Teejay,
uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but those efforts are underway already DESPITE his denial. Admitting it might quicken the search for him, but one way or the other, the war is going to continue until he is dead. Taking responsibility wouldn't cost him anything, but might make him more of a hero to the people who look up to him already.
I think you're right--it doesn't appear that he has anything to lose. However, if he is responsible and has carefully hidden his connections to the incidents, he has much to gain by a denial, as I mentioned before.
My question was, "If I am a friend of Kent's, and he commits an act you consider heinous, am I deserving of equal punishment?"It would depend, I guess. Do you know what kent did? Do you know the full extent of the injury he caused to all concerned? How do YOU feel about it? What actions, as his friend, have you taken to leverage him toward correcting the wrong? Have you done anything to distance yourself from his action? Btw, there are laws that equally convict and punish the car driver in a bank robbery even though they carried out no other action.
Again, this is quite a ways from your initial comments in which you assumed guilt by association.
The reason I brought up the scenario of burning down the building was that it seemed to me that you were having some difficulty putting yourself in the place of those responsible for the crashes in NY and D.C. and what they might be thinking... what their motivation might be other than what Bush has said their rational was -- hatred for America(ns). I tried to use an example that you could wrap your mind around to speed up the discussion. It was a what-if. I thought you knew that. I was not giving you real-life plans that I was working on.
I understand that this is theoretical example, Teejay. I am just trying to understand what you consider a just punishment. The principles should hold whatever the situation. I found it difficult to understand your willingness to burn the innocent along with the guilty.
It does not atone for my daughter's injuries, but it may dampen the zeal that others might have had to commit similar offenses. It may also focus attention on the crimes committed by those that formerly used the building. True justice would not be reached by raping someone else. True justice could be gained only by un-doing the evil, returning my daughter to the exact same state she was in prior to her violation.
We've covered this ground before. You may dampen the zeal of others or you may inflame them. You may focus attention on the crimes committed by those who used the building or you may focus attention on your own crime.
I do agree with your idea of true justice. This is why it is difficult for my to understand the rationale behind returning evil for evil.
Teejay: [compassionate killing is] A truly odd concept.Ginny: Not really. You'd kill a horse to put it out of its pain...
Teejay: I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about killing (or loss of life) in the context of terrorism and revenge.
The comments that followed the horse comment were meant to show the connection between terrorism and revenge. I pity the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. I was once the victim of a fanatical mindset myself, and I understand how one can be cruel and intolerant and yet believe one is doing the will of God. I wish that these folks could be persuaded to adopt a more tolerant attitude. That doesn't appear likely. Perhaps it will be possible to restrain them. If killing them is necessary, I will feel very sorry for the loss of human lives.
They may not cease entirely -- despite what is commonly believed, bin Laden is not a puppeteer -- but a big part of the problem would be solved. In nearly every interview of him I've seen, bin Laden wants America out of Saudi Arabia, a land he considers holy. That is his number one grievance. The second is America's meddling in Palestine. I don't expect Bush to give in on either of these points.
I'm not sure if this would solve the problem. You can keep Americans out of Saudi Arabia, but it is much more difficult to keep out American influence, Levis, and movies unless, like the Taliban, you ban television and the internet. Saudi students would have to be barred from studies in the United States.
From what I've read, bin Laden views the current Saudi goverment as religiously corrupt. If the U.S. pulled out of Saudi Arabia, I guess the radical Islamists would attempt to overthrow the government.
It's not inconsistent. Your frame of reference is flawed. The first crime, the rape of the daughter, has been occurring overseas. The father's revenge, the "burning down of the house," commenced on September 11.
I see. I was looking at it from a different perspective. It will be interesting to see what happens. So far this act has not appeared to dampen the zeal of the U.S. to set foot on Saudi soil. It has focused attention on the U.S.'s "crimes" in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but those seem currently overshadowed by the crime of burning down the house.
First, I think the acts of those responsible are hardly akin to a temper tantrum, "a fit of bad temper." I could be misreading, but you seem to trivialize bin Laden's serious and legitimate grievances.
I don't mean to trivialize. Mine is yet another limited and foolish analogy.
Reagan got elected in large part because he appealed to voter's desire to have less government interference. If American's want less of their own government in their lives, shouldn't that give us a clue as to how foreigners feel about U.S. involvement in THEIRS?
Government interference is a complex issue and not one I feel qualified to discuss.
As far as them understanding that terrorism is unacceptable, then you must tell that to those who taught them their ways of terror.
Are you thinking of the CIA's training of bin Laden? Or are you thinking as far back as Abraham?
Ginny