|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Interesting viewpoint (Reply to this comment)
by ram_cv
Hi Chris,
I do share the same viewpoint as to whether the War on Terrorism is really over or not!! You can check out my views on this at:
http://www.epinions.com/content_3080102020
|
Jan 24 '03
8:10 am PST
|
|
Re: Re: Re: It's all in the definition.... (Reply to this comment)
by Vormancian
I'm not sure I did misinterpret it.
I certainly didn't suppose that you were in favor of terrorism.
No other country is responsible for them, no matter how rich. I'll have to put it to you again, does anyone else suffer because they have less money than you do? Then you aren't following the recipe for your own idea.
Should we just leave these people to suffer? No. We should help them. Just like we should help anyone. Just like when you see a poor person in America you should help them. But,you aren't obligated to split your money with them until you are equal.
What individual needs a billion dollars? None. That also isn't the question. Would they be as happy? Who knows. Maybe they wouldn't. It's irrelevant. The question is do they have the right to keep their billion if they have it. I say yes. Maybe we could spend it? How is it that you get to spend their money?
No, the question isn't if you give to the poor in your community. The question is have you given all your money away to the poor until you are equal with the poorest person in your community.
Someone has sold you a bill of goods about the poor in this country. The majority of the poor? Did you do a poll? They have TVs and a place to live? How about homeless people? There are a lot of them in this country.
The majority of poor in this country are poor by choice? Another poll?
There are millions of poor people in this country who don't eat everyday.
What difference does it make anyway? The poor elsewhere are somehow 'better' poor people? Why don't we give all this money we are redistributing to our own poor, whether they live like kinds compared to the other poor or not?
If the removal of this disparity is the only solution, then I submit that the cure is worse than the problem.
Look, you might as well say that we could rid the world of theft if only we had a world-wide absolute communism where everybody had exactly the same everything as anyone else. Who would steal? There would be no motivation for theft. That solution also I consider worse than the problem.
|
Jul 16 '02
5:42 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: It's all in the definition.... (Reply to this comment)
by thrasher32
Hmmm, I think you may have misinterpreted my rant.
I am not attempting to justify terrorism in any way. It's wrong to kill innocents for political means. Period.
Next, if we, the richest and most powerful country in the world, are not responsible for the poor and oppressed, who will be? Should we just leave these people to suffer?
And finally, what individual needs a billion dollars? I mean really? Wouldn't Bill Gates or Ross Perot, or George Bush Sr. be just as happy with $100 million? Maybe we could spend the balance on helping those who are terribly unfortunate out.
Do I give to the poor in my community? Yes, even though by third world country standards the poorest people in America live like kings. Now, there's a big difference between the "poor" in this country and the poor in other countries. You must realize that the majority of "poor" people in the US are pretty well off. I mean they have food, TV's, a place to live, money to buy dope and booze with. Not only that but the majority of "poor" in the US are poor by choice, that is to say that they don't work because they don't want to, and they know the govt will support them. Contrast those people with the poor in other countries who do not eat every day (or maybe not even every week), who have no homes, who receive NO assistance from the government, and must scratch and fight to even continue to exist. It's THIS disparity, the disparity between the rich and poor COUNTRIES, which is at the root of many violent attitudes towards the US, and it is this disparity which must be removed if we ever want to kill the root cause of terrorism.
That's what I'm trying to say.
--Thrasher
|
Jul 15 '02
3:44 pm PDT
|
|
Re: It's all in the definition.... (Reply to this comment)
by Vormancian
Well, I have two comments to your comment.
The first is that, you are close to a good analogy about terrorism, but not quite dead on. I completely agree that if a government is completely oppressing its people and treating them unfairly, etc., etc., something should be done, and that something is pretty likely to be violent. As you suggest, those who broke away from English rule could accurately be described as terrorists.
The difference in the situation is that when the American Revolution was going on, the 'Americans' didn't blow up Spain or Japan. They fought to free themselves from their own government and establish a new country and new government.
The truth is that the situation and grievances that were the problem here were not at all comparable to what happened when America was created. Violent overthrow of a government, in the right situation, is a far different kind of terrorism.
The idea of the poor in other countries is, in itself, appaling as some sort of justification for the action. You know how much money binLaden has? You now how much money went into organizing September 11th? Could have bought a few sandwiches right there.
