Which words in the post addressed the topic of blaming the U.S. for 9/11. I commented on your remarks about the quality of his post. Since you have taken to diminishing the quality of your own posts I remarked how ironic the comment was. I had hoped it could lead to improved debate on all sides.
this is the equivalent of blaming a rape victim for wearing a short red dress, and is, w/o a doubt, perhaps the most astounding thing i've ever read in the D&D. Bad analogy. Suppose the next time I see you, you hold out your hand to shake, and I punch you as hard as I can in your nose. Next time we meet and you return the favor, I should be completely shocked. You would 100% to blame. Me punching you the first go round was merely a *misunderstanding* without consequences.
I disagree that to break it down to simplistic answers doesn't help. Utimately the blame lies with the 19 dead hi-jackers. They are the ones who took on the responsibility to carry out the horrific deed. But when it comes down to stopping terrorism we can either attack the symptoms or the disease itself. We shouldn't turn a blind eye to oppressive govts. in the middle east and prop them up. That will only anger those being oppressed. Does our propping up such govts. ever excuse terrorism? Of course not. Does that mean because we are attacked by terrorists we should turn a blind eye to policies of ours that encourage oppression of people? Absolutely not. It is pointless and a futile effort to continue on with examining our own policies, and making changes that could help prevent terrorism and at the same time support freedom, and justice. Changing our policy like that might hurt in the pocket book for the short term. But it would be truly supporting freedom, and opposing tyrrany. It wouldn't end all terrorism, but there is a good chance it will curb the ferociousness of some and eliminate other would-be terrorists. Combine that with a focussed military, inteligence gathering, and diplomatic reforms, and we would have a more effective way to fight terror than continuing to prop up tyrranical regimes and aid those that oppress people. The ultimate responsibility only falls on those who carry out the deed. Understanding the causes of an anger that would drive someone to do such deeds isn't blaming ourselves, it is being comprehensive in a strategy to stop future terrorist acts before they begin.
this is where you betray a fundamental misunderstadning of the enemy we're fighting. these are not rational people with reasonable grievances that can be "understood". they want nothing less than the dismantling of western civilization from the enlightenment forward, the utter anihilation of, not just israel, but jews themselves, and the imposition of world-wide shaira. why someone who professes to believe in the downtrodden, the rights of minorities, women and homosexuals would make common cause with, or even attempt to feel the pain of, a band of murdering fascists who want to force women to wear burkas and give homosexuals a choice between jumping off a cliff or being stoned to death, is beyond me. in light of 7/7, most liberals today recognize that these people must be confronted and killed. too bad you can't.
Basso, nowhere have I ever said I had a problem with going after and wiping terrorists. Quit trying to put words in my mouth. I realized it long before 7/7 as well. Nowhere did I try and make common cause, or feel the pain of terrorists. I believe your brain is capable of more than just basic shades of black and white. The leadership of Al Qaeda and other organizations certainly don't care about anything than what you mentioned. However the rank and file member of which there are many come into the organizations for various reasons. One of the hooks that get them in those organizations and fire them up, is the fact we support oppressive regimes, which Al Qaeda preaches and acts against. If an oppressed people see someone who looks like they are doing something against their oppressors that group will rise in their eyes. If the U.S. was doing something against those oppressors and then Al Qaeada leadership tried to call us the great satan, they wouldn't have any power in their punch. They would have no ammo to use. That in no way should be the extent of what needs to be done, but it should definitely be a part of it. Even the Bush administration claims to see a need to win the hearts and minds of the terrorists. When we aren't doing that, the terrorists are trying. I'm talking about taking away the base of support for those groups. Like I said, it won't get rid of all of them, and other steps will have to be taken as well. It is more than silly for you to claim I am trying to feel their pain. My post called for military action against terrorists. That isn't 'feeling their pain'. I'm not talking about ISrael alone. I'm also talking about the Bush friends, the Saudis, Egyptians, Pakistanis, Uzbekistan, etc. We need to work to either change in a drastic way or undermine the leadership of those nations. It needs to be a drastic change that occurs in those nations that amounts to basically a 180 degree turn around. I've seen the history and being brutal against groups like that doesn't work. The only place it has worked was something along the lines of Iraq. I don't think we want a govt. like Saddam's. Being tough is good, but only if it is teamed up with smart comprehensive changes in foreign policy. Just being tough, and getting tougher and tougher and curbing more and more freedoms, isn't going to win it.
