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?