As far as the people all around the world who have nothing while there are billionaires in America, I don't think you are going to get far convincing anyone that you have a reasonable idea there.
We are not, unless there is something I missed, responsible for everyone else in the world. Sure there are people in America who have a lot more money than the starving children all over the world, but is it the rich person's fault that this is so? No. Should he give some money to charities that can help change this? Yes. But it doesn't mean he has a duty to share all his money with the world until he is equal with the person who has the least.
Do you? Do you have more money than someone who lives in your town or city? Do you give it all away to the poor until you and the poorest person have been balanced out? No? Then how can anyone take the idea seriously?
|
Jul 13 '02
9:47 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ........ (Reply to this comment)
by Vormancian
It depends on what you mean by 'absolute moral imperative'. As I said, the idea of the ethical system is not really to establish a list of what moral imperatives there are. If you try to establish any absolutes, people will find an exception. The idea is to work from the exception, so to speak.
The idea is to only act in such a way that you would be willing to accept it if the imperative you could be considered to be following, were to become universal. Actual universality is irrelevant.
This is, of course, not want Kant was after, but this is what the idea has become. For example, Kant would say that no one should ever lie, in any situation. Frankly, there are very few people willing to accept this. Having a surprise party is something most people consider morally neutral.
In the manner Kant means the idea, I do not accept that there are any moral imperatives, because his idea includes very broad things such as 'Do not lie', 'Do not kill'.
The idea of the moral imperative ethical system has become much more situational, and exception driven.
I think you have to take each situation and find the most reasonable appeal to universalization.
If you suppose that you come home and interrupt the person who is killing your wife, you wouldn't examine your ethical stance in killing the person in relation to the imperative 'Do not kill' (because then you couldn't). You would examine your ethical stance in killing the peson in relation to some other generalized imperative 'Defend the lives of those who are being murdered, even if you have to kill to do so,' or 'Kill those who are attempting to kill your loved ones'.
Thus, the idea is not that you aren't allowed to kill the person because you don't want everyone to just start killing people whenever they like. The question is would you be okay with the idea that people killed people who were trying to murder other people.
As far as the Kantian imperatives, you can come up with any broad imperative you want, and I will have an exception that (at least I believe) is either morally acceptable or morally neutral.
|
Jul 13 '02
9:26 am PDT
|
|
It's all in the definition.... (Reply to this comment)
by thrasher32
So who exactly IS a terrorist? Should we consider the American Founding Fathers "Terrorists"? After all they sunk British ships, commandeered and destroyed cargo (Boston Tea Party ring any bells), killed British subjects, and subverted and overthrew the lawful government of the day. Aren't all those things acts of terrorism? What would be the difference between America seceding from English rule, and say Florida deciding to secede from the United States because it considers the federal government repressive? None whatsoever, as far as I can tell.
The deeper question is this: When a man or society feels it cannot rectify injustices through legal or non-violent means, and when those injustices are so severe that they cannot be tolerated, what other choice do those people have except to resist violently? Take these passages from the United States Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
"...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Couldn't those passages be interpreted as manifestos for Terrorism?
Now, I am not trying to defend terrorism in any way, what I'm trying to get across is that terrorism is subjective. If tomorrow aliens invaded the United States, defeated our military and put in place an alien-run government, would we not be "Terrorists" for fighting against the aliens, destroying their governmental institutions, and killing their soldiers and representatives without regard?
The point is that if you're on the powers-that-be side, anyone who fights against that power is labeled a terrorist or a traitor. If, however, you are the repressed and subjugated, fighting against the powers-that-be, you are a patriot or a freedom fighter. It all depends on who you are, and where your loyalties lie.
Now, I am not defending terrorism in any way shape or form. I condemn all forms of violence, and the slaughter of innocents for political ends. Killing is wrong, period. All I'm saying is that things are not as black-and-white as our leaders like to make us believe. Should we be killing Al-Queda terrorists? Absolutely, they struck us and now we must strike back. Should we be pursuing a "War against Terrorism"? No, because such a war, by definition, is unwinnable unless we remove all of the causes of oppression and injustice in the world, and take away the reasons for the terrorists' despair, anger, and hatred. And that's not going to happen.