Will, If you happen to read this thread, I enjoyed the article. I just wanted to make sure I chimed in because I wrote a thread recently that was critical of Slate. I feel like they may be straying a bit, but my opinion of your writing hasn't changed. Grizzled, Will stated that Al Quaeda's "game plan" was to destroy democracy from within. He didn't say that their "goal" was to destroy democracy from within. Will is not aligning himself with Republican rhetoric. He is simply stating that Al Quaeda's strategy for achieving their goals has morphed since 9/11. The article is pretty clear about showing statements made post 9/11 illustrating how Al Quaeda will punish citizen's of democratic countries active in ME wars until those citizen's demand change. Al Quaeda is appealing directly to Spanish, American, and English citizen's to generate anti-war sentiment. The closing statement are completely consistent with his point. Jorge Trader, Stop shooting the dead horse... or dig up an old thread if it makes you happy. No reason to hijack every thread with an annoying rehash of election rhetoric.
basso - a victim is never to blame. but to completely turn a blind eye to possible causes and completely dismissing them as "simply out to destroy democracy" or whatever rhetoric you guys are using these days is counter productive and very dangerous. there is a method to their madness. you must first understand your enemy to defeat your enemy.
Well on the issue of Supreme Court appointee, I actually do agree with Basso. If last month's Supreme Court rulings have taught me anything, as shown in the New London eminent domain case and the Cable/FCC vs Brand X case, it is that the "liberal wings" of the Supreme Court don't necessarily represent my best interest.
Examining a parallel situation properly expresses the flaws in your linear thinking; In World War II, Hitler used "terror weapons" like the V1 and V2 on London thinking it would break the will of British people. Churchill was afraid that he might be right. He told the British public that the V2 attacks were actually gas leaks for several months. Like bin Laden both were wrong. The attacks eventually galvanized the public against the Nazi’s. Also, in discussing WWII, people also often use the word "appeasement" to discuss Neville Chamberlain, and to some degree they are correct, given hindsight. Ultimately, the only way to deal with Hitler was to oppose him. Of course, at the same time they fail to mention that in the United States at the time that Chamberlain was doing his bit, the only political discussion revolved around who was more willing to appease the relevant parties and keep the US out of the war in Europe. Furthermore, in the same breath they will go on to discuss the faults of the Treaty of Versailles and how something which sounds suspiciously like appeasement would have prevented the situation which lead to the war. Of course, nobody at the time saw the apparent conflict. After the war when people talked about the Marshall Plan, and avoiding the same mistakes that lead to Hitler taking power, they weren’t accused of being soft on Hitler. Sure, there were probably some people around mixed in with the pro-Marshall Plan crowd who still felt (wrongly of course) that the war could have been “avoided”, but that was generally the minority, the fringe elements, like the “Communist Idealists”. Furthermore, given some perspective, we began to see that some of the things that we did when we were scared and seemed prudent at the time, like herding all the people of Japanese ancestry into detention camps were both embarrassingly un-American, and counterproductive to our cause. The point here is that we all agree that Osama bin Laden is, indeed, an evil man. We also agree that it would have been nice if we had been able, given hindsight, to kill him before he became a terrorist, and that we probably should have concerned ourselves with him on a large scale before we did. We do not, however, all agree that anybody who discusses ways to avoid making more people want to join or emulate Osama bin Laden is talking about “appeasement” and we also think that just because the other guy is as bad as bad gets, we don’t automatically assume that gives us a free pass as good guys no matter what we do. Some of us even believe that we have shown that when we act in the way that seems like “getting tough on the enemy” can often lead us to do things that, while emotionally satisfying, are actually things that we will later not be proud to have done, and that may have actually not helped our cause to begin with.
basso, did you wake up having flashbacks to your tour of duty in vietnam and cambodia? You know, I'm referring last year, when you were mapping out the Mekong delta and various estuaries and tributaries thereof, after you swore up and down that John Kerry was a war hero and you wouldn't question his war record? The reason why I say this is "you liberals want to appease bin Laden" is soooooo 2004, just like if I said "yeah well you sold your soul to the b**** boy of the house of saud, which coddled, enabled, and in many cases financed al Qaeda activities" -- it would be anachronistic and dated. It's time to move on, dot org.
