You are running together recklessness and negligence and accidental.
Unforeseeable consequences, or anyway unforeseeable victims, are merely
accidental. Doing something that has bad and unintended consquences that are
unforeseeable is merely bad luck, not culpable. If a reasonable person would
have known better, that means the victim was foreseeable, and I have been
negligent. If the danger was foreseeable and known and I didn't care, I was
reckless.
>
> >you
> > are in the wrong neighborhood, Luke, if you think this is the hidey-hole
> >of > > the relativist pomo academic left who is afraid to criticize
>female >genital> > mutilation or whatever because it done by Other
>Cultures.
>
>I never thought nor implied that.
Good.
>
> >
I believe as you do that if the US had never
>set foot in the Middle East, the likelihood of an event comparable to 9-11
>occurring would be miniscule. However, there appears to be a far greater
>hatred of American imperialism than the sort practiced by our former Soviet
>counterparts.
You mean, hatred by Muslim fundamentalists? That's because the US supports
Israel's occupation, sends troops into Saudoi, attacks, Iraq, etc., and the
Soviets didn't. If the USSR had survived, they might have gotten some static
because of their support for the Gulf War. There is some evidence that their
atrocities in Chechnya have led to terrorist attacks in Moscow,if those were
not provocations caused by the FSB (former KGB).
.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm
>
>I don't think my point is all that controversial: the attacks cannot be
>understood only in the context of either Islamic extremism or US foreign
>policy. Some combination of the two is necessary.
>
Sure.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp