Occidentalism: the roots of anti-Western thinking

[jay gw]

Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of Its Enemies
by Ian Buruma, Avishai Margalit
A pioneering investigation of the lineage of anti-Western stereotypes that traces them back to the West itself.

(This is a great book I've been reading, it's very short but full of information about why other cultures hate America, Europe, the "Western" powers.)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1594200084/104-2926533-9661548?v=glance

Four characterizations of the West contribute to the anti-Western stance Buruma and Margalit call Occidentalism and are used to justify attacking individual Westerners as less-than-human beings.

The West prefers the sinful city to the virtuous countryside; the West destroys heroism and replaces it with trading; the West thinks only of matter and not of spirit; the West worships evil.

Buruma and Margalit argue that the first two of those conceptions, typical of secular Occidentalism, are themselves Western, products of European romanticism that early-twentieth-century Japan and Germany exploited to their own ruin.

The third idea informs Russia's long struggle with the West but stems from German romanticism, in particular, with its sense of the wounded national soul.

The fourth, peculiar to religious Occidentalism, animates radical Islamism but derives from the good-evil polarities of Persian Manichaeism that the young Augustine embraced. Buruma and Margalit conclude that these ideas' lives are "a tale of cross-contamination" that cannot be ended by answering anti-Western intolerance with more intolerance.

[Gestahl]

Yeah, I might buy all that....

Or maybe it's because the "West" has continually f***** over most of the regions they are discussing, usually by our cultural and military imperialism. How much you wanna bet they lump in Japan into "Occidental" thinking now that they have come over to the Dark Side™.

[LostAngeles]

So what you're saying is, "Don't transfer to Occidental College?"

[Marquis de Carabas]

One needs only two words to define why the rest of the world hates us--boy and bands. Hell, that's why I hate us.

[Z]

Anit-Western thinking usually springs up from one of two major sources: the behavior of Western government in third-world or Eastern countries, including the behavior of its military personnel;and jealousy at the materially superior yet morally unconstrained lifestyle of the 'average Westerner' as perceived by the East.

In the first part, we generate the problem ourselves, by continually treating poorly with other nations, inflicting our own views upon them regardless of the cultural and psychological damages that entails, and cheating them at every opportunity. We fund both sides of civil wars, put lunatics into power, and generally put our unwanted noses in everyone's business. I can emphathize with the Middle East for its attitudes towards the West, especially the U.S., as well as nations like Korea and Taiwan.

In the second part, only the individual can overcome their own jealousy of a 'life of plenty', as they see many Westerners enjoying. Certainly, it would be unwise to throw out the technological, civil, and social advancements we have made just to appease nations that are behind us. But the truth of it is that poor people in many Western countries often fare better than middle-class people in many Eastern countries... and take it for granted. Worse, the average 'Western' citizen is far less focused on spirituality and religion than the average 'Eastern' citizen, which only causes the dichotomy in wealth and comfort to become a bitter gap. Why, thinks the impoverished person of faith, do those who ignore God/Allah/whatever fare so well, while - in spite of my ironclad faith and constant prayers - I am passed over, time and again?

For hundreds of years, folks in the Middle East have been content to suffer on the promise that God was going to make good, any day now. They're becoming a little impatient, finally, seeing how the Godless masses have been getting on.

But it is interesting, that in places where we can truly say that faith is strong (Not talking about Vatican City, where 'faith' is just another cultural ritual), society grows stagnant. Not that one need do with the other, but they certainly seem entangled, somehow.

[Z]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
One needs only two words to define why the rest of the world hates us--boy and bands. Hell, that's why I hate us.

One word: 'Commercial'.

In fact, I can't honestly think of too much that uses the word 'commercial' that doesn't turn my stomach, slightly. Capitalism does have some advantages, but morality is definitely not one of them.

[jay gw]

I started a post a while back about why capitalism was so amoral. It just seemed odd that out of socialism, communism, whatever ism, that capitalism had no type of moral guidelines or idealism. It's all about making the money.

Alot of people think they can't exist without theology, but if you do it's not that much better. Look at the rich new age types starting cults here and there. It's such a huge fad in the United States.

Clearly people are very unhappy with their lots in life, no matter where they are.

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
One needs only two words to define why the rest of the world hates us--boy and bands. Hell, that's why I hate us. All the countries have boy bands today.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by DarkMagician
All the countries have boy bands today.
Right. And they blame us for that. And they're right.

[Kopji]

and here I thought it was because we love freedom

[farmermike]

Why do they hate the way we live?Why don't they want to live the American dream?Invasion by force or invasion by Ronald Mcdonald.Let's do business.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

and jealousy at the materially superior yet morally unconstrained lifestyle of the 'average Westerner' as perceived by the East.


I don't think it's jealousy, I think it's outrage and fear.

The USA has the most material, political, and cultural power and influence. Yet, at the same time, we seem to be totally unprincipled in how we use it. This breaks the maxim "with great power comes great responsibility." Hell, the US *owns* the UN, and no country or collection of countries is willing to curb our actions beyond a finger-wagging *tsk tsk*.

The US is largely constrained only by other Western countries, and as long as we aren't screwing with them, they will let us do just about anything we want. I don't think I have to point out the obvious instances of this.

Read some Chomsky, and try and get a look from the outside of the US. It would seem we are greedy, controlling, without remorse, and inconsistent in who we are supporting and why. I don't know what would give them that idea...

Hell, I live here and I am afraid of the corporation's and government's power, and the completely assinine way it seems to be used without any conscience apart from "can we get away with it."

[farmermike]

Originally posted by Gestahl
The US is largely constrained only by other Western countries, and as long as we aren't screwing with them, they will let us do just about anything we want. I don't think I have to point out the obvious instances of this.


What could be done?Money talks,and the U.S. can pull many strings.The threat of trade sanctions,tarrifs and having G.W.B.mad at you makes many governments look the other way.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by farmermike
What could be done?Money talks,and the U.S. can pull many strings.The threat of trade sanctions,tarrifs and having G.W.B.mad at you makes many governments look the other way.

The U.S. will not be the top economic dog forever. A lot of people are going to have a rude awakening when our main weapon (economic blackmail) is taken away from us as we sink lower and lower into debt. It may take 100 years, but it will happen.

My fear is that when the economic factor is taken out, the only thing the U.S. has is military threat, and it will use it to try and get back on top economically (in my opinion, we were riding the crest of the military-industrial complex from WWII, and are now riding on the credit of that previous economy, with nothing in the present economy to bolster faith in giving that credit).

But then again, I am no expert in global politics or global economy.

[jay gw]

(in my opinion, we were riding the crest of the military-industrial complex from WWII, and are now riding on the credit of that previous economy, with nothing in the present economy to bolster faith in giving that credit).

Exactly. America is living off the GI Bill. It's becoming crystal clear that when there's serious competition from EU/China/elsewhere, Americans stumble. The reason (one reason) is that previously there was no competition and now there is. Getting used to that isn't easy.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Anit-Western thinking usually springs up from one of two major sources: the behavior of Western government in third-world or Eastern countries, including the behavior of its military personnel

If you're referring to the occasional rape or murder, then just realize it "springs" from the local politicians capitalizing on these statistically insignifcant events for the same age-old reason: re-direct the hatred of the local population off you and your kleptocracy and onto some external (or pseudo-external-they-are-not-you-like-Jews-or-blacks) population. "They are causing your misery! Authorize me the power to clobber them and I'll make your life better. I promise!"

Nothing new here at all, move along, move along.


;and jealousy at the materially superior yet morally unconstrained lifestyle of the 'average Westerner' as perceived by the East.

Ironically, it's the unconstrained part, as in freedom, that generates such ungodly economic power that people fear it, even over fascism or communism or murderous theocracies. Irrationally, but there you go.

In the first part, we generate the problem ourselves, by continually treating poorly with other nations

I do have a problem supporting dictators who are friendly. It may have been useful as a Cold War item (might as well be on our side) but we can't be surprised if the people under their heel aren't too happy about it.


, inflicting our own views upon them regardless of the cultural and psychological damages that entails

Well, I have no problem if this grows out of freedom. During the first Gulf War, I recall seeing one of the stupidest things, some guy in the middle east criticizing the West for it's culture, standing there with a T-shirt with a logo on and a Coke fountain at an open food shop in the background. Sheesh.

If people choose to adopt that stuff, how dare some snot suggest there is a problem with it. What are they going to do? Hire armed thugs to keep people from freely buying these things?


, and cheating them at every opportunity. We fund both sides of civil wars, put lunatics into power, and generally put our unwanted noses in everyone's business. I can emphathize with the Middle East for its attitudes towards the West, especially the U.S., as well as nations like Korea and Taiwan.

I don't empathize with it. I recognize it for what it is: leaders wanting power. In a free society this can also include people selling newspapers hand-in-hand. Again, individually these are tragedies (rapes and murders) but statistically they are not significant as a "problem".

In the second part, only the individual can overcome their own jealousy of a 'life of plenty', as they see many Westerners enjoying.

Working in software engineering, I can say plenty of people from Asia have no problem immediately adjusting once they get here. The lack of a life of plenty is one, as usual, resulting from government interference, as has been demonstrated time and murderous time again.


Certainly, it would be unwise to throw out the technological, civil, and social advancements we have made just to appease nations that are behind us.

Not to mention being murderous on our own people, to say nothing about getting rid of freedom, the cause of such progress.

But the truth of it is that poor people in many Western countries often fare better than middle-class people in many Eastern countries...

Not counting heart disease and other obesity-related issues owing to the astoundingly cheap and plentiful greasy, tasty foods. The poor are the fattest segment of society, at least in the US.


Worse, the average 'Western' citizen is far less focused on spirituality and religion than the average 'Eastern' citizen, which only causes the dichotomy in wealth and comfort to become a bitter gap. Why, thinks the impoverished person of faith, do those who ignore God/Allah/whatever fare so well, while - in spite of my ironclad faith and constant prayers - I am passed over, time and again?

The West has spent 600 years turning Christianity into a harmless lifestyle choice, as important as it seems to be to many Westerners. By that, I mean it has been removed from serious political control over the economy, in exchange for general freedom. Other cultures need this, regardless of whether their economic oppression is religious or cultural (or political, which it ultimately all is anyway.)

For hundreds of years, folks in the Middle East have been content to suffer on the promise that God was going to make good, any day now. They're becoming a little impatient, finally, seeing how the Godless masses have been getting on.

Hmmm. Maybe God doesn't exist.


But it is interesting, that in places where we can truly say that faith is strong (Not talking about Vatican City, where 'faith' is just another cultural ritual), society grows stagnant. Not that one need do with the other, but they certainly seem entangled, somehow.

The stagnency is due to the oppression of freedoms, and specifically, economic freedoms. Education is key here, but that's still a major problem in the West.

In any case, I question the hatreds you mention about Taiwan and (South) Korea against the US because they are not really in poor economic straights, at least not compared to their communist partners.

So this is really two issues: Hatred of the US because we're the big brother, and hatred of the US because we're economically powerful/godless compared to their poor, godful countries.

[Z]

Unfortunately, with unmatched military power, the U.S. may even be able to force its way from economic hardship to affluence once more. When you're rich, and you blow billions on arms and training, you can afford to ride out some low points to new riches.

If the U.S. falls, it will most likely be due to internal revolution, in response to further oppression of our freedoms; not to economic reasons outside the U.S. or military threats from abroad.

[Z]

Originally posted by Beerina
In any case, I question the hatreds you mention about Taiwan and (South) Korea against the US because they are not really in poor economic straights, at least not compared to their communist partners.


I didn't specify 'South' Korea. But South Koreans don't want us there, period. NORTH Korea wants us there to keep South Korea from going postal on them. But if you notice, I also did NOT mention economic factors with Taiwan and Korea; what I mentioned instead was our insistance on forcing views upon them without regard to the results they bring. In Taiwan's case, the U.S. made a choice to support Communist China rather than Taiwan... a choice that may have done us a lot of good, but created a definite sense of disappointment with the U.S. In Korea, we pretty much mucked things up from the get-go. Whether they benefit from our presence or not, many Koreans feel they'd be better off if we got the heck out of their country. I was stationed in Korea, and got to see first-hand the pure hatred that was aimed at U.S. troops stationed there - from South Koreans, young and old. Not all of them, of course; after all, the American brings the Almighty Dollar, and many Koreans are of the opinion that greenbacks change everything.

Anyway, you read well, Beerina, but you need to improve ever so slightly.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beerina
If you're referring to the occasional rape or murder, then just realize it "springs" from the local politicians capitalizing on these statistically insignifcant events for the same age-old reason: re-direct the hatred of the local population off you and your kleptocracy and onto some external (or pseudo-external-they-are-not-you-like-Jews-or-blacks) population. "They are causing your misery! Authorize me the power to clobber them and I'll make your life better. I promise!"

Nothing new here at all, move along, move along.[

[snipped lots of really good stuff)



Very insightful, Beerina. I agree with your assessment 100%. :)

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Unfortunately, with unmatched military power, the U.S. may even be able to force its way from economic hardship to affluence once more. When you're rich, and you blow billions on arms and training, you can afford to ride out some low points to new riches.

If the U.S. falls, it will most likely be due to internal revolution, in response to further oppression of our freedoms; not to economic reasons outside the U.S. or military threats from abroad.

I am sorry, but my opinion about most Americans is one of apathy. Those who would really care enough to revolt would simply move away, and they are the ones intelligent enough to know what's really going on.

America has her bread and circuses, and enough people are distracted by them to simply not care. One look at the voting turnouts and the lack of generic knowledge of our government by our populous is enough to convince me.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by jmercer


Originally posted by Beerina
If you're referring to the occasional rape or murder, then just realize it "springs" from the local politicians capitalizing on these statistically insignifcant events for the same age-old reason: re-direct the hatred of the local population off you and your kleptocracy and onto some external (or pseudo-external-they-are-not-you-like-Jews-or-blacks) population. "They are causing your misery! Authorize me the power to clobber them and I'll make your life better. I promise!"


Very insightful, Beerina. I agree with your assessment 100%. :)

And you don't think the United States uses the same techniques?We perform the same slight of hand!

We had a statistically insignificant (in terms of money, people killed, and frequency of such attacks) attack against us, and what did we do?

It's the terrorists that hate democracy, freedom, and our way of life! Sorry kids, they hate what we have *done*, not what we *are*.

We redirect our hatred of our administration that allowed this to happen, our hatred of our country's continuing obsession playing global police and Israeli favoritism, hatred of taxes, hated of the Patriot act and its reduction of rights to the ones "responsible." No, not us (who elected the government), not the leaders we elected (whose actions gave them the excuse), no, no, it's the terrorists that are the problem. Especially all those terrorists in Iraq. (When, in reality, you can't get rid of terrorists, only the reasons why they want to terrorize you). The parallels to the drug war are interesting to make as well (and we all know drugs are evil, right?).

Right....

Our terrorism is simply legitimized because we got the guns. You are seeing the same dynamic on each side.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Gestahl
I don't think it's jealousy, I think it's outrage and fear.

The USA has the most material, political, and cultural power and influence. Yet, at the same time, we seem to be totally unprincipled in how we use it. This breaks the maxim "with great power comes great responsibility." Hell, the US *owns* the UN, and no country or collection of countries is willing to curb our actions beyond a finger-wagging *tsk tsk*.

The US is largely constrained only by other Western countries, and as long as we aren't screwing with them, they will let us do just about anything we want. I don't think I have to point out the obvious instances of this.

Read some Chomsky, and try and get a look from the outside of the US. It would seem we are greedy, controlling, without remorse, and inconsistent in who we are supporting and why. I don't know what would give them that idea...

Hell, I live here and I am afraid of the corporation's and government's power, and the completely assinine way it seems to be used without any conscience apart from "can we get away with it." Read Chomsky strictly for the Linguistics. Otherwise you'll end up thinking that power politics standard operating procedure throughout the history of civilization is somehow exclusive American deviltry. Believe me, those noble savages you speak for operate their own societies on the same power-dictates-resource-distribution principles, and in a 100 years or so when the Chinese have economic supremacy, they'll rub American noses in it big-time with arrogance unimagined today.

[Z]

Really? How many innocent civilians have we specifically targetted in our war vs. 'terrorism'?

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think the war is a total crock, cooked up by Georgie to cover his father's mistakes and for other crooked reasons. But there's always a difference between military action against the military and supposed military targets, and a deliberate action of mass-murder against ignorant civilians. We were certainly guilty of it in 'Nam, and many other times; I'm just wondering how guilty we are of it now... compared to the 9.11 terrorists.

[jay gw]

So in other words alot of what the "other side" hates about the West is in fact true.

That's why I brought the book up as a topic, as I kept reading it just struck me as being so insightful. Being a Westerner means living inside something you don't have the right perspective.

On the other hand, the "enemies" of the West are incredibly blind about the flaws of non Western cultures/nations.

Observe your enemies, for they first find out your faults.

- Antisthenes

A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends.

