9/11 Picture

September 12, 2006

I am going to get tarred & feathered for this, and called an American-hater and all sorts of names, but I don't care any more.

Besides, if the second-largest mainstream newspaper in Melbourne can publish it, then the public must be able to deal with it.

So here goes...

[]http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/09/12/svCARTOON_gallery__470x332.jpg[/]

September 12, 2006

It is a legitamate debate.

Should the civilized world go to war against terrorists even though it will mean the accidental death of tens of thousands in order to stop the terroirsts from killing just thousands on purpose?

I don't think the answer is so simple. Do we let terrorists pick and choose who they want to kill and when and just do nothing? It is almost like the police letting a bank robber get away because of the dangers involved in a high-speed chase.

Should the civilized world treat terrorists like we treat tornados, floods, earthquakes and hurricanes? Should we just accept them as a fact of life and realize they are going to kill a certain number of us each year and there is nothing we can do about it?

September 12, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I am going to get tarred & feathered for this, and called an American-hater and all sorts of names

Not by this person you aren't.

September 12, 2006

I applaud your courage in posting the truth, Aldona.

And Shane you raise some good questions that do NOT have easy answers.

September 13, 2006

Terrorist acts raise our righteous indignation. When we see some savage cut off an innocent reporter's or construction worker's head we want to find them and kill them not only for revenge, but hopefully to discourage others from doing the same. Often times that means killing innocent civilians in order to get to the terrorist.

Now we must ask ourselves who is really guilty for the blood of those innocent civilians killed in an effort to get to the terrorists? Is it those actually killing the civilian by accident or those (the terrorists) that provoked them by killing inocents to begin with?

Now one school of thought says that by not responding the civilized world actually encourages the terrorists to do more. Much like the terrorists were encouraged when Russia pulled out of Afghanistan or Spain pulled out of Iraq after the Madrid bombings.

The other school of thought says that by responding we actually encourage more terrorism as the death of innocent civilians is used to recruit more terrorists and spur more terrorist attacks.

Could it be that there is some truth to both schools of thought? Could it be that the civilized world finds itself between a rock and a hard spot. Or as is commonly said, damned if they do and damned if they don't.

In either case, I do not place the blame for innocent civlians killed in the pursuit of terrorists on the civilized world. The terrorists' frustrations with other nations or their own governments does not justify acts of terror.

September 13, 2006

Bit of a false dichotomy problem, though, Shane: you've limited the choices to 'not respond' and 'go to war'. As the recent successes against terrorism in the UK dramatically demonstrate, the most effective response to terrorism is not war against states, but good police work. Terrorism is basically not a problem that can be fixed with an army, but with excellent undercover and other intelligence work. And that work very rarely kills civilians in large numbers.

September 13, 2006

The kind of police work done in the UK is illegal in the US.

However when Ossama bin Laden attacked the US, the Talaban government in Afghanistan refused to turn him over to the US. That meant either the US could ignore him or go in and get him (or try). Sanctions would have only hurt the civilians, not Ossama.

Another great tactic in the war on terror is going after the terrorists' money but this needs to be done without the NY Times finding out or they will tip of the terrorists ahead of time.

September 13, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The kind of police work done in the UK is illegal in the US.

what kind would that be?

September 13, 2006

The Brittish have allowed their government to intrude on their privacy rights more than the Americans have. I don't know the specifics. I was watching a news program where they were interviewing people on the street in London and asking them about that. They were asking if the people weren't afraid the government would abuse it. The general response for many was that if the government abuses it they will pass laws to restrict it. From what I understand, London has video cameras on most every corner.

September 13, 2006

The cartoon is morally confused.

ON the one hand we have innocent civilians intentionally targeted, and on the other we have a combination of civilians killed because those same terrorists use them as human shields, because of malfunctions in ordnance, or general accidents.

In civilized countries, we make this distinction all the time. When a bank robber kills 10 people during a bank robbery, those are "civilian deaths." But we rightly consider that murder.

