Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (58791)	9/18/2002 6:40:50 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Well anyway that's OBL started out. He became much less reasonable and much more extreme as his popularity grew.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (58791)	9/18/2002 7:11:35 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

The forces bin Laden commands have grievances against the United States which they believe are legitimate and serious, and are based on evil decisions by the US. The forces President Bush commands have grievances against Iraq which they believe are legitimate and serious, and are based on evil decisions by the US. If we are going to go by people's beliefs then Hitler had grievances against the Jews which he thought where legitimate and serious, Stalin apparently had grievances against the kulaks and so on. I might want to know what the imagined grievances of someone like Stalin, Hitler, and bin Laden are, but only as either a matter of intellectual curiosity or to better figure out how these people should be dealt with. I don't consider those grievences to be valid or legitimate. Each side has people who agree with their position, and people who think their position is totally wrong. That is true about almost any side in almost any controversy. At the risk of igniting the whole moral realism/absolutism vs moral skepticism/relativism argument I don't think the fact that their is a diversity of opinions means we have to consider other opinions to be correct or valid. Whether or not you agree with bin Laden, it's worth knowing what his position is. Agreed but only for the reasons I lay out above. Also please don't take my response to the following points to indicate that I think you support the following ideas. You said you disagree with bin Laden and I believe you when you say this, but if you are going to bring up the points I am still going to address them. One of his parameters is that Mecca and Medina are holy places for Muslims and that a Western military presence in them is absolute evil and must be resisted at all costs. These grievance might interest me a little more if there where actual any US or other Western military forces in Mecca or Medina. Another is that when fighting a military machine as powerful as the US, you need to oppose it by guerrilla type tactics, which makes a lot of sense. While I recognize the overlap I don't think guerilla tactics or guerilla warfare is the same as terrorism. Another parameter is based on the premise that the US is trying to destroy the centuries--no, millenia--old traditions and history of the Middle East and replace it with a decadent, money-grubbing, immoral culture. (Which, in fact, we are pretty much trying to do.) This at least has some grounding in reality, but really its not as much that we are trying to displace their culture as a policy but that our example helps lead many away from some of the aspects of their culture. Also my statement about this objection to the west as having "some grounding in reality" only applies to the fact that the west is an example that can lead people away from traditional Arab or Islamic culture. I do not share the opinion that western culture is immoral, and it is in many ways far less decadent then the culture that bin Laden is pushing. Furthermore this attack would only cause us to exercise more interference in the Middle East and surrounding areas not less. Its "defended" traditional Islamic and Arab culture only slightly better then Pearl Harbor defended the ruling regime of Japan. Another parameter is based on our Vietnam history, that the US population has no long term vision or staying power but is focussed purely on the short term (which is in many ways true), and that the US population has no stomach for a long and complicated war, and if hit enough times will just withdraw entirely and get out of the Middle East. This is possible, although its more likely that it will just enrage us. If such attacks continue we will probably get more involved in the Middle East. If any attack manages to greatly exceed 9/11 its even possible that the US as a whole could start listening to people who make crazy statements like "we should turn the Middle East into glowing glass as long as it doesn't keep us from getting to the oil." I don't think such a response is likely, but if bin Laden gets small nukes or smallpox and uses them who knows what an enraged America might do. None of which are irrational positions to take. I think the part about Mecca and Medina is irrational for the simple fact that our forces are not and have not been there. Its as if New York City was considered sacred and some American group started blowing up things in the UK because of a visit by British ships to Norfolk. Tim