not prevail through "appropriate...economic policy".


What in the world are you thinking? Even Iran held a one-minute moment of prayer and reflection for our benefit before a national soccer match attended by 60,000 fans. World opinion and sympathy is with us. Rounding up cooperative allies (even the Pakistanis) seems to be sorting itself out perfectly well,


The terrorist movement is now almost universally viewed as a pestilence to be removed from the human experience. The only exceptions will probably be the targets of the removal effort.


Now is not the time for reticence. Now IS the time to confirm our targets, gather our forces and strike.

Bin Laden has a personal fortune of some $300,000,000. He is known to have been shopping around for weapon grade fissionable material. Think what delay can mean.

You still miss the point, there is an immense difference between us and them. We are the good guys and they are evil. This doesn't mean we are perfect, always right etc. etc. but when all the qualifications, causes etc are considered it still comes out the same: we are the good guys and they are evil.

--""You still miss the point, there is an immense difference between us and them. We are the good guys and they are evil. This doesn't mean we are perfect, always right etc. etc. but when all the qualifications, causes etc are considered it still comes out the same: we are the good guys and they are evil.""--


Hold it!


How come "you're good" but "not perfect" but THEY are perfectly evil? Don't they have ANY redeeming qualities - at all??


Why do you consider Americans to be flawed but ultimately good human beings but cannot consider the OTHERS as good but ultimately flawed?


OF COURSE, the United States, along with its share of great, heroic acts, has done its share of vile & atrocious acts throughout the last (oh) 100 years. Does that make Americans "evil", as bin Laden claims?? No, it doesn't. Does this in any way excuse the horror perpetrated on Tuesday? Or even justify it a bit?? No, it doesn't, not by any stretch of logic. Nothing could - come on!


But your black/white vision of the world is typical of what stops the American public from seeing through the force-fed sound bites. Don't you people read anything else except People and Newsweek?...

A weekly which offers national and international coverage, _Newsweek_ ranks with _Time_ and _US News and World Report_ in thoroughness and credibilty and has been in publication for decades.


Is anyone aware of any periodical the equivalent of Izzy Stone's _I. F. Stone Weekly_? This was perhaps the most insightful publication I'd ever encountered. I've included something written about Izzy by Ralph Nader:


A TRIBUTE TO I.F. STONE


by Ralph Nader


His name was I.F. Stone and his was the power of example for two generations of journalists. As a 14-year-old in the year 1921, he could wait no longer and started his own publication. At college he could not wait to graduate and went into daily journalism. When newspaper after newspaper failed his standards of accuracy, truth and importance, he started with his wife, Esther, the famous I.F. Stone Weekly in 1953 right out of his kitchen. Stone's inspiration for the weekly came in part from the newsletter In Fact, which George Seldes, the muckraking reporter, began in the forties. The Stones visited the Seldes family and spent several days learning the ways and means of surviving with one's own newsletter. Stone did more than survive. By the time he closed the weekly in 1968, due to failing health, he had a circulation of 70,000 worldwide. Albert Einstein was a subscriber; his $5 check was not cashed, but it was framed. What was so unique about "Izzy" Stone? First, he read the written record, carefully and indefatigably. Congressional hearings, Defense Department reports, and other documents, documents and documents. He never played the favorites of the insider journalist. He was the modern Tom Paine--as independent and incorruptible as they come. The result of his reading was that he knew what he was writing about. He knew what was important and what was fluff. And he tied these facts to a ferocious practice of the First Amendment. Stories about Stone are legendary in Washington. Notwithstanding poor eyesight and bad ears, he managed to see more and hear more than other journalists because he was curious and fresh with the capacity for both discovery and outrage every new day. He never was jaded at what official and corporate corruption or prevarication he located. He could be jovial and irascible--the latter reaction most likely addressed to erroneous writing. He wanted to hand his Weekly over to a young reporter but never found one who could meet his standards for consistency and stamina. So since 1968, he wrote articles, jolted many a budding journalist at conferences and delved deeply for the past 10 years in the original Greek archives relating to ancient Athens and especially the trial of Socrates and the crisis of free speech that it represented in ancient Athens (population of 45,000) which became a national best seller. What Stone never talked about was the effect he had on many reporters who, often without attribution, "lunched off" his scoops. He taught them courage and insistence without ever meeting them. For it was Stone who took on Joe McCarthy early and fearlessly. It was Stone who showed that the Pentagon- military contracting complex was a highly tiered boondoggle wrapping its wrongs with the flag. For over 50 years, I.F. Stone was both journalism's Gibraltar and its unwavering conscience. While others in his profession cowered, he stood tall to challenge the abusers of power no matter where they came from--right, middle or left. He did not have favorite perpetrators to let off. He was only concerned with the victims that the bullies pushed around or the dictators oppressed. He never allowed past acquaintances with influential power brokers to dictate any self-censorship. At one student journalism conference, he was introduced as an "investigative reporter." He promptly took his introducer to task, saying that such a description was redundant. All reporters should be investigative, he declared. Through the originality and significance of his writings and addresses, Stone became a one man media--free, penetrating and, oh, so democratic in spirit. On Sunday June 17, 1989, he passed away at the age of 81 in a Boston hospital after a heart attack. If I.F. Stone had been born in ancient Athens over 2000 years ago, there would now be statues of him in front of major newspaper buildings.

It is your response that is both naive and narrow.


1. Note I have never stated that anyone is "totally evil" even Hitler liked dogs

2. Degree here is everything, there are those who try to act in a moral civilized manner and don't always succeed because of personal failings and because of the nature of the world. Others become fanatics and chose the path of evil

3. some people use big words they can't spell (Manichaism) and yes I know what it means

4.Its also interesting that you assume that anyone who you disagree with does so from ignorance "But your black/white vision of the world is typical of what stops the American public from seeing through the force-fed sound bites. Don't you people read anything else except People and Newsweek?... " It doesn't occur to you that people who disagree might read and know as much as you?

5. Since we're poker players if I had to bet I'd wager that in the last 5 yrs. I have read more about history, philosophy, politics and religion from more diverse sources than you have in your lifetime.

[Gil Scot's text in "brakets".]


""Since we're poker players if I had to bet I'd wager that in the last 5 yrs. I have read more about history, philosophy, politics and religion from more diverse sources than you have in your lifetime.""


-- What're you layin' me ?


""It is your response that is both naive and narrow.""


-- I'm sorry if my post caused you to bust a vein.


""1. Note I have never stated that anyone is "totally evil" even Hitler liked dogs.""


-- Weak comeback. (He was also a veggie.) You DID state the following, Gil : ""There is an immense difference between us and them. We [Americans] are the good guys and they [??] are evil. This doesn't mean we are perfect, always right etc. etc. but when all the qualifications, causes etc are considered it still comes out the same: we are the good guys and they are evil."" That is manichaeism, Gil.


""2. Degree here is everything, there are those who try to act in a moral civilized manner and don't always succeed because of personal failings and because of the nature of the world. Others become fanatics and chose the path of evil""


-- Agree. (This is so generic, how could I do otherwise?...)


""3. some people use big words they can't spell (Manichaism) and yes I know what it means""


-- I apologize for typing Manichaeism so wrongly, i.e. with its alternative spelling. But it's not such a "big word"! Unless you consider as a big word anything above 3 syllables. Is it a worse crime when one mistypes something as small as " it's " ?..


""4. Its also interesting that you assume that anyone who you disagree with does so from ignorance. It doesn't occur to you that people who disagree might read and know as much as you?""


-- I go by the assumption that, yes, certainly, people do know at least as much as I do - which is not saying much. But your points have demonstrated a profound and provincial lack of knowledge of Middle East history, recent and not. I simply pointed out that your point of view is similar to the simplistic notions advanced by newsmags such as Newsweek. And I was polite ; I should have included USA Today.


If you do know better, go ahead and show me. You don't, so far. But as a poker player I have to say that if you're bluffing, Gil, you GOT me!...

You contend that


"I go by the assumption that, yes, certainly, people do know at least as much as I do - which is not saying much. But your points have demonstrated a profound and provincial lack of knowledge of Middle East history, recent and not"


Can you honestly go back and read your post and contend that is what you did?


The issue at hand is this: some, specifically those involved in the attack on the WTC and Pentagon, forces engage in terrorism as an instrument of policy. This is an act of evil and must be eliminated. To not see the difference between this act and whatever virtues or vices have attended U.S. policy is to engage in sophistry.

I did. And I take nothing back. I'm consistent. It's you who hasn't read where I stand - and who can blame you? For the record, then:


You write :"Some [forces], specifically those involved in the attack on the WTC and Pentagon, engage in terrorism as an instrument of policy. This is an act of evil and must be eliminated."


I agree completely and unequivocally (sp?). In fact, I made a rather long post about how whatever excuse/reasoning lies behind the act (I called it "barbarism"), in no way absolves the perpetrators from its criminal nature. As a matter of fact, I repeatedly pointed out that by their act, the perpetrators cut off any possibility of dialogue with me, you or anyone else. When they want to KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE to convince me, I don't care if this is done for the noblest reason in the world. I'm fighting them.


You wrote: "To not see the difference between this act and whatever virtues or vices have attended U.S. policy is to engage in sophistry."


Well, in order not to be accused of "sophistry" (nor of being blasphemous, since bodies are still being dragged from under the debris), I made a point of clarifying at the end of many posts, that the talk about Middle East politics that the terrorist killings have incited should in no way be construed as an excuse or as a diversion.


I have also stated that, although I have been against American foreign policy in the Middle East, even if that policy was worse, still the terrorist act is unpardonable and should be punished to the fullest extent possible.


...If that sounds like an apologia (sp?), trust me it isn't. The whole issue has taken a turn for the worse, in fact for the worst possible. It is depressing - and I see no course for a way out, even for the short term.

I went back and reread your posts, In this thread my theme has been that terror is evil and we need to respond as the forces of civilization. You jumped into the argument assuming that I was self-righteous and parochial. I think you need to consider why you made this assumption.


For the record I have reservations about much of our foreign policy but that is not relevant in the current crisis. If you agree that terror and terrorists need to be eliminated welcome on board.