Robert,

Blair's quote is perfect, and perfectly correct. There exist in this world minds bent on our destruction, and some of these minds are beyond the reach of dialog. We must try dialog - but I would require no one to die trying, and would not suffer kindly any attempt to require me to die trying.

And that said: I dislike the term "pity", which implies a degree of condescension; I prefer the term "compassion". And it is compassion which those who would destroy us are in need of.

My understanding of the Jewish conception of Hell is that it entails separation from God, an eternal distance. The Eastern spiritual tradition of Karma creates for the sinner a weight and a burden unrelieved by death. For me these visions of eschatological consequence are more harrowing than any image of the Inferno conjured by Dante. Perhaps by reflecting on this, compassion for our implacable enemies will be brought within reach.

The tragedy of 9/11: This trite and miserable coinage should be erased from discourse. The fate of the human victims of that massacre was not "tragic", it was outrageous. The fate of the human perpetrators, perhaps, constitutes a tragedy. That human beings could so distance themselves from their fellow mortals cannot bode well for their relation to the eternal source of all being - but that of course is not for me to judge.

The rules to Asymetrical Warfare dictate that precise use of power as necessary must be applied in response to attacks. American forces are the blunderbus and alien to the Ummah. Thier mere presence stilts the whole toward violence in that they represent overwhelming force.

Todays attack which released captured enemies presumably will free others to oppose the Provisional council and US plans to disengage. The fact that they have to plan and carry out these prison breaks means that they are scraping the barrel with regard to recruitment. The prisoners are too valuable a resource toward thier aims.

This equals bancruptcy of the opposition and speaks volumes on the success of the Iraq war and plans to hand over authority to the Iraqi's. It is a milestone reached in the War on Terror. The plans of the enemy are revealed in thier acts of desperation. We shall see that every avenue and resource is closed off for them.

However, the danger that such desparation and Man's inherent duality of nature, could ensure that they do succeed in carrying out thier plans to get thier hands on WMD's. Wretchard has some interesting assertions at the Belmont Club. Some of which could be more likely true regarding recent events, some less likely in our current areas of interest.

I have no compassion for those about to kill me, only that which may be useful as a weapon to use with regard to the rules of asymetrical war. Precision with regard to compassion is extremely hard to come by, specially with regard to killers.

Name one who has successfuly done so, and I will point to Christ.

Can you imagine that had the West chosen the path to energy independence, had no presence in the Middle East, no designs on its oil, no troops stationed there, no history of having armed both Al Qaida and Saddam, that history would have also chosen a different path? That there might be no war of terrorism?

If murdering human beings to achieve political objectives defines one as a terrorist, then all who wage warfare need to look into the mirror. All actions have consequences. I do not deny that self defense is a legitimate response to violence. But self defense does not always have to adopt violent means to be effective. Avoiding conflict, like avoiding disease, consumes far less resources and increases the odds of survival. If we continue to restrict liberty to protect it, then we will be little different than the Viet Nam era commander who uttered the famous line, "we had to destroy the village to save it."

Is it really true that the "terrorsits" as we label them are utterly and without any possibility of other options bent on destroying us? Do you trust our media so completely that you are sure this constant refrain is true? If you simply point at 9/11 and say what else can I deduce? then imagine what the Japanese thought after Hiroshima. Black and white explanations of the world are often soothing yet often miss the reality in between. Is it really so hard to consider what interests and objectives our "enemies" may have that might differ from the simple notion that they hate us and want us all dead? Why? What would we say to those in Hiroshima to convince them we had a good reason for using the first weapon of mass destruction?

Humans can be worse than beasts. And they can be better. Existentialism is about defining one's existence. Sarte said in effect, existence precedes essence. We find ourselves in this universe first then become what are. Once we acknowledge that we are responsible for our deeds, our thoughts, our values, we face the stark reality that if we have no compassion, no tolerance for those who differ from us, no desire to see if there is an alternative, its not the doing of others--it's our choice.

