Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > 2+2 Communities > Other Other Topics
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-14-2001, 05:18 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?


Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-14-2001, 08:56 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Some Questions



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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-14-2001, 09:28 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default An answer.



It's them or us. They made this decision.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-14-2001, 10:05 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: An answer.



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?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-14-2001, 10:14 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Moral Equivalency.



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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-14-2001, 10:43 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Moral Equivalency.



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?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-14-2001, 11:24 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Moral Equivalency.



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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-14-2001, 10:49 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default You\'re so deluded it\'s sad



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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-14-2001, 10:55 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Deluded?



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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-14-2001, 11:27 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: You\'re so deluded it\'s sad



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
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.