[eDebate] Losing the Blame Game

[a. ryan]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2001, Daniel Bloomingdale wrote:

> Al Qaeda fans would disagree with yuou and I and
> suggest our point of view is typical of those who live
> in a country wealthy enough to afford cruise missiles
> and stealth bombers and mechanized infantry.  They
> might argue that Americans are comfortable enough to
> make these tidy distinctions, but that desperate
> people need to employ desperate measures.

Poor people can make distinctions about who they wish to kill.  Money is
not necessary for logic.  This fact is easily evidenced by the millions of
Muslims who are poor in relation to the US yet do not support to the WTC
attacks.

> Let?s consider for a moment what  the 9/11 terrorists
> wanted to accomplish.

Frankly, I think your (and other) attempts to infer goals to the attacks
is not only impossible, but also unnecessary.  To begin, there is no way
we can project ourselves into the psyche of individuals within an
organization which we do not fully understand yet.  I also think it
is unnecessary because their intentions are not at all relevant to the
need for US retaliation.

> Perhaps they wanted to provoke a military  response
> that would polarize the Muslim world (a point of view
> expressed in today's New York Times).     How has our
> government thwarted this goal? By launching a military
> response that has polarized the Muslim world.

The Muslim world was already polarized between people who thought it right
to blow up buildings and those who thought it wasn't exactly holy to kill
civilians.  What would you have the US do?  Our response may polarize the
Muslim world.  This argument is only relevant if you are making an appeal
to the risk of future terrorism.  NOTE: this reads very much like an
implicit desire to give in.  Why shouldn't the US just stop all the things
it does that anger terrorists?  This would decrease the chance of this
happening again, right?  WRONG.  US weakness would simply invite more
terrorists to attack US targets and point out more areas of disagreement
they wanted the US to fix.

 > > President Bush says the terrorists
attacked because > they hate our freedom.  To defend that freedom his
> attorney general has asked for broader powers to
> wiretap, to search, and to detain suspects.  He wants
> people convicted of harboring terrorists even when
> they didn?t know they were harboring terrorists.  He
> has Congress debating the wisdom of secret court
> proceedings.
>
> If I was merely en route to fantasy land I would be
> asking why Bush is collaborating with Al Qaeda.

Did you watch the SIEGE too many times?  Bush is collaborating with Al
Qaeda?  Did you ever think that the only reason those freedoms are so
sacrosanct to you simply because you live in a society that allows them?
Did it also not occur to you that you and your compatriots could easily
oppose those laws in a democratic society?  I agree with the ACLU that
parts of Bush/Ashcroft ideas are anathema to US freedom.  I also think
members of the Congress believe the same thing.  The fact that Ashcroft
might immediately respond by saying "wiretap anyone you can find" does not
to me demonstrate any "collaboration" with Al Qaeda.  If you believe that
what you have provided thus far meets any reasonable level of proof for
your statements, then I would not say you were en route to Fantasyland, I
would say you were the democratically elected president.

> America has a long and proud (though  somewhat
> inconsistent) history of placing the rights of the
> innocent ahead of public safety and national security.
>  What?s that old saw? ?Better that 10 people guilty go
> free than one person be convicted.?  A debatable point
> of view, certainly, but one which isn?t entirely
> delusional.

I didn't say it was.  Was my point unclear?  Thus far, no one has dealt
with WHAT I SAID, which happened to be that collateral damage was a good
military doctrine.  I didn't say shred the constitution or intern anyone.
I said accept the cost of civilian deaths in a military campaign to rid
the world of terrorism.  *Clash* folks.  It's called *clash*.  I say yes,
you say no.  Remember?  Thus far it's been I say yes, you say "This one
time, in liberal camp..."

> If I think those lives shouldn't be put at risk it is
> not because I'm delusional, it is merely because I'm
> making a feeble effort to emulate heros like Jesus,
> Gandhi, and King (oh wait, they were all killed--and
> their killers thought they were patriots).

Sometimes heroes get killed for turning the other cheek because people are
waiting to deliver the knockout punch to the other side.

ABR



_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate