Whatever. Mr. Clutch's comment was a response to Mulder's "History is written by the victorious." That is not limited to WWII.
I think you may not have understood: It was never said that we are "no better than the terrorists or murderous dicatorships" What was said was that we have also commited acts of terrorism. The way I see it is: though we have commited acts of terrorism and have supported terrorists, we ARE better than them because we "greatly avoid performing terrorist acts, terrorist support, and we encourage a battlefield between two military targets. We also try to follow the Geneva convention and the rules of engagement very, very closely." (quoting myself from above post). To explain further: other countries guilty of terrorism use terrorism as their primary form of attack. We don't: we try to avoid it. So, yes, we've done it. But current America doesn't do it nearly to the degree that other countries do. -- droxford
Droxford, I think you may have to read more of Macbeth's posts to see that he is indeed being a moral relativist when he is comparing America to terrorists are rogue regimes. Morally, he believes we are no better.
Have to agree whole heartedly on this one, and I can use ol' Abe as the example. Yes even Abe Lincoln was a product of his flawed times. Americans often regard racism in 18th century America as a given, but the truth is that there have always been people in America who were not racist. Abraham Lincoln, however, was not one of them. And neither was Mary Todd Lincoln, whose Southern family had owned slaves. As an Illinois legislator, and later as a congressman and political leader, Lincoln opposed the abolitionists, rigorously supported enforcement of the brutal and mean-spirited Fugitive Slave Law, and was in favor of forcefully removing all African American people from the United States. Furthermore, Lincoln explicitly endorsed the State of Illinois' laws barring African Americans from voting, serving on juries, holding office, or intermarrying with "white" Americans. According to his confidants he regularly used the word "n*gger" in private conversation and sometimes in speeches. Lincoln was hardly alone in his idea that America was a white republic. Virtually every major political leader of the early republic held this view, including Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, John Marshall, and even George Washington himself. Historians have simply decided to excise this indecent aspect of Lincoln, so that they can force his image into the mold of the sainted president, which was invented as a device to manipulate public opinion in favor of any policy of the sitting leadership. Historians all quote Lincoln's allusion to the "monstrous injustice" of slavery in his Peoria speech of 1854, but not the passage in the SAME speech asserting that he would send the liberated slaves "to Liberia - to their own native land." A phrase Lincoln used even though some African Americans' ancestors had been in north America longer than Lincoln's! Historians are so selective about history that they virtually re-write it. They cite Lincoln's message to Congress in December 1862, with its eloquent passage about the "fiery trial" through which the nation was passing due to his leadership, but they never note that, in the SAME speech, Lincoln not only affirmed his strong support for colonization of black Americans in Africa, but for the first time used the ominous word, "deportation." Lincoln's racism was not just a lightly held notion, but was the center and circumference of his being, as one of his most deeply held beliefs. He resisted the abolitionists in the Republican Party from the very start, and had no intention of implementing their agenda. He was in fact a major supporter of slavery in the United States, and in and of himself was an oppressor. That is why he was so able to send the country into a Civil War, and then suspend the constitutional right to Habeas Corpus, and throw his political opponents in jail without warrants; the fact that the opponents he threw in jail were not African Americans illustrates the fact that he was equally at ease penalizing members of the white community as well as any other ethnic group, because Lincoln was above all the leader of a police state, which, as a corporate attorney, he was intensely aware of. Lincoln was hardly alone in his idea that America was a white republic. Virtually every major political leader of the early republic held this view, including Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, John Marshall, and even George Washington himself. Historians have simply decided to excise this indecent aspect of Lincoln, so that they can force his image into the mold of the sainted president, which was invented as a device to manipulate public opinion in favor of any policy of the sitting leadership. Historians all quote Lincoln's allusion to the "monstrous injustice" of slavery in his Peoria speech of 1854, but not the passage in the SAME speech asserting that he would send the liberated slaves "to Liberia - to their own native land." A phrase Lincoln used even though some African Americans' ancestors had been in north America longer than Lincoln's! Historians are so selective about history that they virtually re-write it. They cite Lincoln's message to Congress in December 1862, with its eloquent passage about the "fiery trial" through which the nation was passing due to his leadership, but they never note that, in the SAME speech, Lincoln not only affirmed his strong support for colonization of black Americans in Africa, but for the first time used the ominous word, "deportation." Lincoln's racism was not just a lightly held notion, but was the center and circumference of his being, as one of his most deeply held beliefs. He resisted the abolitionists in the Republican Party from the very start, and had no intention of implementing their agenda. He was in fact a major supporter of slavery in the United States, and in and of himself was an