Online debates appear to be biased, extreme, unhelpful...

[Ken Begg]

Thanks, Chad.

[Ken Begg]

I hope you don't mind, but I've posted your note on our board.  It saves me the trouble of stating the same things, only less well.

[Chadzilla]

I want to take this moment to point out a reader review dripping with irony over at Stomptokyo.com.  It is for the Chuck Norris v Terrorist flick called Invasion U.S.A. - a movie that quite proudly shoves our arrogance and naviete as a nation right in our faces (check out how the terrorists arms themselves through AMERICAN sources).  I think that it is, in light of current events, very interesting reading.

And thank you Ken for your too kind words and response.

I also want to commend all for not dropping to the bitter level of a flame post fistfight about these events.

[Steve.]

"Specific assassination" is the answer, I believe. Any supposedly "anti-Islam" country could have been the target - in this case this particular snake chose the US. I've said it elsewhere "a body cannot function without a head" - identify the head and cut it off. It's gone too far now for "civilized" responses - Islamic fundamentalism has been the biggest threat to peace and stability for many years. More outrages will undoubtedly follow, but the time has come to face the threat head on.

[Abby]

Ken: You draw a comparison between Palestinians and American Indians ... which is very accurate. Of course, Native Americans fought the best they could to hold their land for several hundred years before being completely, violently subjugated -- and they were similarly demonized for their self preservation. Few blame them in retrospect. Interestingly, they often fought back with weapons we gave them -- as well as with weapons the French the British gave handed out.

Yes, I do believe Israel is the instigator of violence. They've intentionally and systematically eroded the culture, heritage, and land of an entire people -- and they've done so with our tools. Israel has not been particularly neighborly historically speaking -- and Sharon has made it clear that he's not interested in arriving at an "understanding". Palestinians ARE in occupied reservations, for the most part. Yes, it's rocks vs. rocket launchers. A homemade bomb vs. high-tech, US sponsored missiles. It's a hundred eyes for an eye. It hasn't solved a damned thing. It's created a people with nothing to lose.

I urge everyone to look for Joe Sacco's graphic novel titled Palestine: A Nation Occupied. It really changed my perspective of the culture and ideology of Palestine back in the early-nineties, before those original peace accords were signed. The man who wrote it is still considered an expert on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict -- by own our government at that.

As for our commercial airlines, how many miilions or billions in profits have these companies turned this past decade alone? How many American workers were laid off to achieve those numbers? I know of five people myself. I can look up some exec salaries and stocks on Yahoo, but I think that might be too depressing at the moment. That money likely went to cushy beach houses -- not security. So yeah, we should be ticked that the opulent comfort of an elite few can outweigh the security of many. This can be applied to our poorly-paid Federal border checkpoint people, too.

It has indeed been confirmed that at least one terrorist pilot was a "known associate of bin Laden" -- a terrorist linked to the bombing of a truck in Israel. And we gave him flying lessons. And we let him live/work here. And we knew who he was.

Yeah, we should be angry at the attackers. But we also should really look at ourselves. REALLY look at ourselves. And our own priorities. Bush says we are "STEEL," but where are the steelworkers? They're unemployed in these parts ... what's it like where you live?

In the name of eradicating drugs, we handed the Taliban 50 million smackeroos just a few months ago.

This statement gets me, Ken:

"No country in the history of this planet has ever evinced the sort of concern over the lives of innocents, even in enemy countries, that ours does."

Guatemala, Colombia, Nicaragua ... all of our activities in those nations (and so many more) run concurrent to your statement, as would our attacks on Sudan's pharmaceutical companies. We've done some really s**tty things in Iraq since the war, too -- and not to Hussein. We've given loads of cash to people who should be on America's Most Wanted. We call them "freedom fighters" if there's something to gain; "terrorism" when we stand to lose. We've done good things as well, like in Ireland, don't get me wrong, but starting violent conflicts in foreign nations to gain financial/strategic advantages has been an American hobby for way too long. Before we declare war on anybody, I think we really need to reflect on our once and future concept of foreign diplomacy. If there was ever a time to re-evaluate our behavior abroad, it's now.

