> Kelley wrote:
>
>> you have CC and others trying to find ways to dismiss what they did as
>> somehow justified because they are angr people, angry at US policies.
>
>
> "Collateral damage," says CC of the dead. In what war, he didn't specify.
>
i dont want to speak for carrol cox here, but if i remember his posts right: 1) isnt the use of "collateral damage" used in a sarcastic sense to show how the military describes loss of lives elsewhere? 2) has anyone actually said 9/11 is *justified*? there have been calls for dismissing the event, but the reasons specified were that this is the reality of the rest of the world (to summarize poorly). both (1) and (2) seem to be intended to bring our focus back to the realities of the larger problems we have to address. if "collateral damage" as a reason for 9/11 victims makes us angry, and it also angers us when used as justification for other victims in other attacks, then it is all the more important to keep focused on this class of problem and try to come up with solutions. of course you may already believe that you have a solution, as contained in western style democracy with some limited action skirmishes and retribution, and so it is only important to choose the right action as prescribed by this solution. that then is the debate.
of course i do not in any way wish to imply that doug or kelley in particular think that a solution (especially as described above) has been arrived at.
--ravi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- man is said to be a rational animal. i do not know why he has not been defined as an affective or feeling animal. more often i have seen a cat reason than laugh or weep. perhaps it weeps or laughs inwardly - but then perhaps, also inwardly, the crab resolves equations of the 2nd degree. -- alasdair macintyre.