I know how disapointing it can be to have encounters like that but I think thier have allways been people of this caliber, they make up a sizable portion of those who are sort of "awake" then thier are the people who just dont have the time or inclination to be informed about anything. life is either to difficult, or thier are just simply other priorities for them.

my new mother in law informed me that she doesnt understand why anyone would go be a soldier, or go fight. and that life was much to short to involve ones self in such affairs.

I just smiled at her.

how do you explain to someone like that, there are things worth fighting for, like family, and the preservation of your childrens futures, and your way of life. not to mention stopping evil like islamofascism, communism, fascism, barbarism and all the other isms constantly trying to storm the gates of her calm peaceful world

so why bother.

Is it not amazing the rate at which the left is approaching a truly Orwellian frame of mind? The next step, beyond dismissing all contradictory evidence, is the fabrication of evidence that "supports" their suppositions. These are the people who are slowly but surely worming their way into the very heart of the Democratic party, and subversivly destroying their constituents ability to think rationally. The Left is the disease that is rotting the core of American society, and the Islamofacists make up the force trying to destroy her from without. The American "Empire" and the Roman Empire are eirily similar in many ways, extending even to the manner by which each crumbled, or in America's case, the manner in which she is beggining to crumble.

I think the most evil "ism" posing threat to a calm and peaceful world would have to be jingoism.

I still say apathy is the disease rotting the core of American society.

I think the most evil "ism" posing threat to a calm and peaceful world would have to be jingoism.

Huh? What planet are you on, dude? A "calm and peaceful world"? What world is that? I've never seen one of those. But I'm sure we'd have one without those apathetic Americans, right? (Question: You ever study, um, history? Or the history of other cultures?)

So: Let me get this straight. An apathetic guy named Bill who lives somewhere in Ohio is a far greater threat to world peace than a mujahadeen training somewhere to blow up the filthy infidels who allow their women to walk around unveiled?

Vladimir Putin's nascent dictatorship and various bloody regional wars don't do nearly as much damage to the cause of human freedom as say, Lisa Bertrand, aged 38, soccer mom, who owns an SUV which has never been driven off-road?

What you say makes sense, so I will try to clarify.
I did not try to say the world was calm and peaceful in its present state.
Runcrook said:
"not to mention stopping evil like islamofascism, communism, fascism, barbarism and all the other isms constantly trying to storm the gates of her calm peaceful world."
He was referring to America, but I refer to a global state, which includes America. I think a pressing threat on any potential state of peace is extremist thought.

jingoism: "Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism."

I did not say whether this was on our part or other countries part. Simply that whole nations can get so swept away in their superiority that it fogs their logic. If I am not mistaken, extreme nationalism has contributed to those wars and genocides.

All of the examples you gave (Vladimir Putin, Robert Mugabe, etc) are indeed valid points, now let me explain by what I mean by apathy. If nobody cared enough to do anything about them, or stop what was happening, that is apathy. I know countless people my age who know NOTHING about history, world politics, goverment, and current affairs. They don't care to know. It's "not their problem."

If someone is being mugged on the street and nobody does anything to help, the mugger is only part of the larger problem of an indifferent society.

I know countless people who think that the world of Islam is comprised of jihad, women suppression, and anti-Americanism. I know a handful who understand why they'd be upset at us to begin with.

Tim, you seem very passionate about what you do, and I appreiate your input. I'm not nearly as intelligent as you, and don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of arguing anything with you. I'm not trying to prove anyone right or wrong, just put a different spin on arguments I've heard countless times.

I know countless people who think that the world of Islam is comprised of jihad, women suppression, and anti-Americanism. I know a handful who understand why they'd be upset at us to begin with.

Thank you!

And I, like majority of muslims, don't condone violance against violance. I was never violant. I didn't voted or supported any crazy nut job.

Some ppl did, look at who is at white house.

I'll try and answer a few specifics a bit later, but for the moment I've just got a few general comments to offer. Since this is one of my absurdly long comments, and I have five points to cover, I'm going to number them to help remind you, should you patiently read it, that it will not go on forever. ;-)

I don't know for sure, because I'm as much a child of this generation as the rest of you, and the history books don't generally record these kinds of things, but it seems to me we're living a time of profound and rising moral sickness.

The first three points are not necessarily addressed at anyone in specific, as I don't know, for sure, what people are thinking and what their motives are. But I am reminded of them by some statements made here and elsewhere recently. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, I hope it at least doesn't bore you to tears.

One: I'm certainly not claiming to be exempt, as I also go about my daily life while tragedy plays out elsewhere -- but one problem seems to be that we weep loudly for certain highly visible victims, while ignoring or even being actively disinterested in hidden victims. I've certainly done this, but have trying to improve my thinking in this area in recent years.

Regarding Iraq, I supported the war primarily because I felt more Iraqi lives (and undoubtedly also non-Iraqi lives) would be saved by attacking Iraq than if we did not. Though there were other important considerations, that was the deciding question for me. On that basis, and for other reasons, I also felt it was deeply immoral to have waited as long as we did.

Thus, from my point of view, it seems many who appear to care about innocent victims seem only to consider those who died in reach of the cameras of the now-free press -- they don't seem to tally up those who suffered, starved, were tortured, or killed under a totalitarian regime which tolerated no investigation, reporting, nor criticism -- nor those who would be living and dying now and for years to come, and most likely decades to come (if Cuba is any example) under the same circumstances. One innocent victim is worth so much, but the other...? Again, that's my point of view, anyway.

I understand that others might take a different view. They might not have heard this argument, nor seen the evidence, or they might have evidence I don't know about, that shows I'm wrong. Until I hear the specifics, I can respect at least that we all see things differently, and that each should be given the benefit of the doubt until then, and assumed to be doing the best they can given what they know and have seen so far.

But what I do not understand are those who are apparently aware of such counter-arguments, and yet do not even appear to address them, much less refute them -- but instead go on as though such answers have never even been offered. After all, if arguments like mine are or right (or wrong!), it should impact our thinking and position, and possibly even cause a position reversal for some. If we care about innocent victims, we should take great care in choosing the path which produces the fewest of them.

But even if they didn't want to address such arguments, or simply saw it differently, I especially cannot understand why it is utterly impossible for so many to credit their opponents with having similarly moral motivations, and give the benefit of the doubt. Towards George Bush, for example.

Did he save lives in the balance? Then why demonize him? Or did you even make that calculation? No? Then how can you be so judgemental, yourself not even having considered such an important argument? (You could be guilty of recommending more people be killed, out of your haste!) And even if you worked it out carefully, and decided it didn't save lives, wasn't it possible that he had considered the same argument and came to the opposite conclusion? (Good heavens, Tony Blair just said he was convinced by the exact same argument I just explained.) And isn't it possible Bush, Blair, and war supporters like myself actually thought Saddam would become a threat? Did you prove he wouldn't? And even if you did (though I haven't seen it) -- or you aren't swayed by such an argument (say, if you view all killing as wrong, no matter what -- see next point) then can't you assume another person -- George Bush, even -- might simply have come to another conclusion, honestly, and with equally good intentions as yours?

Two: Another profound problem that concerns me is the apparent inability to distinguish between accidental death, or the death of people who have committed a crime, and the death of innocent victims. To some people, all three situations are morally identical.

Another way of putting this is that some claim to oppose all violence. I don't. I'm very much in favor of violence under specific circumstances, and view the opposite position as deeply immoral.

For example, to use George Bush again (he's as good an example as any) some people insist that Bush and those who supported him in this effort are equally morally wrong for, say, killing innocent civilians in Iraq as the people who planted these bombs were.

But there's a crucial difference: Do we honestly think that if George Bush, or any of those who supported him, could have designed their bombs so that they never killed an innocent man, woman, or child, they would have done so? I certainly would have. And, though misjudgements always occur, I can't help but think Bush and every general would have as well. Given the cost and sophistication of the weapons used in Iraq, costs incurred to make them precise enough to take out a military target and leave an adjacent home intact, that does indeed seem to be the intent.

Now let's ask the same question about the terrorists. Would they avoid killing innocent victims if they could? Ha, are you kidding? What else did it mean to plant a bomb on a busy train in rush hour? Killing innocent men, women, and children was the entire point.