If we were as strong as we fancy ourselves, we should be able to take bin Laden and his strongest supporters without having to harm MORE innocent citizens than we already have. I'm not against a military strike -- I'm against a sloppy, emotionally motivated "all-hell" show of extreme force . Which is what we've done in the past, and the end result was Tuesday's horror, like it or not. Many of these people have already "paid a price;" that's why they're striking out.

My dad, a decorated Nam vet, cried for most of this week. He's my biggest hero. He feels emmasculated, betrayed, and violated, but beyond his anger and disgust, his greatest fear is another Vietnam. He doesn't wish that on anyone -- us or another nation. For my dad's sake, I'd like to see whoever made him cry suffer greatly, but not if it's going to create a dozen even angrier, more desperate people in the guilty party's place.

Oh and you can't alienate me. You never added a WG.com to your links page ;)

[Ken Begg]

Your letter obviously deserves a response as thoughtful, but I don't have the time right now.  I'll try to get back to you in the fashion you deserve, hopefully this weekend.  I hope this doesn't make me look cowardly.

One point, though:  I'm sure you noticed that I don't get around to updating my links very oftens.  However, I have been working on an actual piece on the three or four sites I'm most impressed with and yours is one of them.  

I can understand your passion even if I don't agree with your views.  So if my doing such an article in the near future disturbs you in any way, I would of course forgo any reference to your site, and with no hard feelings.  Although it certainly warrants all the attention it can get.

[chili]

shouldn't someone say: "& now we return you to your regularly scheduled (b)movie"?

[AndyC]

This is just one of several discussions on this board. The movie threads are picking back up again as well. We all have to talk these things out, so why not here, among people whose opinions we respect. As a movie fan, I think I've heard some interesting perspectives on this board. I've never met any of you, but I feel that I do know you all in some small way. Many of us share similar tastes and philosophies, so this seems like the place to come to discuss something so important, among people who are probably viewing it from a similar perspective.

[Abby]

Well first -- we should all enjoy as much free speech while we can ... where we can. The way some of our representatives are talking, it might not be for much longer.

But Ken: I was kidding about the link. You're not alienating me. I just strongly disagree with your remarks to Chupacabra. Feel free to address my comments however you wish, though I'll probably have more to add myself in such an event.

The propaganda machine is rolling along at full speed.  I'd be un-American if I didn't question its validity, what with so much at stake. The question in my head has been "why?" and as far as I can tell, the answer is not "because they're EVIL." The answer is far more complex than that.

[Al B.]

It was stated earlier that the war at hand is one of ideologies.

It is an inherent position of those who support going to war that America's ideology is better or more perfect than that of the people in the Middle East with which we are having our differences. There is no question that Americans have committed acts against other countries that are reprehensible. It is my opinion that these acts are really against the ideology defined as we believe in the Constitution. On the other hand it is important that everyone remembers that the cultures that hate us do not believe in our Constitution. Generally in the Middle East religious considerations have outweighed individual rights in their forms of government - certainly this is true from the perspective of Islamic fundamentalists -they favor the institution of the religious dictatorship. In view of this it is also my opinion, then, that America has a basis for it's ideology that is OBJECTIVELY MORALLY SUPERIOR to the instituitions of these other places.

The bottom line for me is this:

First - It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the minds of those who believe their religion is more important than individual rights. (Why? Because their reality is informed by FAITH, not by rational thought.)

Second - Since rational discourse CANNOT work, we must convince them with FORCE.

Third - The scope of the force used could extend to the degree that they will have to be obliterated if our IDEOLOGY in this country is to survive. I, for one, do not want to give up my rights nor do I wish to sacrifice the institutions that define them, in spite of our horrifying track record of staying faithful to them.

Let's not kid ourselves here, the issues at stake are the survival of the principles that America was founded on - the principle of the Constitution. Without this we might as well have let Hitler take over the world.

[El Chupacabra]

First of all, I don't believe the Taliban can
be reasoned with.  I don't think even bombs
will do it.  Surpress them, maybe, but in
the end it changes nothing.

If you find my views self-righteous and
childish, so be it.  I respect your
honesty if nothing else.

You say we should meet violence with
violence, and end with "welcome to
reality".  Who are you to define
reality?  Your reality is as much
a construct of ideals as mine.

