Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> --- David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, it did do a lot to cause the attack. And not
> > by harmlessly distributing Britney Spears videos,
> > either.
> > Some of being targeted was because America was
> > "walking point"
> > for the West in general. But the US has done a lot
> > of
> > selfish things to make other countries mad at it
> > over the
> > years.
>
> Why do you think that Osama bin Laden objects to the
> same things about American foreign policy that you do?
That's not a fair tactic in an argument.
> In all seriousness, why do you think that his
> objection is things that you define as "selfish" -
> although others may not, of course. Given what he
> supports, and what his supporters support, how does
> one follow from the other?
Sorry, I can't figure out what you mean here.
Clarify?
>
> > Like it or not, if your policies make some people
> > angry enough to kill themselves to show their
> > displeasure,
> > you need to rethink your policies.
...
> Why? This is a moral non sequitur. Suicide bombers
> don't act the way we do because _we_ are evil, they
> act the way they do because _they_ are evil.
Branding them as "evil" doesn't really help to make
things clearer. I render your statement as something on the
order of "...people who do bad things do them because they
are people who do bad things." Which is vacuous.
> Failing
> to understand that simple fact is why the Left has had
> little or nothing to contribute on the issue of
> terrorism. It seems like there is this absolute
> inability to conceive that someone other than the
> United States could be wrong and in the wrong.
I did not make any such claim. See below.
> What makes you think that the people who attack us
> would be in favor of us promoting human rights? Do
> _they_ ever promote human rights?
Oh, they don't like human rights. They might well
attack us just because of this. But if they do, at least
we're fighting for a just cause. I'm prepared to defend
Britney Spear's right to make money by acting like a harlot,
or whatever. I am not prepared to defend the right of various
corporations to manipulate things to maximize profits.
> David, as far as I understand your argument, it boils
> down to, if the US acted the way you wanted to, it
> would remove the incentive on the part of terrorists
> to attack us. You seem to think that _they_ object to
> the same things about the US that _you_ do. As both a
> rhetorical approach and a strategic policy I don't see
> it.
No, I don't. What I want to do is remove the incentive
that the US acts selfishly and unjustly. Doing so would earn
us more friends, and fewer enemies.
> _They_ claim that their problem with the United States
> is existential, not political. They object not to
> what we _do_, but what we _are_. Al Qaeda published a
> list of demands in the Arabic press - the first one
> was that the attacks would stop when everyone in the
> US converted to Islam.
That's their rhetoric, sure. But they do have to find
people who REALLY care for their cause to carry out the attacks.
If our actions were better, such zealots would be a lot rarer.
> Would you have told the Jews of the 1940s that they
> needed to understand why they were hated? The victims
> of Stalin's purges? Mao's?
By now, this is a bad analogy. These groups were
oppressed minorities.
> We aren't dealing with an opponent
> that wants rational things - we are dealing with a
> pathology. This isn't about giving them what they
> want so that they go away. It's about killing them
> before they kill us, because one of those two things
> is going to happen just as surely as the tides.
But it's not one monolithic group! Some idiots want
everyone in the world to adhere to their religion. Others are
driven by more reasonable concerns. Let's deal with their
concerns. Then all we have to do is fight the former faction.
---David
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