So what's the solution? I have no idea, but I can tell you this: There are children living in sewers in South America, there are families who literally live off of the refuse of society in third world countries, and there are millions of deaths in the world due to starvation each and every year. Meanwhile, back in the "First World", we have billionaires who throw away enough food each year to feed hundreds, and even the poorest of the poor and prisoners are infinitely better off than the unfortunate souls who live in desperation in the less-developed world. Until this disparity is removed, there will always be acts of terrorism, perpetrated by the downtrodden and oppressed who feel that they have no choice except to fight for life and liberty.
So there.
--Thrasher
|
Jul 12 '02
2:15 pm PDT
|
|
Re: When you ... (Reply to this comment)
by cripper
I do not fully agree that evil men flourish when good men do nothing. It's just that evil men know when to take opportunities, while the good men underestimate the intelligence of the evil men. That's why 9/11 came as such a shock to all of us (and it can be said that no one expected it).
I agree that what some Muslims do is disgusting and horrific. In Somalia, they circumcise women so that the men know they are virgins. In Afghanistan, if a woman's dress does not cover her ankles, her ankles are amputated. There are numerous examples of men abusing women, particularly in the Muslim religion.
Anyways, thanks for the comments.
cripper
|
Jul 11 '02
9:35 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ........ (Reply to this comment)
by cripper
Never did I say or infer that you were supporting the side in which we don't punish the mafia. I just said that if they murder someone, and we kill them to bring them to justice, it will lead to more potential deaths, since it is highly possible that other mafia members would go after you. There are other forms of punishment such as sending them to prison or to solitary confinement, and those can be used as methods of bringing them to justice rather than to retaliate.
You bring out the point that your line of reasoning was that we should not look at the consequences of our actions. I agree, because as I said earlier, these are predicted and the flimsy evidence can hardly be used as a way of making decisions.
As for absolute moral imperatives, what do you think these are?
Thanks for replying again.
cripper
|
Jul 11 '02
9:22 am PDT
|
|
When you ... (Reply to this comment)
by Caprig
...stop evaluating everything based upon shades of gray you can see more clearly. It all really boils down to one principle.
Evil men flourish when good men do nothing. So the way for evil men to take power, is to convince good men to do nothing.
Whether we like it or not, conflict almost always comes down to, who is more powerful than the other in order to maintain either total control or peace.
Do some research on what the muslim extremists do in other countries to women and those who try to have some freedom to believe or live as they want to. It is disgusting. You might start with Sudan, where they chop up adults who want freedom to believe in other religions, rape the children, sell them into slavery.
Then you can go to Nepal, where they set on fire and rape women who want to have freedom.
You can then go to the Middle East, where they have special forces that are assigned to go to villages who might be exploring other religions to have belief in. They then take the little helpless babies and force the parents to watch as they throw them from the roofs of buildings where they fall to their gory death on the rocks below.
And that is barely the tip of the iceberg.
A splinter unremoved, infects.
An infection undrained poisons the blood.
Poisoned blood, causes death in its host.
Glad you took the time to write this, Chris! It is a good springboard for discussion.
Capri
|
Jul 11 '02
6:49 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ........ (Reply to this comment)
by Vormancian
Well, I am still sort of wondering because you seem to think that I am on the side of the argument which would say we shouldn't punish mafia criminals.
We should. My whole point in this line of reasoning was that we should not look to the consequences of punishing people. We don't hold back from punishing people in the mafia because of potential reprecussions of that punishment, and we shouldn't. And thus, what may or may not happen because of our attempts to bring terrorists to justice is wholly irrelevant.
I do not, just sort of by the way, agree that the imperative 'do not steal' is one that I would want included as an absolute in a moral system.
|
Jul 11 '02
6:29 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ........ (Reply to this comment)
by cripper
WHOOPS!
Yes, I completely misread the second post, and immediately assumed that you were talking about the 9/11 attacks and not the issue of punishment. I apologize for being lazy on my part :).
True, I agree that if we follow an imperative such as "do not kill", it will not always work. Your example of the mafia shows that it does not work that if one kills a person, we should retaliate, since the mafia will chase after you and if you promote killing murderers, then you are just creating more deaths.
If we wanted, we could take the utilitarian method towards the "do not kill" principle, and look at consequences, but even if we do, these are just predictions and some are very flimsy.
As for the idea of moral imperatives, I agree that we should have some, whether they are religiously influenced or not. Maybe the principle, "do not kill unless you have a justified reason" might work, but the problem with this is that sometimes even if you do kill for a justified reason (i.e. kill a person who has killed your father), by law, you still must be punished. Therefore, the belief that one should not kill is generally followed.
