Some Questions

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.