Quote:
Originally Posted by raeanna74
Hey, let's not forget that those buildings held several thousand CIVILIANS doing their daily paper pushing jobs. It wasn't a symbol, it wasn't a picture, it was innocent people.
|
I have been at ktspktsp's all weekend and unable to answer posts (from his computer); see his posts for a more detailed treatment of the topic than I can offer.
I am not sure if it is doing any good to post here anyway, since this has long since turned into a thread worthy of the Politics board rather than General Discussion...
I will, however, address the last posts addressed to me. Do not get me wrong: I do not minimize the attacks of 9/11. However, do you think the reaction of the American people would have been any less severe if the attacks had happened in the middle of the night, and very few people had actually been killed? Probably not. We would have reacted the same way regardless of numbers dead, *because* of the symbolic value. The attackers knew how to push our buttons; the Danes and other Europeans certainly know how to push theirs.
Before we go counting the numbers of *our* innocent dead, how about those dead in the Middle East as a result of the West fumbling around there for god knows how long? The role of the British Empire? Israel? "Collateral damage" of the war in Iraq? How many dead brown people count for one dead person in the WTC? We may like to say that "it wasn't a symbol, it wasn't a picture, it was innocent people," but who is to say that the Muslim fanatics can't see themselves saying the same things, and feel justified?
As I have said before on this thread, I am
NOT advocating the use of violence as a viable form of protest, by any means. HOWEVER: instead of polarizing ourselves with simplistic statements, I believe it would do us well to see how goddamn complicated this whole situation is, and that people on BOTH sides
believe they have entirely valid reasons for what they are doing.
Now, whether or not those beliefs are correct, is something else. I'd rather condemn the actions of both than say that one is morally superior, however.
P.S. Free press? How would any of you respond to someone publishing child pornography on the front page of the NYTimes? We censor that kind of thing, but why should we, since that's limiting the right of the press (using many people's arguments here)?... I hope you see my point.