If we adopt the attitude that the ends justify the means and "they" are not as human as we are, then we begin to slide down the slippery slope to the place where the terrorists have won. They have provoked us to take our own freedom and our own conscience away. There is a better way. We are better than that. Yes, we must take appropriate steps to protect ourselves. And we must explore all the ways to make this a safer world for our children and their children. Compassion and empathy are not easy in the face of violent deeds. Most things of lasting worthiness are not easy. But if we are ever going to evolve toward where Christ or Buddha or Mohammed became we need to start somewhere.

If murdering human beings to achieve political objectives defines one as a terrorist, then all who wage warfare need to look into the mirror.

This doesn't define terrorism because terrorism is aimed at civilians. A lack of uniforms is a factor as well.

Can you imagine that had the West chosen the path to energy independence

Imagine all you want, but short of some disruptive technology we will continue to need oil.

Once we acknowledge that we are responsible for our deeds, our thoughts, our values, we face the stark reality that if we have no compassion, no tolerance for those who differ from us, no desire to see if there is an alternative, its not the doing of others—it’s our choice.

That's true and is exactly what puts us at odds with the terrorists. Freedom and liberty require that we be responsible for our actions. This is equally true of others and we have an inherent right to self defense, even if it means pre-emption.

lewy,

The word pity is the first word to come to mind. Compassion may be a better word, but it's the first to come to mind and lead to me remembering this quote. Hence the post.

How could "the West" choose anything, much less make a concerted decision in, say, 1910, to ignore an inexpensive, abundant, easily transported liquid that could burn far cleaner than that dirty coal stuff?

How outside of history does someone have to get to propose such dreck? Why not spend one's time imagining how to solve today's problems without relying on fantasy? Or is that just too hard?

Why even mention oil, when the real motivator of Islamist radicals has little to do with oil? Why not discuss Qutb? Why not reflect on Al Qaeda's mention of the Reconquista and hoped for retrieval of Andalusia?

I am responsible for my actions, and I'll be damned if I am gonna allow some thug to threaten this fragile social construct we call liberal democracy. They wanted a fight, proved they wanted it, and now they have one. It will be a dirty, painful, generations long fight, and if the West fails to deter the thugs, then liberal civilization may become a historical footnote, and all of humanity could revert to the status quo ante -- the rule by the strong.

Slippery slope fallacy? You betcha, but I didn't inaugurate argument by the ominous "slipper slope" fallacy.

MG

Well put, MG.

"Once we acknowledge that we are responsible for our deeds, our thoughts, our values, we face the stark reality that if we have no compassion, no tolerance for those who differ from us, no desire to see if there is an alternative, its not the doing of others—it’s our choice."

After acknowledging the differences and searching for alternative solutions for decades, and in the face of proof positive of the vast and unspanable gulf that separates us from them (9/11), zero tolerance is Exactly the right response.

The other cheek was turned in Beruit, after the first WTC attack, and numerousother places and times. Time now to heed the words of Sarte and become truly responsible for or values and protect them.

Here's one black and white distinction, when someone is coming at you with a knife you either let them kill you or you dont. If you stop to consider what the guys motivation is, whether you deserve to be stabbed, or even wonder if he is really going to stab you, you die.

Thank God presidents aren't philosophers.

Maybe someone can help me, where did the quote attributed to the vietnam military commander come from? I remember hearing it at the time, but I also remember hearing that Hanoi Jane was a patriot. Thank you in advance.

The "destroy the village in order to save it" line came from Peter Arnett, of Baghad fame. He did not give the name of his source, and the man who thinks he WAS the source says, if so, then he was not quoted at all correctly.

The book "Stolen Valor" has a discussion of the quote. It is written by a guy named Burkett, I think. It is a good read.

A couple things to remember in this existential conflict.

The opposition in apocalyptic. They are looking for any sort of compliant behavior, they are looking for our destruction. This means we cannot appease because it won't work.

Terrorism uses a county's morality, humanity, sense of law, and technological advances against itself. It is a sort of judo. Amoral countries without a sense of morality, humanity or law have no problems with terrorists. As long as we understand we ourselves have established our own vulnerabilities, we can weigh which ones to modify and which to keep wholly intact.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: