> Nathan Newman wrote:
> What you said was that the intent of the terrorists was justified, but you
> disagreed with their strategy. Leo is right that you are a morally
outside
> of any political comradeship with me.
-Imagine a man who is from a poor country. The country has little in the way -of technology, money, world influence, or military might. Imagine the man -has had his wife and all his children killed by American bombs. What should -he feel? What should he do? How should he go through his life? What kind of -thoughts would you allow him? If you met him on a street and he said he -hated you because you were an America, would you understand?
Jim and others are not from poor countries and have all sorts of resources. They are the ones I condemn. I am not making a big fetish of condemning a few angry Palestinians in the West Bank, even though I think they are suicidal politically, but condemning the "explainers" of mass murder. I don't even condemn all terrorism-if its aim it to deter greater death and is effective, it may be as moral as any weapon of war.
But proportion does matter for moral action, even in war, and the WTC attack is outside all bounds where moral explanation applies or anger can justify it. Almost all Arab and Palestinian leaders globally understand this and have unequivocably condemned the attacks and haven't sought to attach "I told you sos" to such a disproportionate act that can have no relation to justified anger. Unfortunately, some of their so-called supporters don't understand this basic moral issue. And the tragedy is they will thereby harm the very cause they supposedly defend.
-- Nathan Newman