- Baltasar Gracian

Only enemies speak the truth; friends and lovers lie endlessly, caught in the web of duty.

- Stephen King

[Z]

Of course it's true... but is it reason to hate 'the West' in general, including the innocents who occupy it? No. Of course not.

Folks who wantonly divide the world into the 'Evil West' and the 'Benevolent East' are being willfully blind to the evils of the East, obviously, and are bigots, just like anyone else.

[farmermike]

Originally posted by Gestahl
I am sorry, but my opinion about most Americans is one of apathy. Those who would really care enough to revolt would simply move away, and they are the ones intelligent enough to know what's really going on.

America has her bread and circuses, and enough people are distracted by them to simply not care. One look at the voting turnouts and the lack of generic knowledge of our government by our populous is enough to convince me.
I kind of wonder if we haven't been lulled into apathy by a society of unbridled consumption.what would happen if the carrots were taken away or the ability to chase them?

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by hgc
Read Chomsky strictly for the Linguistics. Otherwise you'll end up thinking that power politics standard operating procedure throughout the history of civilization is somehow exclusive American deviltry. Believe me, those noble savages you speak for operate their own societies on the same power-dictates-resource-distribution principles, and in a 100 years or so when the Chinese have economic supremacy, they'll rub American noses in it big-time with arrogance unimagined today.

I disagree. Chomsky makes sure you realize that we are not some shining beacon unto the world. We are just as nasty, amoral, and politically vicious as anyone. I never claimed that anyone was any better. We certainly aren't, we just have the top dog position, so there is no one willing to challenge us and call us wrong.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Really? How many innocent civilians have we specifically targetted in our war vs. 'terrorism'?

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think the war is a total crock, cooked up by Georgie to cover his father's mistakes and for other crooked reasons. But there's always a difference between military action against the military and supposed military targets, and a deliberate action of mass-murder against ignorant civilians. We were certainly guilty of it in 'Nam, and many other times; I'm just wondering how guilty we are of it now... compared to the 9.11 terrorists.

I garauntee at least 1,500 innocent Iraqi people have died as a direct consequence of our actions. Not to mention innocent Afghani's that got in the way earlier. That's peanuts considering what we have done to the countries.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by farmermike
I kind of wonder if we haven't been lulled into apathy by a society of unbridled consumption.what would happen if the carrots were taken away or the ability to chase them?

It's not really unbridled consumption, per se. It's that life is no longer a challenge for most people in the U.S. We have nothing to struggle for. We got bored. And idle hands are the Devil's workshop ;-).

[jay gw]

We have nothing to struggle for. We got bored. And idle hands are the Devil's workshop ;-).

America's consciousness has been formed by 2 world wars and the Cold War with Russia. That's over.

This is a very difficult transition period, and the US is sort of stumbling it's way through.

The competition among nations and cultures from this point on is going to be purely economic, despite what the (closet hawks) say about "threats" from China. There's no real threat to the US anymore except from places more competitive in business.

The problem is that business competition is not exactly....heroic. There's no real enemy to get you up in the morning. I guess that has an impact and may create some serious complacency.

I had a talk with a Chinese immigrant here and he said that "America is on the very top and only has one way to go, down. China and India are on the bottom and have only one way to go, up." Not sure if that's true, but they sure have more to get them up in the morning.

[Z]

Originally posted by Gestahl
I garauntee at least 1,500 innocent Iraqi people have died as a direct consequence of our actions. Not to mention innocent Afghani's that got in the way earlier. That's peanuts considering what we have done to the countries.

But were those 1500 innocents actually targetted? Did some U.S. General get up one morning and order a dozen suicide bombers to crash loaded planes into occupied civilian structures where absolutely no significant military presence resided?

It may not be much difference, certainly not to those who suffer; but intentions count for a lot here.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Gestahl
Originally posted by jmercer
Very insightful, Beerina. I agree with your assessment 100%. :)

And you don't think the United States uses the same techniques?We perform the same slight of hand!

We had a statistically insignificant (in terms of money, people killed, and frequency of such attacks) attack against us, and what did we do?

Yes, by a few hours later the US had already re-birthed enough people to cover the losses. "So I guess it was meaningless."

And, I suppose if everyone was completely rational, the economic losses would have been negligible as well. But they weren't.

Still, destruction of a city via atom bomb, or even a portion of it via dirty bomb, is not negligible.

One frequently overlooked item is that, by beating the hell out of a dictator or two, in the future others will realize that by helping terrorists, someone will, not might, be coming for them. It may not be the best way, but it is a way.


It's the terrorists that hate democracy, freedom, and our way of life! Sorry kids, they hate what we have *done*, not what we *are*.

Given they are fighting against installation of a democracy, up to and including murdering children and long-term aid workers, I suggest you are wrong.

While it is true saying "they hate freedom" does give short shrift to the things you mention, I see no indication whatsoever that their ultimate intention is anything remotely like freedom. Given free reign, their society would be truly ******.


Our terrorism is simply legitimized because we got the guns. You are seeing the same dynamic on each side.

Ironically, it's attitudes like this that help lead to the problem to begin with. "How dare we impose cultural values like democracy and freedom!" Ok, so we don't. We just buy from whatever thug is there. I suppose the only moral thing would be to not buy any oil from them whatsoever, as long as they don't have freedom.

Is that a rational plan?

[jay gw]

"How dare we impose cultural values like democracy and freedom!" Ok, so we don't. We just buy from whatever thug is there. I suppose the only moral thing would be to not buy any oil from them whatsoever, as long as they don't have freedom.

People here are assuming that the publics of the world don't want democracy or freedom versus what they have now.

Why?

[Z]

Originally posted by jay gw
People here are assuming that the publics of the world don't want democracy or freedom versus what they have now.

Why?

Where are you inferring this from?

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
But were those 1500 innocents actually targetted? Did some U.S. General get up one morning and order a dozen suicide bombers to crash loaded planes into occupied civilian structures where absolutely no significant military presence resided?

It may not be much difference, certainly not to those who suffer; but intentions count for a lot here.

A case could be made for voluntary manslaughter. They engaged in knowingly reckless behavior. You can't tell me they didn't know a whole bunch of civilians would get it in the process of killing the "bad" guys. Evidently they felt that the death of a whole bunch of "them" (most of whom probably had nothing to do with the attack) was justified for the death of a few of "us."

The countries we are attacking feel the *exact* same way.

There is no way you are going to convince me that the military actions we engaged in were commensurate and justified.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Beerina
If you're referring to the occasional rape or murder, then just realize it "springs" from the local politicians capitalizing on these statistically insignifcant events for the same age-old reason: re-direct the hatred of the local population off you and your kleptocracy and onto some external (or pseudo-external-they-are-not-you-like-Jews-or-blacks) population. "They are causing your misery! Authorize me the power to clobber them and I'll make your life better. I promise!" Yes, it's always the minorities who are the victims in this situation: blacks, Jews, "occasional" rapists and murderers in foreign occupying armies... the usual helpless scapegoats.

[farmermike]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Yes, it's always the minorities who are the victims in this situation: blacks, Jews, "occasional" rapists and murderers in foreign occupying armies... the usual helpless scapegoats. :D

[Z]

Originally posted by Gestahl
A case could be made for voluntary manslaughter. They engaged in knowingly reckless behavior. You can't tell me they didn't know a whole bunch of civilians would get it in the process of killing the "bad" guys. Evidently they felt that the death of a whole bunch of "them" (most of whom probably had nothing to do with the attack) was justified for the death of a few of "us."

The countries we are attacking feel the *exact* same way.

There is no way you are going to convince me that the military actions we engaged in were commensurate and justified.

Oh, I'm sure of that - your'e not wanting convincing. It's called a closed mind.

Anyway, there's a distinction - whether you choose to recognize it or not - between, "I'm gonna kill those terrorists, and if innocent people get hurt, so be it" and "I'm gonna kill a bunch of innocent folks, deliberately, in an attack on a non-military target".

"Wreckless behaviour', 'voluntary manslaughter' - it's all just waffling. You're seeking ways to compare collateral casualties to deliberate terrorist targets. If 9/11 had been about attacks on military bases or key military targets, I'd agree entirely. But they attacked a landmark that dealt with global commerce, not military functions. It was a simple terrorist target - kill a LOT of civilians in a high-visibility attack to send a message to those not like you that you'd kill them all, if you had a chance.

As compared to death as a result of war actions. Carpet bombings to try to hit military targets are a far cry from deliberate targetting of civilian structures.

