Terrorism

The Economist: "the terrorists claimed to be acting in the name of Islam."

Claimed to be? So when the self-inconsistent Koran is interpreted "correctly", it's obvious that the beliefs of the terrorists are inconsistent with Islam?

The politically correct left really loves pushing the Religion is Peaceful trope don't they? If only the 9/11 terrorists had subscribed to The Economist for guidance on religious matters.

I'm all for it. And as a gesture celebrating our shared belief in tolerance and cross-cultural communication, I look forward to the Imam who's heading the project to declare his enthusiastic support for a Jewish center in Mecca and an atheist center in Medina.

There was absolutly no reason for the allies to be so hasty in dropping the bomb. There were other options available to secure Japan's surrender that were neglected. For instance, they could have made a stronger attempt to induce the Japanese to surrender, they were aware of the fact that the main reason Japan refused to give up was over concerns that by unconditionally surrendering the Imperial dynasty would have been destroyed. The allies also had every intention of keeping the emperor in place in order to govern the Japanese people during occupation. Why they dropped the bombs instead of attempting to coax a surrender is impossible to determine but several theories have sprung up such as revenge (just look at the above quote by Truman), intimidating the Russians so they would be easier to deal with in Europe, and ending the war quickly so the Russians can not occupy Japan and attempt to turn her communist. Had the Allies shown a little more restraint instead of going straight for the throat it would be easier to support the bombing.

I'm not a historian so I won't comment as to whether the bombs saved lives. I do believe however, that you're too hasty and enthusiastic in reaching the conclusion that no Japanese person was innocent. Do you think, had you or I been born in the 1920s in Japan, that we could have gone against the flow? Do you think we would have - on moral grounds - refused to join our country's army and have had the strength to face the consequences of taking that stance? By your own words you don't seem to give a fuck about "people who I have never met who would probably kill me given the chance". Most people born into a bad regime could be pushed into bad behavior, and the people who died were not intrinsically better or worse than ordinary people like me and you. Maybe the bombs were necessary, but it was a tragedy, and it is of the utmost arrogance to say that the people who died were not innocent, as if we, with our privileged lives, not only get to live those privileged lives, but also get to claim the moral high-ground over the dead.

Most people who get killed in wars are not evil people - they're just terribly unlucky people born at the wrong time and wrong place. Most of the people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just ordinary civilians living under a regime they did not choose. Now, there is ignorance in pacifism - yes, some wars are justified, as is the loss of civilian life. But there is an even less thoughtful ignorance in the belief that an entire country is comprised of evil people.

"They should all burn in hell"? While I don't consider myself a Christian, I still consider it a red flag when someone says something that seems to entirely disregard the compassion that Jesus espoused.

"Honestly war horrifies me to the point that I have no appropriate moral framework to apply to it."

I agree it's difficult, but not so much because it horrifies me, but more because the moral equation is complicated. At one level, if the bomb saved lives, the moral framework of utilitarianism provides a basis for a decision. The problem is, this doesn't distinguish between civilian and military lives. If people choose to be in the military, and they understand the risk it entails, then presumably their lives are more expendable than civilians, who have not willingly accepted that risk. But how much more expendable? This is not clear to me. And of course during WWII they had a draft (which weakens the distinction between civilian and military lives), the morality of which is a separate question, but which in fact affects the answer to this question.

I've been told that the bombs saved lives. We did kill more people in urban firebombings than in the nuclear attacks. But I have my doubts that exterminating a city can be justifiable.

Honestly war horrifies me to the point that I have no appropriate moral framework to apply to it.

"This is just my opinion and you people might disagree with me but, i dont really care"

A glib attitude like this is fine if we're talking about the color of your underwear. But we're talking about 3,000 lives that were lost and the legitimacy of the US government. It's part of our social responsibility to care about what other people think on matters that we find mutually important. In this particular case, to not care, would be to not care the lives lost on that day, and perhaps far worse, not care about the future of the far great number of lives affected by the US government.

I did some research as to whether the collapse was physically possible, and did not come to your conclusion. Please check out the evidence in the linked question: "Was the collapse of the twin towers only physically possible by controlled demolition?". The physics supporting the standard account - that the load bearing structures were compromised to the point that they could no longer support the immense weight of the building - seems entirely sound to me. Be wary when people use common sense arguments when physics is involved. Always look at the math on both sides, and only then make a conclusion.

And, of course, the only people that so far agree with this are hardly literate and do not wish to reveal themselves. I understand the desire for anonymity on this opinion. But it is hardly necessary.

There is a reason for the attacks. There always has been, throughout the last hundred years, a reason to provoke attacks, or create very believable fictions of attacks on the US to initiate wars, which have proved to be a source for economic benefit and political control since World War I. This was done in 9/11 to create a war against the most vague of enemies, terrorism, allowing the US government (and whichever others feared terrorists) to apply whatever laws they wanted to "prevent terrorism". But as anyone can see, these measures have only reduced liberties, and when analysed from a rational viewpoint, do not actually stop any terrorists.

Moreover, from careful analysis of the television footage, most anyone with some understanding of architecture and engineering can see that it is physically impossible for a plane crash to ignite a steel building or impact it with enough strength to cause its collapse. And then there's the lack of plane remains of decent size both there and the Pentagon...

The evidence for this is overwhelming. It is understandable that not many people agree with this, it would be an assumption that the US government is not to be trusted. But it is a reasonable assumption indeed.

The government had no conspiracy to cause the attack. Their response, however, was horribly incompetent. They should have been able to limit the damage to the loss of the hijacked planes, by shooting down the planes when the hijackers refused to communicate.

The government's use of the attack to justify attacking Iraq, which was not involved, was criminal.

yes i do agree that we should keep it open becuse it is really cool and the people that want to close it are gay! :D


-garret jackson Chinook Middle School 8th grade Bellevue, Washington

Perhaps we need another question here too, namely, that should be close it because it's ethically wrong or simply because it's bad marketing? McCain seems to imply the latter with:

"Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib have harmed our reputation in the world, thereby harming our ability to win the psychological part of the war against radical Islamic extremism."