oppressor. That is why he was so able to send the country into a Civil War, and then suspend the constitutional right to Habeas Corpus, and throw his political opponents in jail without warrants; the fact that the opponents he threw in jail were not African Americans illustrates the fact that he was equally at ease penalizing members of the white community as well as any other ethnic group, because Lincoln was above all the leader of a police state, which, as a corporate attorney, he was intensely aware of. Lincoln was hardly alone in his idea that America was a white republic. Virtually every major political leader of the early republic held this view, including Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, John Marshall, and even George Washington himself. Historians have simply decided to excise this indecent aspect of Lincoln, so that they can force his image into the mold of the sainted president, which was invented as a device to manipulate public opinion in favor of any policy of the sitting leadership. Historians all quote Lincoln's allusion to the "monstrous injustice" of slavery in his Peoria speech of 1854, but not the passage in the SAME speech asserting that he would send the liberated slaves "to Liberia - to their own native land." A phrase Lincoln used even though some African Americans' ancestors had been in north America longer than Lincoln's! Historians are so selective about history that they virtually re-write it. They cite Lincoln's message to Congress in December 1862, with its eloquent passage about the "fiery trial" through which the nation was passing due to his leadership, but they never note that, in the SAME speech, Lincoln not only affirmed his strong support for colonization of black Americans in Africa, but for the first time used the ominous word, "deportation." Lincoln's racism was not just a lightly held notion, but was the center and circumference of his being, as one of his most deeply held beliefs. He resisted the abolitionists in the Republican Party from the very start, and had no intention of implementing their agenda. He was in fact a major supporter of slavery in the United States, and in and of himself was an oppressor. That is why he was so able to send the country into a Civil War, and then suspend the constitutional right to Habeas Corpus, and throw his political opponents in jail without warrants; the fact that the opponents he threw in jail were not African Americans illustrates the fact that he was equally at ease penalizing members of the white community as well as any other ethnic group, because Lincoln was above all the leader of a police state, which, as a corporate attorney, he was intensely aware of. Lincoln was hardly alone in his idea that America was a white republic. Virtually every major political leader of the early republic held this view, including Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, John Marshall, and even George Washington himself. Historians have simply decided to excise this indecent aspect of Lincoln, so that they can force his image into the mold of the sainted president, which was invented as a device to manipulate public opinion in favor of any policy of the sitting leadership. Historians all quote Lincoln's allusion to the "monstrous injustice" of slavery in his Peoria speech of 1854, but not the passage in the SAME speech asserting that he would send the liberated slaves "to Liberia - to their own native land." A phrase Lincoln used even though some African Americans' ancestors had been in north America longer than Lincoln's! Historians are so selective about history that they virtually re-write it. They cite Lincoln's message to Congress in December 1862, with its eloquent passage about the "fiery trial" through which the nation was passing due to his leadership, but they never note that, in the SAME speech, Lincoln not only affirmed his strong support for colonization of black Americans in Africa, but for the first time used the ominous word, "deportation." Lincoln's racism was not just a lightly held notion, but was the center and circumference of his being, as one of his most deeply held beliefs. He resisted the abolitionists in the Republican Party from the very start, and had no intention of implementing their agenda. He was in fact a major supporter of slavery in the United States, and in and of himself was an oppressor. That is why he was so able to send the country into a Civil War, and then suspend the constitutional right to Habeas Corpus, and throw his political opponents in jail without warrants; the fact that the opponents he threw in jail were not African Americans illustrates the fact that he was equally at ease penalizing members of the white community as well as any other ethnic group, because Lincoln was above all the leader of a police state, which, as a corporate attorney, he was intensely aware of. In fact, Lincoln carefully worded the Emancipation Proclamation to apply only to the rebel Southern states, which were not under Union control at the time, thus resulting in an Emancipation Proclamation that did not in itself free a single slave. After seeing over 200,000 African-Americans volunteer and fight alongside Union forces, Lincoln dropped his support for plans to colonize freed slaves to Africa after the Civil War. In an 1863 speech, Lincoln stated, "there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation, while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they have strove to hinder it." On April 11, 1865 Lincoln delivered an address in which he became the first president to advocate extending voting rights to African-Americans who fought for the Union when he stated, "It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers." By this statement, Lincoln indicated his belief that African-Americans should have full political equality. In the crowd that day, an intently listening fellow named John Wilkes Booth commented to those around him, "That is the last speech he will ever make." And so it was.