If the police get into a car chase apprehending a felon, and the police car blows a tire and crosses the median, crashing into and killing a minivan with 7 people on board, those are "civilian deaths."

When a plane crashes because of equipment malfunction and kills 200 people on the plane and 10 on the ground, that's 210 "civilian deaths."

So, according to that sort of cartoon, the toll would be:

Good guys (police officers, airline pilots) 217 civilian deaths.

Bad guys (bank robbers) 10 deaths.

And the obvious conclusion would be that police officers and airline pilots are worse than bank robbers.

Or we could take the number of people who die because of criminal violence in any country--all civilian deaths; and then compare it to the number of peopel who die either in hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, etc. Once again, two groups of "civilian deaths."

Such reasoning makes health care workers morally inferior to criminals.

September 13, 2006

I take the point, but your analogies are perhaps not quite right: a closer one might be police participating in a high speed chase through a residential area at twice the speed limit. Police regularly call off such chases because the risk to civilians is deemed to be too great to continue.

The attack on Iraq is irrelevant to responding to terrorism, always was, always will be. It is absolutely clear, and the Senate came out and reported this firmly last week, that Iraq had no connection with Al Qaeda and no connection with September 11. If there's a moral inequivalence here it's comparing two things that really having nothing to do with each other... except that one was used as a pretext for the other.

The attack on Iraq was also known to be something that would *inevitably* cause civilian deaths, in a way police driving and pilots flying will not.

Terrorists should be captured and stopped and imprisoned whenever and wherever they are. But going to war was never going to achieve that goal, and it was always going to kill civilians.

September 13, 2006

No analogy matches in all points. But it does match in the matter of intent.

It is "inevitable" that friendly forces will die in war. That does not make their commander guilty of their murders. For, as Shakespeare's Henry V points out, he does not intend their deaths when he requires their services.

Do you really intend to morally equate those who intentionally target civilians with those who do not? I would not have believed it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

The attack on Iraq is irrelevant to responding to terrorism, always was, always will be. . . .Iraq had no connection with Al Qaeda and no connection with September

11.

The first clause is an opinion, which may or may not be correct.

As for the second clause, it's also absolutely true that the attack on Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with the Nazi death camps, or the Italian attack on Ethiopia.

The Japanese did not consult with the Nazis, nor did they coordinate their actions. They acted independently.

The only joint action between Japan and Germany during all of WWII involved--of all places--Madagascar. Therefore, all our actions in the Pacific were irrelevant to the defeat of the Nazis.

September 13, 2006

True, but the Japanese attacked the US directly, the Iraqis never did. Anyway, let's leave that aside and get to the crux.

No, I don't mean to make those who intentionally target civilians morally equivalent with those who kill them peripherally to the performance of another goal. I don't think I said that, and I said that terrorists should be stopped whenever and wherever. What the 9/11 terrorists did was morally reprehensible on all levels, and I am in no way an apologist for it or any other terrorist actions.

But what the Americans have done in Iraq goes beyond negligence - that is, the civilian deaths are a direct, foreseeable consequence of their actions, rather than something that simply has an increased probability of occurring. I am not an absolute pacifist, and do believe that there are times when war is justified. And I do recognise the reality that in wars, civilians will die.

I do not accept that the Iraq war was necessary *at all*. As you stated, though, that is a matter of opinion. So if we allowed that the Iraq war was justified, I would still argue that the loss of civilian life in that war has not been proportionate to the benefits.

September 13, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

True, but the Japanese attacked the US directly, the Iraqis never did.

Quite so. They only attacked the Kuwaitis directly. And then violated the treaty and UN resolutions for 13 years. Firing at US airplanes. But let's leave that aside, as you say.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

the loss of civilian life in that war has not been proportionate to the benefits.

That's inherently unknowable. Were the benefits of WWII proportionate to the loss of life? How would we make such a calculation?

Were the benefits of the Cold War proportionate to the civilian deaths? How would those benefits have been calculated, say, in 1975?

It's a nice rhetorical flourish, but in the end lacks real value, since there's just no way of making such a determination.

September 13, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Bravus said:

I do not accept that the Iraq war was necessary *at all*. As you stated, though, that is a matter of opinion. So if we allowed that the Iraq war was justified, I would still argue that the loss of civilian life in that war has not been proportionate to the benefits.

Amen.

September 13, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

That's inherently unknowable. Were the benefits of WWII proportionate to the loss of life? How would we make such a calculation?

Were the benefits of the Cold War proportionate to the civilian deaths? How would those benefits have been calculated, say, in 1975?

Fair enough. But if such a calculation can never be made, or only made with the benefit of long hindsight, how do we make judgements about when going to war is justified and when it is not? There must be some other criterion. What is it, and how does the war in Iraq fit within it?

September 13, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

True, but the Japanese attacked the US directly

Not to be nitpicky but if by "attack directly" you mean the bombing of Pearl Harbor; that was an attack of a US installation as Hawai'i wasnt a part of the US at that time.

September 13, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Amelia said:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

True, but the Japanese attacked the US directly

Not to be nitpicky but if by "attack directly" you mean the bombing of Pearl Harbor; that was an attack of a US installation as Hawai'i wasnt a part of the US at that time.

Now I am being nitpicky; if you attack a specific target occupied by citizens of any country isn't that attacking the country? Even if the location is not inside the official geographic boarders of that country; would there be a country if it had no citizens? Are not the people in essence, The Country?

Attacks of terror are never justified no matter what part of the world it takes place.

This has gone on far too many years and too many lives, in many countries, have been lost, damaged, etc.

I realize that this mindset will probably continue (u) and will escalate (/u) until Jesus comes. However, if you have not had family, friends or otherwise are connected to one of these attacks. If you have not smelled the smoke, experienced the tears, it is easier to be aloft.

Just as a child cannot be allowed to play with a sharp knife, the crowdedly acts of terror should end ... of course they will not.

Even God will take just so much before he uses force to end the deadly pathway The Third Rock Is Pursuing.

And, I do not say any of this as because I condone war ... I abhor it!

Naomi

September 13, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Ed Dickerson said:

The cartoon is morally confused.

Except that in your examples you are pitting unlike things against one another instead of like things. Your examples compare apples and oranges. In the cartoon, two "like" things are compared (two apples, as it were): two acts of aggression. The hijackers of 9/11 -- who have been deduced to be organized terrorists wishing to wage war on the United States -- and the United States who have been presumed to be "retaliating" (though again, what Iraq has to do with Al-Qaeda is a mystery to those in the world who are not intellectually confused).

So while your examples are interesting, I don't find in them a valid argument for labeling the cartoon "morally confused."

September 13, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Bravus said:

...what the Americans have done in Iraq goes beyond negligence - that is, the civilian deaths are a direct, foreseeable consequence of their actions, rather than something that simply has an increased probability of occurring. I am not an absolute pacifist, and do believe that there are times when war is justified. And I do recognise the reality that in wars, civilians will die.

I do not accept that the Iraq war was necessary *at all*. As you stated, though, that is a matter of opinion. So if we allowed that the Iraq war was justified, I would still argue that the loss of civilian life in that war has not been proportionate to the benefits.

Very well stated, Bravus.

I too, believe it or not, am not an absolute pacifist. (Those who know only my stand on the Iraq fiasco might be confused on that point.) But I do get my knickers in a twist when war is invoked unjustifiably and executed carelessly.

September 13, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Except that in your examples you are pitting unlike things against one another instead of like things. Your examples compare apples and oranges.

That's precisely the point. The cartoon labels as "civilian deaths" the consequences of morally different actions. That's the same as "comparing apples to oranges" and declaring them both to be "fruit." While true, it obscures the inherent differences.

If the purpose and intention behind the act does not differentiate it, then Susan Brownmiller could be correct in declaring "all sexual intercourse is rape," since the outcome (intercourse) is the same. And in all my examples, it was the intention that separated the two classes, which were lumped together because of the outcome--exactly what the cartoonist did.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

(though again, what Iraq has to do with Al-Qaeda is a mystery to those in the world who are not intellectually confused).