Now, I'm not saying it was right to go over there - and the war's continuation is abominable. But there is a difference between the war casualties of the Middle East conflict, and the victims of 9/11.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by Beerina
And you don't think the United States uses the same techniques?We perform the same slight of hand!

We had a statistically insignificant (in terms of money, people killed, and frequency of such attacks) attack against us, and what did we do?

Yes, by a few hours later the US had already re-birthed enough people to cover the losses. "So I guess it was meaningless."

And, I suppose if everyone was completely rational, the economic losses would have been negligible as well. But they weren't.

Still, destruction of a city via atom bomb, or even a portion of it via dirty bomb, is not negligible.


Huh? Whence the nukular speak? Do you honestly think what we have done has lessened the possibility of a nuclear attack? N. Korea and Iran have those kind of bombs, not Afganistan and Iraq. By the way, N. Korea and Iran are still pissed at us. Now that they know we will do whatever we want to anyway because we got the bombs, will that make them less or more likely to "take a few of us with them" when we decide their regime needs changing?

America has been very short-sighted lately.


One frequently overlooked item is that, by beating the hell out of a dictator or two, in the future others will realize that by helping terrorists, someone will, not might, be coming for them. It may not be the best way, but it is a way.


No, it isn't. When we went after the Taliban, there was no problem. They really did help support terrorists (a little). But when we attack Iraq, it looks like rage and familial revenge, not justified retribution, and you know it. What if China declared war on us because we were democratic, largely Judeo-Christian, and similar to Canada, and some citizens of Canada (with some tacit support from the government therein) had bombed Beijing? In fact, Saddam hated just about everyone, and was the one ruler of a country in the region that had almost nothing to do with Muslim terrorism. Saddam tolerated *no one* having any power but him. It was one of the few secular governments in the region.

What we just showed was "if we don't like you, we will make up reasons, then kick the **** out of you." This makes countries *more* likely to fly planes into our buildings.


Given they are fighting against installation of a democracy, up to and including murdering children and long-term aid workers, I suggest you are wrong.

While it is true saying "they hate freedom" does give short shrift to the things you mention, I see no indication whatsoever that their ultimate intention is anything remotely like freedom. Given free reign, their society would be truly ******.


Ok, remedial lesson. Freedom means the ability to have a choice. What if they wanted a totalitarian, Sharia-based legal and civic structure? What if they wanted a secular dictatorship. Do you think America would have set that up for them? The fact we have put a lot of people in power over there with ties to Iran certainly makes it likely that Iraq will look a lot like Iran. They want the freedom to not have us messing with their countries everytime a few whackjobs over there screw around with people! If we had gone after the individuals responsible, this would not have happened. Instead we toppled regimes and declared war on nations where most of the people therein had nothing to do with anything.

Sounds to me like you think we know better than they do and it is our responsibility to "set them straight." How remarkably authoritarian and arrogant.


Ironically, it's attitudes like this that help lead to the problem to begin with. "How dare we impose cultural values like democracy and freedom!" Ok, so we don't. We just buy from whatever thug is there. I suppose the only moral thing would be to not buy any oil from them whatsoever, as long as they don't have freedom.
Is that a rational plan?

Of course not. The moral thing to do is to let them be what they are, prosecute offenders of American citizen's rights individually, and act as a college of countries in forcing the hand of individual countries when they are morally or ethically repugnant.

America has acted as the equivalent of a vigilante in this case. We went and exacted revenge (whether justified or not). There is a reason we don't allow that in our justice system. Why would we allow it in our own interactions with other countries? A country in the world should have the equivalent rights of an individual in our society.

The UN could be such an arbiter of international relations, if the US would step down from pretty much running the show and doing whatever we want anyway. Until we submit ourselves to UN law and practices (and give up our de facto control over the entire global political process), and become what we say we are, a beacon of democracy, fairness, and rational discourse, why should any other country submit to the same?

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Oh, I'm sure of that - your'e not wanting convincing. It's called a closed mind.

Anyway, there's a distinction - whether you choose to recognize it or not - between, "I'm gonna kill those terrorists, and if innocent people get hurt, so be it" and "I'm gonna kill a bunch of innocent folks, deliberately, in an attack on a non-military target".


I am in no way defending their actions! It was reprehensible, and the responisble parties should have been punished. But we didn't do that, now did we? Iraq had *nothing* to do with that attack.