However, when it comes to mass murder, then the government does have the power to retaliate. Since there is so much suffering that results from mass murder, one does have the power to take revenge on the people who have committed the act.
ARGH! I think I've tied myself up in knots now, LOL! Maybe we should just stick to an imperative such as "do not steal" and leave it there (unless, you want to dispute that as well).
If you're still not convinced that I read your comments, you can come over here and whack me in the head with a shovel :).
Again, thanks for replying.
cripper
|
Jul 10 '02
8:40 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: ........ (Reply to this comment)
by Vormancian
I'm not entirely convinced you are reading my comments. ;)
I didn't say that at all ethical systems fail in one way or another, and I certainly don't think it's true.
You keep going back to Kant's own version of the categorical imperative as an ethical theory. If you want to say that Kant's version of this ethical theory won't work it is hardly interesting as it has been done to death. Kant's version of the ethical theory is not what is generally considered to be meant when referring to an ethical theory of a moral imperative.
I also didn't say that we do not have an obligation to punish the terrorists. I think we do.
|
Jul 10 '02
8:15 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: ........ (Reply to this comment)
by cripper
It is true that all ethical systems do fail in one way or another. Like you said, you don't expect everyone to follow a principle such as "do not kill", since some people believe that it is wrong to kill in some situations. Kant did not believe in breaking any rule for any reason, and that a duty should be followed and under any circumstance, it should not be broken for any other reason. Kant's theory was also religiously influenced, and rules from religions such as "do not kill" should, in Kant's mind, be universalized. However, the problem with this is that it is inevitable that any imperatives will never be universalized, since there are always going to be disagreements, and in this day and age, Kant's theory would be impractical, since the Principle of Universalizability, a principle which is needed in order for the theory to work, will never work in a free-thinking society such as ours. As for other ethical theories such as utilitarianism, emotivism and situation ethics, they also fail, as a result of their general flimsiness of their rules, allowing too many exceptions that it is impossible to draw a line between what is ethical or not.
It is easy to say that we do not have an obligation to punish the criminals of the 9/11 attacks. We could have easily sat back and try to sort this out by peaceful means, but this would allow terrorists to capitalize on the fact that a nation is trying to solve a problem through peaceful means. Therefore as a nation, the U.S. government felt that they needed to punish the criminals, in order to prevent other countries to perceive them as weak and to show that the U.S. will use force when necessary.
Again, thanks for the comment.
cripper
|
Jul 10 '02
8:08 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: ........ (Reply to this comment)
by Vormancian
Looking back at your original article and your comment, I will say this about the issue.
We do not have an obligation to look to the consequences of punishing criminals. In fact, we have an obligation not to do so. If we were to act in this manner (follow its imperative perhaps) we might not punish someone who commits a murder if he is sufficiently tied to the mafia and we fear that they might retaliate by: killing more people in general, killing the police and/or prosecutors, etc.
We can perhaps prepare for expected consequences, but we cannot allow them to determine our action.
|
Jul 10 '02
6:29 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: ........ (Reply to this comment)
by Vormancian
Kant did say that (more or less), but you really need to read all of Kant as well as the work of those who followed Kant to get to what is now considered the categorical imperative ethical theory. Actually, you don't have to, but it is the same as I say about utilitarianism. You can't really expect anyone to take you seriously if you are going to analyze ethical/moral problems using ethical theories that no one believes in. I mean you might as well analyze the situation in terms of skepticism.
The categorical imperative theory, as first stated, and as you set it down here, is not anything that has any proponents, though (unlike utilitarianism) it is a theory that is very much alive in other forms.
As I said, the idea of the categorical imperative is not that we should decide on some imperatives and universalize them, it is that we only have the right to act if we would be willing to accept the universalization of an imperative that is in accordance with that action.
In your example, if we would only be willing to accept the universalization of an imperative like 'Don't kill people', then we do not have the right to kill people.
Descartes once said 'I think therefore I am' (and all that went along with it), but that doesn't mean that you can now look to the Meditations for a proof of self-existence. You have to look at where the idea has gone from there (and if it is even alive at all), and if you were to invoke the cogito in some serious way as an argument you would have to mean something like, 'There is some thinking happening and whatever it is that is doing that thinking is myself, therefore I exist.' Though those who don't like the cogito would have problems even with that.