Already covered. Pearl Harbor was "not related" to Auschwitz. Except that it was.

September 13, 2006

Hawaii was a territory of the US at the time as was the Philipians. Puerto Rico and Guam are US terrirories today. They pay taxes to the US and hold US passports.

Iraq not only shot down American planes patrolling the no fly zone, they tried to assasinated former President Bush during one of his visits to Kaiwait. But what justified the war against Iraq was that Russian intelligence informed us that Saddam was planning an attack on US soil using terrorists and WMDs. Several other nations intelligence also believed Saddam had WMDs and was supporting terrorists. After the invation we learned the intelligence was outdated. However in the shadow of 9/11 President Bush did what he felt was needed to prevent such an attack.

The question we need to ask ourselves is even with intelligence that another nation (like Iran) is going to use terrorists and WMDs to attack us, do were attack them first to prevent the attack on our soil or let them go ahead and hit us with everything they got? If we conclude that more civilians will be killed by us striking them first, should we sit back and let them hit us? Those are not easy questions to answer.

September 13, 2006

We're pretty far afield from the original concept of the cartoon, and I don't think it's helpful to go over again the extent to which the intelligence was tweaked and twisted to justify a war that was already planned.

I can agree with Ed that there is a qualitative difference between the two things being compared in the cartoon, but just wonder whether it makes any difference to those who are dead and to their friends and families. If the US had chosen not to pursue the war, all those people (including almost as many Americans as died on 9/11) would still be alive. Intentions are important, of course, but when it comes to human life, proportionality is *not* something that can simply be pushed aside.

If, as the administration claims, the war in Iraq was about terrorism, then the question does need to be asked about whether it is an appropriate, proportionate response that is well adapted to its purpose. IS it going to get the job done, and if so is the cost in human lives justified?

September 13, 2006

If we would have known before that Saddam didn't have WMDs but that he was bribing UN Security Council members to lift sanctions so he could resume his WMD programs, I wouldn't have supported the war in Iraq. I would have supported a diplomatic solution that dealt with Saddam and his co-conspirators at the UN.

I don't buy into the idea that President Bush tweaked or twisted intelligence. Too many liberal Democrats saw the same intelligence and voted for the war. Too many nations (over 30) saw the same intelligence and supported the war. Tony Blair, a liberal himself, has been very bullish on the war. I don't believe that a guy that can't even pronounce a sentence correctly would be able to sell all those folks with twisted intelligence. The intelligence was outdated. It was outdated in 1998 when Clinton believed it. It was simply that. I don't buy into a conspiracy theory that the Bush Administration, the Congress and 30+ other nations tweaked and twisted intelligence so we could invade a nation that hasn't gained any of us anything.

September 14, 2006

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Intentions are important, of course, but when it comes to human life, proportionality is *not* something that can simply be pushed aside.

Absolutely. A mere 65 years ago, an attack on a remote military base in Hawaii killed fewer than 2500 American servicemen that day. The US response was totality disproportionate and illogical. For example, the foolish Americans fought the Japanes in the Coral Sea, thousands of miles away from Japan, America, or even Pearl Harbor. In the war, the Japanese suffered an estimated 350 000 civilian casualties.

If the US had chosen not to pursue the war, all those people (including many more Americans than died on 12/7/1941) would have survived. And I'm sure the fact that the Japanese government started the whole thing made no difference to the dead civilians or their families.

Beyond that the Americans went and started invading New Guinea, when the New Guineans didn't even have an army and had nothing to do with the raid on Pearl Harbor.

Why, the disproportionate response alone cannot be ignored. The U.S. should have mounted a small raid on a Japanese base, careful to kill just 2400 Japanese military, and no civilians. If they had done so, the world would be a different place today.

Sign In

9/11 Picture

Recommended Posts

aldona

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Amelia

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Amelia

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Jeannieb43

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Amelia

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Naomi

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nicodema

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bravus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dr. Shane

Link to comment

Share on other sites

there buster

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Browse