But some apparently refuse to draw any moral distinctions between those positions: of attempting to do something which will save more lives in the long term, even if it regretably kills some innocent people in the short term, and those who set out with the specific intention of targeting and slaughtering the innocent.

These are morally equivalent to some!

I cannot understand that myopia.

And a similar argument can be made about equating the deliberate killing of the guilty and the innocent, like those who say that if we executed such terrorists, it would prove we were just as bad as they were. They are being killed for having killed innocent people! But to some people, that's morally identical to picking some random person off the street and executing them for no reason at all!

As I said, I view these as times of profound moral sickness and confusion.

Three: There are some who say they oppose all violence. As argued above, I'm certainly not one of them. I think it's profoundly immoral to fail to use violence if your stance allows evil to continue, and allows more innocent lives to be claimed. And yes, I'm one of those people old-fashioned enough to believe that Saddam's torture chambers, and the bombings we saw in London, Madrid, Morroco, Indonesia, Bali are particularly and outstandingly evil.

Now, as mentioned, I understand that there are principled pacifists. I know a number of them. And, while I think they are mistaken, I respect their views. But it is the johnny-come-lately pacifists who bother me and strike me as insincere -- those who seem to have suddenly decided all violence is wrong just for this particular war, or at least argue that way. You ask where they stood on Kosovo, or World War II, and they quickly change the subject.

So their real argument against the war lies elsewhere, but they don't want to admit it -- undoubtedly because it would sound really lame or immoral. So they offer this pretend-argument instead, because it sounds noble and good.

Four: I now want to ask Imran a specific question: Imran, you imply you don't condone violence against violence. Does that mean you also don't condone violence against non-violence, as would seem likely from that statement?

Again, recall that I have no moral problem with certain kinds of violence, so don't think I'm going to condemn you if you say you actually support violence under certain circumstances.

I stumbled across your site, quite by accident, but found myself reading for a few minutes. :) In light of my post being a few months behind the last one, I realize it may not gain much attention or warrant much of a reply, but I felt the need to add my two cents anyway.

from your post:
“But there's a crucial difference: Do we honestly think that if George Bush, or any of those who supported him, could have designed their bombs so that they never killed an innocent man, woman, or child, they would have done so? …

Now let's ask the same question about the terrorists. Would they avoid killing innocent victims if they could? ...Killing innocent men, women, and children was the entire point.

But some apparently refuse to draw any moral distinctions between those positions: of attempting to do something which will save more lives in the long term, even if it regretably kills some innocent people in the short term, and those who set out with the specific intention of targeting and slaughtering the innocent.”
--

So are you saying that the biggest difference between Bush and the terrorists is motive? intent?
In response to that, I counter with your own words from a previous discussion, "I Didn't Mean to Hurt You."

from your post:
“Somehow, we've gotten to the point where as a culture, we think of not intending evil as some kind of virtue…”

“The ‘I never meant to’ excuse falls into category #2; our society's whole excuse for every misdeed is to point out that there are some worse people out there, hypothetically.”

“Sorry, finding someone worse than you doesn't make you good.”
--

What I’m getting from that is, you’re saying intent doesn’t matter; rather what IS important are the actions and their consequences.

To me, your statements seem somewhat contradictory. Or is my interpretation fallacious? Maybe...is the only difference in your eyes that: Bush felt he HAD to make a decision one way or the other, whereas we, in our every day lives can choose whether we WANT to gossip, cheat, lie, etc?

I’m sure Bush “didn’t mean to” have innocent people die in Iraq because of the war. Does it make him right, or good? Can I effectively and correctly substitute in your above statement: “Sorry, finding [a situation] worse than [this] doesn’t make [this situation] good.” …?

I’m not arguing, not attacking Bush, not stating my opinion or viewpoint on these issues one way or the other. I’m simply curious-- how do you resolve these two stances of yours….or do you honestly see no correlation between the two?

Do the ends justify the means? or vice versa? Which is more important to you, motive or actions?

NDB,

Anybody who has the perseverance to actually read enough of my stuff to attempt to use my own writings against me has my respect -- at least for that!

I understand where you're coming from in asking -- I've thought through some of the same issues.