yeah...but Washington at least freed his slaves. the biggest hypocrite in american history has to be jefferson...not just on this issue...but on this issue in particular...he talked about God's certain judgment for how our society was treating blacks...but never freed his slaves...mostly because he racked up so much debt around the world he couldn't afford to...the man spoke out of both sides of his mouth like no one else. i'm not a fan. no man is perfect...but...
what's amazing is how much of a backstabber he was to friends...he talked so much about how he hated partisanship...and yet he was the ultimate partisan, to the point of sacrificing life-long friendships because they didn't love France like he did.
] I believe that the point I was making was that to assume that this formula for courage+ doing what is right+ being a democracy = action justified doesn't work, as Lincoln and other's actions against the natives show. You are judged on the actions, not what you think of the actors, especially not when you are the actors, and therefore pre-disposed to approve. I agree that Lincoln mustered moral courage for the Civil War...unfortunately he also used that moral couragfe against native Americans, and was planning on using it against Canadians. See the problem with the assumption you make? Sure it's a mtter of debate...The US is a free democracy is challeneged on several levels, including many by the right wing, so don't turn this into a liberal thing. Many conservatives on this board are the quickest to point out that we are not democratic, but in fact a Republic...and there are many other areas of debate... And how are not morally equivalent in the matter of our actions when those actions are the same? Do you think that the people of those totalitarian regimes thought they were evil at the time? Of course not... I have never said that all Americans are anything...That's a silly accusation. The fact that many Americans have extremely geo-centric views, insular global comprehensions, and tend to assume a position of superiority is not my opinion, it is the general view supported by virtually every study done on the subject. I have seen many Americans defend these facts ( Ie we are at the center of things, therefore it makes sense that we know less about others than they do about us, etc.) but I have seen few contend that they are innaccurate. You do? But to suggest that I think that all Americans are this way is to underestimate my graps on the variety of views encompassed in the US of A, which being an American ( okay, half) myself would take some doing. To state so is innacurate and bordering on dishonest. The best? Didn't know I was being tested on the best examples....was merely refuting your assumption that we 'respect the rights' of opposing soldiers by showing that we often violate them when it suits us, and have done so recently. And keeping prisoners for interrogation without council, court appearance, etc. is a pretty large violation of rights, IMO...and we were the ones who originally said that showing POWS or victims on television was a big dealllif I recall correctly words like " disgusting" and "dispicable" were used in this very forum about it when the Iraqis did it...Of course when we did it it was ok, cause we had our reasons.
JuanValdez, I am not sure I agree with you that the US has not done enough self- examination on several issues. In fact, whether it is Native Americans, slavery, or Vietnam, we continue to learn about them and relive them. We learn about them in our classes and remember them in our holidays. But it is a fair point. And I don't disagree that there have been military acts by the US that were walking a very fine line. We should examine not only the truth of those actions but also the unfortunate need to somtimes take such actions to prevail over evil. However, it certainly is about moral equivalency when it comes to Macbeth's posts. The main point of all of these arguments he keeps repeating is that we are morally no better than these other countries and thus we don't have the moral imperative to act. He has already questioned whether we are a democracy and whether we respect human rights. He claims that we enter WWII not because we felt we were morally right but because Germany happened to delcare war on us. And if you don't believe you can ask him.
I think the aforementioned intentional targeting of civilians for the purpose of political change is a necessary and sufficient definition of terrorism. While this certainly means that the US has participated in terrorist acts in the past, that is no reason to scrap it as a legitimate definition.
I'm not sure what the problem is. He wasn't perfect, I never said he was. He did some things wrong, but it was his moral courage that defined his presidency and set America on the correct path. An example of something wrong in his presidency doesn't really disprove this. Perhaps his treatment showed a LACK of moral courage. We are a democratic republic. That is a fact. What is there to debate? The difference in our actions is the result. We are living in a free democracy. If the Nazis succeeded, many Europeans would be living in oppression. If the terrorists succeed, death to the infidels will result. Whether the German people or Muslim people do not realize the evil of their actions does not really matter. You can at least admit that the success of the West over the USSR, Nazi Germany, terrorism would be a good thing, even if the tactics are the same on both sides, can't you? This was your comment: "We are right. How do you know? Because we're us, and us is what's right...therefore we are right. " Us is what's right? Did I ever say anything like that? Do Americans speak like that? No way. It seems to me you believe in a caricature of Americans, yet Americans bought books about Islam best seller indroves after 9/11. Magazines and political shows stress what other countries think of us and how we should change. This does not fit with your academic-centric view of America. What was France reading? Oh yea, conspiracies about the US. Besides sociology being a huge failure as a study and predictor of human events, I should also point out that it is pretty common for ALL nations to be geo-centric and feel superior. This I did learn in sociology class (not that it helped me a bit). My professor showed me maps from different countries which tended to show their own countries as large and more in the center. We did it because it was necessary to show the Iraqi people that the old regime was dead. It is funny that you always seem to see the US in the bad light when in fact the US did it for GOOD reasons. Your caricatured view of America comes through again. I bet you thought a bunch of Americans were hootin' and hollerin' when they saw his 2 sons on tv? Yep, we just love shootin' them evildoers.
Sigh... terrorism and patriotism have never been mutually exclusive. Terrorism is simply, according to most, an unacceptable manifestation of patriotism. Personally, I think we're sqeamish about it because we know their tanks pose us no threat. It's in our interest to put a moral stigma against terrorists. We kill civilians, too - but only when it's absolutely necessary to effectively prosecute a war. During WW2, we bombed civilians because crippling infrastructure and morale became an essential part of the war. They attack our civilians because attacking our military has almost no effect. I think that terrorism should be eliminated partly for selfish reasons, but also because it's more of a threat to civilization. But I'm not intellectually blind enough to believe it has much to do with morality, just power. The effects of it are, of course, horrific.
Ok, let me try again...you were using Lincoln as an example of why you were glad we didn't morally euquivicate ourselves witht he likes of terrorists based on our superiority, and how doing so might have removed the moral courage needed to see the war though. I was saying judge the actions, not what you think of the actor. I was saying that the problem with basing your premise that we can exclude judgement of actions based on what we think of the actor, or his motivations, is that that same actor can use those same motivations to commit actions which are the same actions a terrorist would make. Most errorists believe they have remarkable moral courage...in other words, thinking you are right and having the courage to follow through on that doesn't make you right. And Lincon comitted terrorist acts, no moatter what you think of his moral courage...as has the US of A, no matter whether or not you think that we are equatable with other nations which have done similar things. "We are a democratic republic. That is a fact. What is there to debate? The difference in our actions is the result. We are living in a free democracy. If the Nazis succeeded, many Europeans would be living in oppression. If the terrorists succeed, death to the infidels will result. Whether the German people or Muslim people do not realize the evil of their actions does not really matter. You can at least admit that the success of the West over the USSR, Nazi Germany, terrorism would be a good thing, even if the tactics are the same on both sides, can't you?" See, you've already moderated your statement. Ok, if we need to get into this digression on democracy; What constitutes a democracy? What constitutes a republic? WHat constitutes a democratic republic? It should be noted that, when originated, a Res Publica stood in stark contrast to the Hellenistic system of voting by demes, or democracy, as it was seen as mob rule. But leave that aside...are we, then, a republic in the same manner that the People's Republic of China is? The point is that definitions vary, applications are difficult to pin down. But the original statement, that we are a free democracy, was that which I challenged. How are we 'free' when it is much more likely that you will be any of the above ( arrested, convicted, jailed, excecuted) for a crime if you are any of the above ( black, poor, uneducated)...How are we 'free' when we have the most imprisonments, and the highest murder rate, in the industrialized world? How are we a 'free democracy' when our ruling body is decided by less than 1/3 of the population? How are we a free democracy when lobbyists and special interest groups contribute to campaign funds to ensure political support for their agendas? Is democracy supposed to mean " One $, One vote"? There are many variations of what a democracy is...but according to the defintion, only one nation, Iceland, actually practices true 'democracy'. Many other nations practice varieties of what they consider 'Democracy'...but it should be noted that many nations which we deem 'Communist" consider themselves democratic. Do you see the problem with calling the US a 'free democracy' a fact? As to your follow up...that's just the point you don' get. Many, many people around the world...in Iraq, Iran, Nicaragua, Panama, Chile, the Phillapenes, and on and on have been oppressed...because of us. We overthrew popular governments and installed murderous oppressive dictatirs as long as the muderous oppressive dictators were on our side of the political fence. So, if you're living in Chile, and your parents were killed by the guy we put in power over the guy the people wanted in power, are you saying that you're gonna think our winning was better? Or worth it? Oppression is in the eye of the oppressed, not the oppressor. Many, many people have felt the real, day to day oppression that has resulted from our actions. Millions have died because of them. Millions more have rotted in jails because of them. To excuse our actions because they were for what we feel is the gretaer good is to miss the point. Did our actions help us, the oppressors in these cases? Yes. Did it help those we oppressed? Clearly not. Would they have been oppressed worse if the Soviets had won? Maybe... I don't get how my comment in any way supports your contention thhat I said all Americans were_________. I may have been implying that you see things that way, but how you take theat to mean that I think everyone does is beyond me. That said, it comes down to this, Mr. C. Objectivity is incompatible with suppositions like " We are better", or more accurately, " Our reasons for doing things are better." For example, as you later demonstrate, with regards to showing the pics of Saddam's sons...you say we had GOOD reasons...Here's the rub: Doesn't matter if we happen to agree with our reasons, people usually do. The point is when you introduce judgements like " GOOD" into decisions on whether a rule has been broken, you remove the validity of the rule. Everyone has reasons for doing things...do you happen to know the reasons, GOOD or otherwise, for why our POWs were shown on Al Jazeera? Would you have cared? No...What if they had felt that they had GOOD reasons? See the problem is that when you introduce subjectivity into discussions like this you will always agree with yourself. OUR reasons are good, their reasons don't matter, or aren't good. The civilians we killed don't count because they were collateral damage; the inevitable result of war. We didn't specifically target them, so our hands our clean...right? Except, from an outsiders point of view, the war itself was our decision, therefore the results of the war are our responsibility. That we knew 'collateral damage' would be a result...which we must have if it was, in fact, inevitable....adds to that responsibility. So to blame it all on 'war' and ignore everyone else's perspective that that war was our choice, not the victims, is to be subjective. Agreeing with yourself. We are democracy, democracy is good, therefore we are good. Each of those statements is a matter of opinion, yet you string them together as a chain of factual arguments. As to the degree of sociology being a failure, or the US being as ego-centric as eveyone else, you must be joking. Socialogical studies are the only means we have of measuring those kinds of things, and yes, everyone exhibits a degree of ego-centricity, but we are on a lelvel to ourselves. Do you realize that, according to the People ( or was it TIME?) poll, almost 80% of Americans believe that it has been proven that Saddam was behind 9-11, despite the fact that virtually all the experts admit that it is at best yet to be proven? So spare me the French conspiracy books...fewer French people read the US behind 9-11 book than Americans believed WMDs had been used against us in Iraq this time around ( 30% )... Does that mean that we are all ignorant? Of course not...but we know less about the rest of the world than any other nation with comparable technological access to information. ( Remember the Germany on a map question?) People from virtually the rest of the industrialized world score much higher answering questions like " What is the captial of country X? Who is the leader of country Y? What type of government does country Z have? Who was Idi Amin? Etc. than we do. Our education system is much more focused on ourselves than other nations. In Canada an average history curriculum in High Schoolk includes options like British History, American History, French History, etc. as well as Canadian History. This is not true in the States, where almost the entire focus is on America. America is famous for crowning it's national sports champions " World Champs." Other countries don't do this. There are countless examples of this mentality. If you think it's a caricature, explain all this away...