I am, and will always be, a
conscientous objector.
The ability NOT to take orders,
NOT to support our country's war
machine, is what I value.  Our
enemies do not exercise this
option, which makes it all the
more vital that we do.

Sincerely,

Paul AKA El Chupacabra.

[Flangepart]

To Al B. and Abby. While i mostly agree with Ken (Ironbottom) Begg, i do understand your point of view. Al B, you seem to equate Faith with Irrationality. I disagree, in principle. It can be so, but it may depend on your definition. To me, Faith (Religious,in this case), if a belief in things that have not happened yet, but are seen as a future event. What you have "Faith" in may be at the root of the question. For myself, i do believe that man does not know what he is doing. History shows that we human beings are, in effect, Arrogant, selfish, hardheaded, stubborn, willful....children. Abby, you had "Faith" in your dad, because while a small frightened, little girl, he and your Mom did the best they could to feed you, care for you and protect you. You knew they loved you, and like me, as you grew up, you could forgive your parents their mistakes and faults, because you came to understand they were only doing the best they knew how, as their parents did before them. I have Faith that God will work out the world, and in his time, correct this sad planet, after haveing given us time to do what We Will....for we are creatures of free will....and letting us learn the lesson...that we can't do it ourselves, any more then a baby can. Human Babys need intense attention from the parents to survive, and i think thats a lesson in humility and compassion God has built into us, so we can have some idea how he feels towards us....by living it. As Parents! I do not know everything there is to know. This life is a Boot Camp, and a school, and a playground. Do we "Play well with others"? I have Faith that things will work out, i just don't know what will , in detail, happen. Irrational? Not nessarily. Depends on what you have faith IN. I don't believe in Evolution, because ( Hold on to 'yer shorts!) i conciter it...Irrational! (no.i won't argue the point, i'll just state my reasons, and let you have at it.)I.E. i mean its  Not logical or repeatable as an experiment in scientific methodology. Do i know all there is about life, and what will happen in future? No. But, i belive it will explain it's self, as time goes by. Let me sum up, Before you get eyestrain!  I believe this world, as we know it, will end. It will be the beginning of something infinatly better, for the living, And the Dead! I believe i will see my Dad agine,among others,  and all the dead will THEN have a chance to understand why the world has been like it now is. It would take a long time to explain, and you have your own lives to live, so, lets just say........i have Faith...in Hope and Charity. Not in Hate and Violence and selfishness.  Your friend in the "What, me worry?" T- shirt, Flangepart!

[Al B.]

I am not against faith per se as long as it doesn't conflict with rational action. Some, such as Randian Objectivists, do argue that all religious faith is evil, but that is not exactly my point of view. I was only saying that because our enemies are informed in their views by faith it would be pointless to try to argue against them by appealing to reason. They would perceive a change based on such arguments as an immoral action. Perhaps a better way to describe it is that this war is really about whose moral outlook is correct. When I look at it that way I think we win hands down, mainly because I think that people have more to gain by following our way of life rather than theirs.

[Erin]

I'd like to point out that Isrealis and Palestinians come from essentially the same stock, so really, they were *both* there first. Arguing over who the land "rightfully" belongs to is like a little kid whining, "He got a bigger piece of pie than I did!", only even more ridiculous, because the Palestinians still have a significantly larger chunk of what used to be Palestine than the Isrealis do. Also, the Isrealis were willing to share with people of all races and religions, which the Palestinians were not. That superior sense of tolerance is what initially swayed the US- and many other countries- toward their position, and why we're still on their side today.

I'd also like to dispell any fears of a mass slaughter of innocents by saying that 1) in the Gulf War, we practically bent over backwards trying to protect as many Iraqi civilians as possible, and I see no reason why it would be any different now, and 2) the Afghan government is *ruled by* a group of people who's ultimate goal is the extermination of anyone who isn't a fundamentalist Muslim. We're not talking about a minority dissident group that just happens to be based in that country. We're talking about an embyronic Nazi regime, just with different ethnicities being targeted. If that's not worth going to war over, what is?

[Lester1/2Jr.]

I don't see how any woman can stick up for Islamic fundamentalists.