Miriam English wrote:
>
> At 01:48 AM 12/09/2001 -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> > > Retaliation of course will make much of the population of the US feel good.
> > > But will guarantee yet another
> > > cycle of internecine conflict. Unfortunately i cannot envisage the current
> > > administration, considering
> > > the mood of the US population, taking any other course of action.
> > >
> >
> >I hate to say it but I don't see how any other course of action
> >would accomplish anything except to say "kick us, we won't kick
> >back". The response should be surgical to take out the problem
> >without a lot of extra unneeded vengeance and saber-rattling.
> >But it should be made very clear that no group can do things
> >without swift and costly consequences. We cannot not act
> >because we fear more attacks. We must act if we fear more
> >attacks and act to lessen their likelihood by taking out key
> >players who could launch such an attack.
>
> I can see a *very* positive effect of not hitting back.
> If the US follow the trail to the culprits and bring them to justice
> legally USA would be seen as impeccably just and even-handed. They would
> remain the victim in the tragedy. Sympathy would be with USA and the poor
> civilians who suffered (and continue to suffer) from this terrible act.
And of course, according to left wing victimology, it is better to
continue looking like a victim than to prevent future victimization.
Get this straight: we don't want your pity. Our freinds respect us
because we treat each other like freinds, and allies know their own.
Those who perpetrated this act have seen the US refuse to act against
them for eight years with measured responses and as a result see us as
weak wimps who do not respond to attacks. These are people who only
understand force. They see your victimology as the pathetic capitulation
of the moral coward (which is what it is) to the predator. We refuse to
live in a world of predators and prey, we refuse to be victims, serfs,
slaves, or cowards. Mercy is for one's creator to grant. We have no
reason to ever expect any from them, they will get none from us. We know
that there is real, objective, concrete, solid, distinguishable good and
evil in the world. We refuse to accept rationalizations in place of
reason, excuses for irresponsibility in place of acceptance of
responsibility.
Relativity is for photons, not morals.
>
> If, however, USA goes off half-cocked firing blindly at all comers then the
> pain of the people in the WTC will be overshadowed and, worldwide, less
> people will feel sympathy. Worse, those who get struck but were innocent
> will be the next round of terrorists to kill more US citizens.
Societies get the governments they deserve, and societies that choose
the governments they have, through democratic or other means (what is
more democratic than a civil war, winner takes all). Thus societies are
collectively responsible for the acts of those governments, and those
who support, rationalize, recruit, excuse, shelter, succor, aid,
promote, or lionize these individuals are collectively responsible for
the acts the terrorists have committed.
This is not just my standard, this is the standard that bin Laden, the
palestinians, the iraqis, and other radical groups have imposed on us in
justifying this attack. They claim that we are reaping what we sowed. I
say 'turnabout is fair play'. It is our responsibility to do so. In the
world of force which these people ascribe to, he who has the biggest
stick is responsible for determining the rules, whether he does so or
not. If you don't set the rules, they will be set for you. Bin Laden is
setting the rules right now because we haver refused to act. Our only
move now is ejecting him from the game.
>
> To avoid over-reaction would be to help defuse the whole thing, make
> everybody feel safer, and turn world opinion massively against the
> terrorists. The bad guys would lose in a big way. But it would have to be
> followed up with softening foreign policy. USA has done some despicable
> things around the world. Australia is no angel here either (Bougainville
> makes me moan).
No, they would not. This wimp attitude has been the rule for the last 8
years. It turns out that Clinton, for example, had very explicit
information last year he could have used to rid the world of bin Laden,
but did not do so because his namby pamby liberal advisors didn't want
the risks.
There is no such thing as moral equivalency. It is an excuse of the
moral coward.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:44 MDT