I am...different cultures assign different weights to different values. Intentionally targetting civilians...in this day and age...is morally wrong. Particularly when you're attacking school buses...or pizza shops. I absolutely see a question of morality in acts like that. I have an instant reaction to that which has nothing to do with power.
I'd sort of agree with you...Case in point. I can understand someone like Osama considering himself at war with us; from his perspective we have been providing the arms and intel to those seeking to kill his allies/fellow muslims, etc. In that regard targeting what has bcome known as 'legitimate targets' is understandable from their point of view. Targeting civilians is a crime, even in war. So if they consider themselves at war with us, as they do, even then 9-11 is a war crime. But how do you distinguish between something like 9-11 and something like Nagasaki? Assume both are at war...assume that both acting parties consider themselves the wronged party striking back at the original aggressor...But both actions resulted primarily in civilian casualites. Now Osama and his murderers/patriots could claim that there were, as I'm sure there must have been, at least some companies represented in the WTC which have funded arms to Israel...so would that then make it a legit argument, a legit target, and the rest 'collateral damage'? In my opinion, no, but in my opinion the same can be said of Nagasaki. I agree that we need to stop all this crap about civilians being a by-product of a political aim, but we need to do it both ways. As long as we continue to whitewash our own actions because we use different means of delivery, our condemnations of others rings false. And we also call those actions which specifically target armed forces 'terrorist'. We seem to call anything short of a conventional attack by a declared enemy 'terrorist'...which is a convenient distinction to make if you're the big boy on the block...like we are...or the Brits were in 1776...
Max, you strike me as one of the most decent human beings on this board. You should be shocked and appalled with human sufferings. I just wish you'd look and see... that your morality on this issue seems perfectly contrived to protect your interests. And when that happens, it's usually not coincidence. Instant reactions are preconditioned by the 1001 events that happen to you every day. In the end, you're squeemish against terrorism because it's not necessary for us... and is the only thing that really threatens you. Let's face it... Israel has been gradually choking the life out of a people for decades now. But it doesn't bother you in the same way. Why? It's done more harm, aggregately. It's probably more calculated. But it's not a threat to you. Powerful nations can afford ethics... nations w/o power in terrible situations cannot. Or do you think it's simply a case of divine justice rewarding us for power since we're such more moral people ? Must be... because the answer couldn't be... that the weak simply seize the tools they have been before them. No way... makes too much sense!
MacBeth -- when you and I fundamentally disagree it's usually based on the following: 1. i say something is "wrong" 2. you say we can't say it's "wrong" because we did it once before i just disagree with that. that implies that i can't point out that modern day slavery is evil because before i was born some jackass white dudes decided it was a good idea here...meanwhile, my great-great-grandparents were concerned with the potato famine and a holy war. is it wrong to say that when we bombed nagasaki, it wasn't to maximize civilian casualties??...i've heard that argument before...that it was a industrial city and that if we really wanted to have a civilian casualty maximization,we'd freaking hit tokyo. the point is...there will be civilian casualties in war...but they're the very TARGET of osama and other terrorists TODAY. they're not a byproduct...or even a secondary high point...they're the PRIMARY target...women...children. that's disgusting. and in a world that is afraid to call anything evil, i think it's absolutely evil.
high praise..thank you. and i certainly can understand that i might be preconditioned on this one. and yes...the personal threat i'm sure colors my views. i don't think it's divine justice. hadn't really even considered that concept. there have been revolutions where the "weak" have prevailed. some have been non-violent. and i'm certainly not advocating for the Israelis here...not in the least. that's every bit as evil...displacing people and treating them like dog crap is evil. i don't think because a population is weak, that entitles them to the right to blow up civilians for their cause...to target school buses with kids. the act is evil in and of itself, no matter who does it...no matter what cause.