It's almost as if we were a small town sherriff, and a vagrant comes in and murders a family and burns their house, and then we go to a hobo camp where we had seen friends of his before, and beat the crap out of all of them?

Would the hobos be morally right in defending themselves? Absolutely. Would we be right going to that camp and doing what we did? No. Does that excuse the actions of the first vagrant? Of course not. If those hobos were to come into town and cause further trouble, would that be justified? I don't think it's justified, but I would sympathize.

My point is that NOBODY IS JUSTIFIED IN THIS SITUATION.

Can you not see that?

[Gestahl]

To make the example above even more analogous:

Imagine the hobos had a little commune, and advocated against captitalism and how that town had ruined the previous local farming economy, and the one vagrant decided to do what he did to the richest family in town.

There is still no justification on either side.

[Z]

Originally posted by Gestahl
I am in no way defending their actions! It was reprehensible, and the responisble parties should have been punished. But we didn't do that, now did we? Iraq had *nothing* to do with that attack.

It's almost as if we were a small town sherriff, and a vagrant comes in and murders a family and burns their house, and then we go to a hobo camp where we had seen friends of his before, and beat the crap out of all of them?

Would the hobos be morally right in defending themselves? Absolutely. Would we be right going to that camp and doing what we did? No. Does that excuse the actions of the first vagrant? Of course not. If those hobos were to come into town and cause further trouble, would that be justified? I don't think it's justified, but I would sympathize.

My point is that NOBODY IS JUSTIFIED IN THIS SITUATION.

Can you not see that?

True - if you are referring to Iraq alone. I guess I try to forget that we've invaded Iraq. I keep thinking of the Taliban and Afghanistan.

My apologies.

However, that being said, are we 'beating the crap out of all of them', or are we attacking military targets? I'm not up on the details of the current situation. Have the majority of attacks been against civilian targets? Just curious.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
True - if you are referring to Iraq alone. I guess I try to forget that we've invaded Iraq. I keep thinking of the Taliban and Afghanistan.


I think we acted OK w.r.t. Afganistan, and we had the worlds support. We screwed up when we let the local warlords take control of the search for OBL (and re-take control of the opium trade which the Taliban had kept under control... but that's another story), but other than that I think we were pretty justified. The whole world concurred that the Taliban at least allowed OBL to do his stuff, and may have helped.

I would have liked to see a more concerted and complete effort for extradition instead of military action, but c'est la vie.


My apologies.

However, that being said, are we 'beating the crap out of all of them', or are we attacking military targets? I'm not up on the details of the current situation. Have the majority of attacks been against civilian targets? Just curious.

I have not heard of people speficically targetting civiliains, but it doesn't matter. In urban warfare, it's gonna happen.

In the current situation with insurgents and urban warfare, it can become impossible to distinguish between "military" and "civilian" targets. Whose military would we be fighting?

In Afganistan, there are less larger cities, and there was no insurgency to have urban warfare with. And just how careful are the people over there checking? When you have people in civilian clothes bombing things, etc., how can you adequately defend yourself *without* killing civilians? I think we are going to have to wait for several years before the real stories start to filter out.

Say we were targetting civilians. There were reports we were targeting Al-Jazeera, specifically (which would be a smart, if not reprehensible, move... cripple the enemies propaganda/information, and supply with our own... I leave deciding between the two up to you for both American media and A-J). Do you think it would be reported? Would you trust Al-Jazeera to tell the truth on it? How about the U.S. media? BBC?

The whole mess just stinks to high heaven, and there seems to be cloak-and-dagger goings-on and I have just about given up trust in everyone involved.

Critical thinking fails when you have no trust in the information you are being given by anyone (almost all news sources have been embarrasingly bad and presenting proper information about this topic), and no way to get the information first hand.

[Z]

An excellent post - I agree for the most part. In fact, can't specifically think of any point I don't agree on at least begrudgingly.

[farmermike]

Originally posted by Gestahl
Critical thinking fails when you have no trust in the information you are being given by anyone (almost all news sources have been embarrasingly bad and presenting proper information about this topic), and no way to get the information first hand. That sums it up quite nicely.Who really knows what's going on.On the surface it would appear that the U.S. is playing into the terrorist's hands by reacting (overreacting)lashing out in all directions,domestic security at all costs.How much has this hurt the American economy.I realize that the economy relies on a posative perception of conditions,but I wonder if the American government is digging a hole we'll never get out of.Just wondering .