I'm glad I'm part of a liberal mind hyper-brain.
BTW, I suspect you mean "when protecting one's family, the ends justify the means", not "when protecting one's family, the means justify the ends". *chuckle*
[quote]I agree some of our reactions have been pointless, over-the -top and have been harmfull to our freedoms. Some feel the attacks were our fault, I don't. My initial raction is to increase the consequences of terrorist activity on the terrorist. I know my feelings are "wrong" but my initial reaction is that if you hit us, we hit you back with 25 times the intensity./quote]
Fault is an interesting question. The attacks and the motivation behind them where understandable, and the USA has done (as a nation) some pretty horrid things. If you measure how "evil" some organization is based off of the
number and magnatude of the evil acts done by the organization, the USA comes off pretty badly -- simply because it is a very large, very powerful, and very active organization. The USA comes off better if you measure the
fraction of consequences of the organizations actions that are "evil".
Quote:
|
Good point. I was ignoring them prior to 9/11, but they were not ignoring us. I would love to get back to the day when I felt comfortable ignoring them.
|
Or just accept them as a price of projecting power. They are a clear example of covert action backwash -- if you believe that the USA should be engaged in covert actions around the world, then you should also accept that the USA will be burned by those actions.
The fact that the designated mastermind behind 9/11 was a CIA trained anti-Russian revolutionary is not a coincidence. The fact that Saddam was a CIA trained and backed operative is also not a coincidence. The choice of using proxy troops and leaders to implement US foriegn policy means that those proxy troops will more than occasionally attack and kill American interests.
Just because it is an incident of backwash doesn't mean that America is not allowed to intervien.
Much as "your choice to drive to your grandmothers" was one of the reasons why "your family was killed by the drunk driver": had you not driven to your grandmothers, the drunk driver would not have killed your family. The USAs past support for proxy warriors is one of the reasons behind 9/11. The question of what "fault" means becomes interesting and complex at this point.
There is the "I am right" side, which states that so long as I identify with X, X is not at fault for anything.
Then there are approaches that try to work out how predictable such a result is. If you drive at 200 mph on a motorcycle, you are more "at fault" for dieing to a drunk driver than if you drive at 60 mph in a top-safety car.
Then there are the karma based ones -- if you have killed 10 people while driving to your grandmother's, and you get killed, you are karmically at fault.
The existance of multiple interpritations leads to fault lines in opinion.
Quote:
|
An exampe is - your assumption that I did not understand the levels of risk from being a victim of a terrorist attack V. being in a car accident.
|
There isn't a massive war on traffic in the USA, so I figured that most people consider car accidents to be less of a problem then terrorist attacks.
Quote:
|
Or, when I say when it comes to protecting you family the means justifies the ends, the liberal mind translates that to being immoral and that they would never act in such a manner. I think we know thats B.S., but if I call it B.S. the liberal mind gets offended.
|
What if it isn't B.S.? There are people who wouldn't kill, steal or lie to protect their family.