I know what you're saying, but it vcomes down to a matter of pragmatism...on both sides. In '45 we could have done many things. We could simply have beseiged Japan. We could have launched conventiional attacks aimed at the military. We could have dropped the bomb off the coast as a sighn of what we could do. In the end we dicded on the deaths of hundreds of thousands...because it was the most effective and pragmatic means of accomplishing our ends. It is without doubt that we could have killed more...and it is without doubt that we could have killed far less. In the end we made a decision wherein the civilian casualties weren't only secondary to the intent, they were secondary in the consideration. We wanted to achieve a quick and absolute surrender...quick before the USSR got involved, absolute because that was the standard we had declared after Pearl Harbour. So we dropped the bomb...were amazed at the extent of the damage...and dropeed another one. In the end it came down to what was the most pragmatic means of achieving our ends; morality didn't enter into it. To expect morality to enter into ti for the likes of Osama is the problem you and I have, if we don't have that same expectation for ourselves. We excuse past actions, we marginalize present ones. Take the bomb dropped in the market which killed dozens of civilians. We all write it off as collateral damage, the inevitable consequence of war...tragic but unavoidable. We see no connection between that action and a decision to specifically target civilians because, in this case, we didn't intend to drop a bomb in the market; it was an accident. But to an ourtsider things might appear differently. They might say that, yes, such actions are the inevitable consequence of war...and there was no intent in the specific action...but the war itslef was completely and totally a decision we made. We forced those inevitable consequences on the victims in the market, not when we dropped the bomb, but when we decided to invade their country without being attacked, and knowing as we did, what 'inevitable consequences' would result. To whitewash the result because we use different means is to qualify unfairly. Do you doubt that, ig he had the means, Osama wouldn't invade the US like we did Iraq, and call civilian casualites 'an unfortunate but unavoidable result'? We are in a position to do so... From his perspective, 9-11 was the most [ragmatic means of accomplishing his end. I doubt morality, or what you and I would recognize as moraliuty, entered into it. He has targetted military targets...and what did it get him? His attack on the WTC has, from his point of view, been a great success. We are all terrified, the US is the global pariah because in our subsequent actions we lived up to many of the things people like Osama called us beforehand...the only nation in the Middle East that Al Queda couldn't get into is now a hot bed...he has become a hero for his cuase and will likely become the greatest martyr for anti-US terrorists before his time is through... The difference ( IMO) you and I have isn't calling something wrong...it's that I call similar actions on both sides wrong, whereas I feel that you buy into convenient rationalization for excusing our side in the matter, when the other side is showing the same kind of reasoning, merely with different and enforcedly desperate tactics.
Actually, that definition may be more accurate than you think. I don't think you should dismiss it outright as merely 'convenient.' When a country attacks another, it is answerable to the world stage as a country. The US is. Israel is. The Palestinian Authority is. I may be appalled by the tactics, or disagree entirely with the motivation, but to label it terrorist smudges the line with the quite different situation of a fundamentalist group (be they Hamas, IRA, Neo-Nazi's -- whatever) making random attacks. There is no accountability. You cannot readily negotiate, sanction, threaten, or otherwise with those groups. The line is a little less clear with internal revolutions. But to equate or even compare US or Israeli action to Osma Bin Laden, or the Hamas suicide bombers (who are not formally representing Palestine -- only its cause) is, I believe, wrong. It has certainly been argued that the US has sponsored terrorist acts (Hello Ollie North), but the attacks on Japan were done through war, in its own name -- and no amount of academic acrobatics can morph that into a terrorist act.
