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

[AndyC]

Nothing unreasonable or overly liberal about that at all. There are foreign policy issues that need to be addressed. It is quite a different thing to say that the attack was motivated, at least in part, by US foreign policy than it is to suggest that the attack was somehow invited by it. It's not generally a good idea blame the victim in any crime. Was this entire lengthy and heated debate a result of a simple misunderstanding?

[Chadzilla]

Judging from his excellent State of the Union speech (give the speechwriters a raise or bonus or something for some truly brilliant writing dubya) and his mantra of "this is a 'new' kind of war with many different battlefields" and his announcement of the first shots being, quite wisely, an attempt to freeze terrorists money sources ("Get them fighting each other" he said) instead of a flurry of impressive looking bombing runs this is a President that looks to have an idea as to how to fight.

My favorite Bush quote is "I'm not going to shot a two million dollar missile at a empty ten dollar tent and hit a camel in the but.  When we strike it will be decisive."

We can only hope.

[Abby]

No, I never intended to cast blame on the victim. No one "deserves" to be the object of such cruelty. But I do think US foreign policy hasn't done enough to eliminate an environment in which wealthy, religious nutjobs like bin Laden can convince people that the US does deserve it. Diffusing that environment without strengthening it is going to be key to any successful anti-terrorist campaign. I'm hoping that the lack of an all-hell assault indicates our leaders realize this. Doesn't change the fact that I still want to see the perpetrators' heads on sticks, though.

And as an aside, I wrote to the LA Times Columnist who first published the piece about Bush giving $43 million in aid to the Taliban for wiping out opium production (I REALLY dislike passing along bad info). I asked him if he could provide evidence that the $43 million in food ended up in the hands of the Taliban. He replied:

"Have you followed the most recent reports stating that all of the aid ended up in the Taliban's hands? The UN and other aid distributors were never able to act independently of the Taliban. Finally, the $43 million was a bonus to reward the Taliban for their drug policy as was made clear in the NYTimes article on my web site."

I said:

"No, I have not read that all of the aid ended up in the Taliban's hands. According to what I've read, 1,400 tons were seized on the 24th -- 65,000 tons of wheat were promised by the $43 million deal. Over 13, 000 tons were not seized, and continue to be distributed to people in Afghanistan. I've also read criticism directed at the World Food Project for NOT allowing more aid to fall into the hands of the Taliban. No matter how you slice it, it doesn't change the fact that the aid was not directly handed to the Taliban.

Moreover, $43 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the $114 million in aid provided in 2000. The $43 million doesn't seem like a significant anti-drug bonus considering that the Bush administration planned $124 million in aid this year (as announced in May) -- $10 million, not $43 million, more than last year."

And right after I replied, I read that Bush just sent another 100, 000 tons of wheat to Afghanistan, doubling what we sent last year. Curious ...

[Chadzilla]

Abby wrote....
"And right after I replied, I read that Bush just sent another 100, 000 tons of wheat to Afghanistan, doubling what we sent last year. Curious ..."

Not really when you consider the psychology of the move.  We attempt to send aid to those suffering there, in return we hope to build up the anti-Taliban resentment and foster a revolution, etc.  That's the idea, at least I like to think it is.

And I'm really sickened by this "Blame the Victim" mentality that's creeping out from under the far left rocks now that the shock as begun to wear off.  As I commented to one co-worker - America is far from being the only country with skid marks on its underwear.  I really wish they'd get over it and understand we were attacked for reasons far more complex than simple foreign policy issues (which do play a somewhat large role nonetheless).

Let's just hope we learn and handle situations in other countries with a little more diplomacy than has been shown in recent memory.

[AndyC]

I've run across a couple of people who have expressed the opinion that the US brought it on themselves. It seems the "smug, self-righteous Canadians" Gordon Sinclair spoke of 30 years ago are still alive and well. Depending on the situation, I usually say one of two things:

It's all right to have your way with any woman if she wears a short skirt and flirts with you. You should see the reaction that gets.

For the more intelligent (ie. not knee-jerk bleeding-heart twits), I take a different approach:

A few years ago, I took a very active part in a campaign to keep a Wal-Mart store out of my community. It was bigger than us, had more resources than we did, and had a much greater reach. The project's developers greased a few wheels in the community, and did their best to bend local officials to their interests. We made a very strong case that big box retailing, in general, hurts small community-based family businesses, pays poorly, takes money out of the community, and contributes to the Americanization of Canada (no offence). We also felt that it didn't fit with our community values. I personally made the case that we are sliding down the slippery slope toward a sort of corporate feudalism. I considered that store to be a threat to my way of life.

You might disagree with me on that. The point is that we made our case, and we did it peacefully. We worked within the rules. That is what civilized people do to gain support for their causes. The project is still in appeals, but if it is built, I simply will not shop there. I'll tell other people why I won't shop there. I absolutely will not be trying to blow it up, or driving my van through the front door. If I did, that would be a crime. The cops would use as much force as necessary to haul my ass in, and they would throw the book at me. The fact that I thought I was doing right, or that I might have some legitimate concerns would not enter into it.

So it is with the terrorists and their supporters.

[Chadzilla]

Thanks.