In recent days, the United States has been preoccupied with the tales of "torture" and other very unpleasant things done to prevent more terrorist attacks. We have apparently decided that we are in a boxing match in which we must, to preserve (or perhaps regain) our moral virginity, adhere to the Marquess of Queensbury's rules when our attackers adhere to no rules whatever save one — to kill us and to disrupt our affairs to the greatest extent possible. Our moral outrage at those who would try to protect us has been great and doubtless very comforting to some — including to those who seek to kill as many of us as possible; toward the latter, there seems to have been far less moral outrage.
To seek "exceptionalism" by touting one's extraordinarily superior morality in the face of very real and life threatening dangers at the hands of those who adhere to extraordinarily different moral codes, and who seek their own "exceptionalism" through deadly terror attacks, strikes me as suicidal. The United States is and has long been a good and law-abiding country. In her dealings with other good and law abiding countries, she should continue to be good and law abiding. However, she is now facing, and has faced for several years, dangers which are quite different from any encountered before. She is currently engaged with neither a good and law-abiding country as an opponent, nor for that matter, even a country in many cases. She faces in macrocosm what my wife and I personally face on a far smaller and quite personal scale. A difference is that the United States has already been attacked, and we have not yet been.
In dealing with terrorists who are trying very energetically to kill us, we should not be so piously stuck up about our beloved moral superiority that we fail to fight them on something approaching comparable terms. To fail to do so evidences the type of pride which goes before a fall, possibly a fatal fall.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dan(Miller)
The first link in the article should be to this.
Dan(Miller)
2 - Dan(Miller)
And now the link is fixed. That was quick.
Dan(Miller)
3 - M (a)r {....!...} ¶/ ® k
Damn right, Dan! The whole ends and means thing is so yesterday. In fact, you need to stop being such a pussy and get proactive in your self-defense. Go out and snatch a few people who match the profile of these bastards, cut their heads off and mount them on pikes around the periphery of your property. That ought to serve as a deterrent. (If a few innocents are caught up in error, such is life.)
4 - Dan(Miller)
Thanks for your helpful advice, M (a)r {....!...} ¶/ ® k. I shall certainly consider it. However, until we are able (legally) to buy a shotgun, I shall probably not take it.
Dan(Miller)
5 - Baronius
I'm with Mark on this one. If your home is invaded you need to stop the thieves, and that would probably require the use of deadly force if there are more than one of them. But you wouldn't rape them and kill them, however impressive a deterrence that might be.
6 - roger nowosielski
I think good ole Baronius here was thrown way off by Mark's biting satire.
Good weapon, Mark. How else are you gonna get 'em show their true colors?
In all fairness to Baronius, though, he stops short of rape, pillage, and murder - displaying once more to all onlookers and bemused spectators his good Christian sensibilities.
What a show!
7 - Dan(Miller)
Baronius, I didn't suggest that I would rape them. However, the use of deadly force implies the possibility of killing him or them. I would not kill by preference, but at two o:clock in the morning, in the dark, upon awakening from sleep, one's options are rather limited. In that situation, better him (or them) than my wife or me -- or, for that matter, one of our dogs.
Dan(Miller)
8 - Baronius
Dan(M), it's an extension of your analogy. The US is being attacked by people who torture and kill, so it's appropriate for the US to torture and kill (rather than just kill). Likewise, you're being attacked by people who rape and kill, so you should rape them before you kill them. You've chosen to move beyond appropriate force into brutality, in order to put yourself on the same playing field as the enemy.
9 - roger nowosielski
Well, Dan
Your ardent supporter has just disqualified himself, I'm sorry to say. I'm certain you did not mean for your article to have such a radicalizing effect and push him over the edge, but I guess shit happens. Regardless, I would be happy knowing that my words might have such an effect.
Perhaps there's a lesson in this to all of us - to think and speak more highly.
10 - Baronius
Roger, you really don't understand a word I've written, do you?
11 - roger nowosielski
Correction: I wouldn't be happy . . .
12 - Clavos
I don't think you got Dan's point in the article, Roger.
13 - Dan(Miller)
Baronius, when I said, we should not be so piously stuck up about our beloved moral superiority that we fail to fight them on something approaching comparable terms(emphasis added), I did not mean thereby to suggest (and don't think that I did suggest) that we should fly airplanes into buildings, hack off heads or use children as living shields. That would be not only bad and silly but also quite ineffective. I did mean to suggest that to the extent that we need to be unpleasant in order to obtain information necessary for our self defense, we should be as unpleasant as necessary, and that after the fact we should not mount our pious platforms and complain about what was done.
Following the 911 attacks on the U.S., many if not most thought that we should respond vigorously. Some of those now claiming a superior morality then did not seek refuge in it, and apparently thought that we should do more. I find their politically useful revisions of history offensive.
Dan(Miller)
14 - M (a)r {....!...} ¶/ ® k
Following the 911 attacks on the U.S., many if not most thought that we should respond vigorously. Some of those now claiming a superior morality then did not seek refuge in it, and apparently thought that we should do more. I find their politically useful revisions of history offensive.
Who are these jingoists turned holier than thou rollers with whom you're doing battle? Do you have some actual folks in mind?
15 - roger nowosielski
Clavos,
Please leave your editorial inclinations elsewhere. I haven't even read the damn article and made no explicit reference to it other than by way of allusion. So back off! If you read things in context, then perhaps we won't be having these spats every now and then, unless you're just dying to have 'em.
16 - roger nowosielski
Baronius,
You're not wiggling out of that one. I'll be throwing this up your face every time you open your mouth. I've already pasted it and framed it as a ready-made response.
And I don't particularly fancy anymore to have any polite conversations with such as you. But if you'll address me, be certain that I'll reciprocate in kind.
17 - roger nowosielski
Mark,
I'm discerning your strategy. When faced with Ruvy's incessant rants - sorry, Ruvy, no offense intended because you have more of an excuse! - the only thing one can do after a while is just to say "fuck it."
It's no different here.
18 - Baronius
Roger, I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything. If you'd read the article and my response, you'd see that it's consistent with other comments I've made.
But maybe this isn't a good week to carry on a BC discussion. I've lost half-a-dozen comments so far. We're trying to carry on a conversation at a construction site, and while the completed project may be wonderful, it's awfully noisy.
19 - roger nowosielski
Baronius,
Will all due respect, I don't think I need to go by anything other than what was posted immediately before and after. It speaks volumes. I haven't read Dan's article yet, but I very much doubt whether it'd change my mind. What is apparent to me, you read into Dan's article whatever you wanted to read - we all do it - and the cat came out of the bag. Even Dan himself, if you pay the slightest attention, tried to veer you away, however subtly, from this train of thought.
But no, you're obstinate enough to continue in the same vein and stick to your guns rather than take a kind advice from your friends.
So no, I really don't want to - I'm not interested in understanding you anymore.
Have a good day.
20 - Clavos
Please leave your editorial inclinations elsewhere.
Sorry, Roger. My "editorial inclinations" will be wherever I want them to be -- stop whining and deal with it.
I haven't even read the damn article and made no explicit reference to it other than by way of allusion.
Yet you feel qualified to comment on another's reactions to it.
Curiouser and curiouser...
21 - roger nowosielski
Right! And I'll editorialize you, too, in that case - whenever I want. You may think I've been unfair in taking Baronius's remark off tangent. Well, I don't! Threads have integrity all their own - irrespective of the articles they proceed from.
But I don't really need to justify myself to you, do I?
22 - roger nowosielski
And how come it took you half an hour to compose a half-ass response? Were you in the shitter?
23 - Baronius
Clavos, I read every third word of your last comment and was deeply offended, especially about "I to whining with".
24 - roger nowosielski
I don't take stupid offenses from anyone, nor have I ever complained about offensive language. But what does offend me are anal personalities. Enough said.
25 - roger nowosielski
Cindy,
This thread seems to be working for the time being. So catch me here.