As I said, the ethical system in question does not require such broad tenets. Your example, 'Don't kill people', is not the necessary imperative just because you want one to do with killing people. For one thing, the number of people who would accept that as a tenet of life is very small. Most people believe there are instances of acceptable people killing, and the imperatives can be qualified.
It is not really a serious defect of an ethical system that people will disagree with it or any aspect of it. Neither is it necessary (internally) for this particular theory, that everyone agree with it. If we were going to seriously look at what everyone was going to agree with, we would be looking at an argument against an ethical system in general, not any particular one.
|
Jul 10 '02
6:01 am PDT
|
|
Thought provoking (Reply to this comment)
by mike.holmes
First of all, I want to congratulate you on a very well written essay. I hope you received an "A" for your paper. Secondly, I share your confusion as to what the best answer to terrorism is. In the U.S. and a few other countries in the world, the death penalty is prevalent although it is a clear violation of one Biblical commandment. That is another topic but I find the same problem with our "all out war" on terrorists. You raise some excellent questions.
The one area that I disagree with you on is your assertion that Israel is causing the Palestinians more problems than the Palestinians are causing Israel. While I know there are two sides to every conflict, Israel is beset with enemies on all her borders. The avowed aim of most Arab (including Palestinians) is to destroy Israel. While I am a Christian, I see no other answer for Israel than to defend vigorously their right to exist as a nation.
Sorry to get off on that because I mostly wanted to comment on how wonderful it is that you care enough to write about this subject and that you write so well. Congratulations and good luck in whatever you choose to do.
|
Jul 09 '02
10:25 pm PDT
|
|
Re: ........ (Reply to this comment)
by cripper
Thanks for the comment, and I guess I should elaborate on what I said about the categorical imperative theory. Immanuel Kant said that we have duties, and these should be done for its own sake, rather than for the sake of consequences or any other reason. Because we have duties in our daily lives, Kant said that these duties should be universalized (or act in your maxim) to prevent social anarchy from taking place. For example, the command "you shall not kill another person" is generally followed by people, because we know that killing is wrong and should not be universalized, otherwise we'd all be killing each other. Therefore, each duty should be universalized.
As for Bush and 9/11, Bush said that the world should wage war against terrorism, in the belief that this would prevent society from becoming socially anarchaic. Maybe I should not have stated that Bush was going to universalize this entirely, but I think it can be said that this is an imperative, and because it is an imperative, other countries are acting on it. However, the problem with Kant's theory is that nothing in this day and age can be universalized, and this war on terrorism will not be universalized, and people are going to disagree with each other over this issue.
Again, thanks for the comment, and if you read this, you are more than welcome to reply.
cripper
|
Jul 09 '02
7:22 pm PDT
|
|
Daze and Confused... (Reply to this comment)
by groverchick
You brought out some great points that I've never bothered to look at with this war on terrorism. And yes, you were most certainly right, after I was done reading it all I was really confused! It's really a lose/lose situation...
The one thing that made a lot of sense to me was:
"if you kill terrorists, you are only instilling anger into them, which causes them to retaliate in brutal ways towards the innocent people around the world"
Terrorists are always going to "hit" when you least expect it, so how can you prevent it? This world will always be filled with people that hate, it's just really sad.
Why can't we all just get along?
This was really deep and I actually used my brain! Thanks. =)
Cheryl
|
Jul 09 '02
5:10 pm PDT
|
|
........ (Reply to this comment)
by Vormancian
It is an excellent commentary, and as others have mentioned, it is good to know that there are those among the younger community who can and do express themselves logically.
I don't really have any comment on the 'meat' of the issue. As you know, the debate about response to terrorist action can go on forever.
I do feel I should comment on the ethical theories you mention.
In the first place, utilitarianism is all but a completely dead idea. No one, of note, believes in a real theory of utilitarianism and no one of importance to the question would ever dare mention one. The theory was not very popular (except in that it sparked great discussions) even when it was popular.
In the second place, while it is true that technically a categorical imperative is a command by which a mode of action is implied, the ethical theory has very little to do with what you imply. The theory of ethics one refers to as the categorical (or moral) imperative dictates that one should act (or only has the right to act) in such a way that one would be willing to accept that everyone else should act according to the categorical imperative created by (or in accordance with) acting in such a manner.
Or, using your example, the U.S. only has a right to act (let's say as they are acting) if they are willing to accept that everyone will act according to the categorical imperative that one can 'move backward to' from their actions. You suggest that imperative would be 'Kill all terrorists!', but is that really the imperative associated with the United States actions here? It doesn't seem at all clear to me that it is. Imperatives, even categorical ones, do not have to be as universal as you seem to make them out.
Also, the ethical theory of the categorical imperative does not suggest that everyone must follow that imperative, only that you must be willing to accept it if they did.
|
Jul 09 '02
2:43 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Excellent job! (Reply to this comment)
by cripper
ARGH! What have you done here?! You've written a comment that could be another essay in this section (hehe, just kidding)!
Well, I am glad it has made you think, and it is true that in the end, we have to weigh the options and decide what is right, despite the fact it won't fully satisfy all the people out there.
Just hope that there is not another terrorist attack anytime soon.
Thanks for the comment and take care.
cripper
|
Jul 09 '02
10:54 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: First off... (Reply to this comment)
by cripper
True. First off, I think it was essential that the U.S. had to attack Afghanistan, in order to show that the U.S. does not tolerate acts of terrorism. It's good that Bush has done this. However, since Bush has waged war on terrorism, other leaders have started their own wars on terrorism. But, the problem is there are terrorists who have done good for the people of society, and Yasser Arafat is one of them. Right now, Ariel Sharon is trying anything to get rid of him and gain control of Palestine. Arafat has not committed mass murders, and has become a well-respected figure worldwide. Therefore, I think the fact that Bush waged this war on terrorism has allowed other countries to act on it. Bush has just left Sharon to run rampant all over Palestine, and I feel that it is unfair that war should be waged on all terrorists, since some terrorists benefitted society. That's why I talk about Mandela and Arafat, both of whom were terrorists, and have become respected worldwide. Because of the war waged on terrorism, it has allowed for other countries to take advantage of the fact that Bush has waged this war. Even if we allow for exceptions, where do we cross the line? It is imperative that we do get rid of terrorists who can potentially destroy the world, but if we do, we can be faced with serious consequences, such as the deaths and injuries of more innocent civilians.
Anyway, I'm tying myself up in knots!
Thanks for your thoughts.
cripper
|
Jul 09 '02
7:55 am PDT
|
|
Re: First off... (Reply to this comment)
by PacManY2J
Excellent essay, Cripper. You made some good points and have shown what an immensely complicated issue this is. However, I tend to agree more with the comment I am replying to. We need to be clear that we did not wage war with Afghanistan and the Afghani people. We fought the Taliban.
Also, I get the feeling from your essay that you are open to the possibility of these acts of terrorism being justified in the far future. I find it hard to believe that the remorseless murder of thousands of civilians will ever be justified. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in my minimal studies of Mandela, I don't recall him ever being responsible for mass murder and destruction.
Anyway, excellent work - very thought provoking.
-Matt
|
Jul 09 '02
7:42 am PDT
|
|
First off... (Reply to this comment)
by eskimo101
...I commend you on a well-written and honest review. Yet I disagree in various places with your thinking. Before we can discuss "war" and "terrorism," we should define them. Does war require armed persons or governmental backing? Can we be at "war" with terrorists? If so, how can we determine who are enemy is?
I don't mean to confuse matters further, but I think that the events of Sept. 11 forced the hands of a country. Is it punishment the US seeks in the matter? Possibly, but it is much more. Terrorism is organized and well funded, which gives the US an area to attack. Is it actually a war? Not in my opinion. But it is an assault, and Afghanistan was attacked because the Taliban supported the terrorists that we sought to bring to justice. So were we at war with Afghanistan or the Taliban? I still hesitate to call it war. We took appropriate action against forces that threatened the free world. I believe that morally, that was the best choice.
Terrorism has existed and will exist indefinitely. However, when a major world power sustains the amount of damage that the US did, it becomes the duty of the major power to reduce the means of the terrorists groups in question as best they can, while ultimately seeking justice according to the laws of the land. Anything less that that response, in my opinion, is criminally negligent and in a way, endorses the violent acts that terrorist groups use as their most powerful tactic.
As far as the Nelson Mandela argument, I'm sure many people would prefer Gandhi's methods. In fact, Mandela is a hero in the US but the average American has no idea why he was imprisoned. In the end, to say the means justifies the ends can be criminal and morally wrong. I talk about law, because it is law that allows for freedom, though many people feel the opposite. Anarchy is simply an ignorant dream, yielding no possibility of freedom. So, we need law, and there is no place in law for acts of terrorism. When such acts occur, it is imperative that measures be taken to maintain justice, not to "get revenge."
Sorry to have written such a lengthy response, but take it as a compliment. Your review was thought-provoking. I would have expanded on my beliefs, but I think I may be boring you already. I didn't even tap into the potential evils of organized religion.
- Eskimo
|
Jul 08 '02
10:31 pm PDT
|
|
Great stuff! (Reply to this comment)
by lyagushka
I'm pleased to read your essay. In principle, I agree with much of what you have to say. More important for me however, is that you have shown me that young people today are capable of critical thinking on such vital questions as this one. Don't let anyone tell you you're wrong without solid facts and arguments to back it up. Keep questioning the rationale and pointing out the logical fallacies that are peddled to the public.
Very nicely done. Thank you.
Kate
|
Jul 08 '02
10:20 pm PDT
|
|
Good thinking (Reply to this comment)
by sundogg99
My agreement or disagreement with your argument is secondary. I'm just really pleased and encouraged to read the thoughtful words of someone as young as you -- because thinking people are the only ones who will, with luck, eventually unravel the snarl of petty and not-so-petty grievances on this planet.
Thanks for writing!
|
Jul 08 '02
9:22 pm PDT
|
|
Re: ! (Reply to this comment)
by cripper
YES! Someone who agrees with me =)!
Too right. The government are trying to create a safe environment by bombing Afghanistan and showing their power. But in reality, we are only causing them to be more aggravated, and anytime soon, they will attack the U.S. again.
Like I said, I could go on forever, but I will always end up where I started off. Just as confused as before.
Thanks for the comment.
cripper
|
Jul 08 '02
7:41 pm PDT
|
|
! (Reply to this comment)
by dedemw
Yes- very confused and I don't think the govt. even knows. We really don't know what we are doing, we are just trying to look like we do and create a false safety. We want to feel safe, but we aren't. We also want to strike fear in other countries, but we aren't. I think we are just making the rest of the world more angry.
|
Jul 08 '02
3:45 pm PDT
|
|
religion... (Reply to this comment)
by jankp
causes most terrorism and war. Different beliefs divide people who may be intolerant of difference. If there was a way to teach them tolerance, there would be more peace in the world. There are other reasons for war and terrorism, but religion is a major factor.
Jan
|
Jul 08 '02
12:04 pm PDT
|
|
Re: No (Reply to this comment)
by cripper
Yes, I agree that situational ethics is so flimsy that it has been more problematic than ever and I do agree that people are remembered for making definite decisions and going through with them. But, you say that there is no room for a civilized world for terrorism. Does that mean we should get rid of other terrorists such as Nelson Mandela, who fight for what is right? Sure, today's heroes were the ones who made decisions and followed through with them. But society's beliefs towards what is right and wrong is always changing, and when our heroes lived before, their standards of right and wrong was different to ours. Only 50 years ago, racism was right. Now, it is considered wrong. We have to look forward, and see whether the actions we do now will benefit society or not.
From what I have seen in the news, Ariel Sharon's army of Israeli soldiers have gone out to Palestine, in an attempt to wipe out terrorism and overthrow Yasser Arafat through violence. From the shots I have seen of Israel, it is hardly what I would call safe. There are also Palestinians killing Israelis in Israel. Surely, you cannot say that Israel in this point in time is not a dangerous place.
Anyways, that is merely my opinion.
cripper
|
Jul 08 '02
9:19 am PDT
|
|
No (Reply to this comment)
by bud41
everyone is not as confused as you are about the terrorist attacks. I disagree with your statement that the Israelis are causing more trouble for the Palestinians than vica versa. You need to study the situation a little more before making such a charge. I have traveled extensively in the region since the 1970s - I assure you the opposite is true. There is no room in a civilized world for terrorism. Situational ethics that have permeated your generation's education have produced a potentially destructive way of thinking. Study history a little more. Our heroes are those who had clear and decisive thinking- knew the difference between right and wrong, and acted accordingly.
|
Jul 08 '02
8:58 am PDT
|
|
|
|
