Not all uses of force are morally equivalent. Intentionally murdering 5,000
people without provocation -- other than the very existence of Western
culture, capitalism and American supremacy in a world where the alternative
was latter-day Stalinism -- is not the same thing as using force, even
erroneously, in an effort to prevent such an attack from recurring or to
eliminate the killers.
Those who harbor and provide sanctuary and support for terrorists will
continue to do so unless they fear the consequences sufficiently to stop.
It is a moral and legitimate use of force to provide adequate disincentives
for would-be abetters of terrorism (i.e. if I help these guys I sympathize
with I or those I care about will die), even if the targets portray
themselves as innocent victims and (predictably) deny any participation in
the wrongdoing. I hope they feel a paralyzing approach-avoidance conflict
toward helping the bin Ladens of the world deeply and I hope they feel it
soon. And we should not have any moral qualms (which is a different issue
from practical reservations) about doing whatever is necessary to create
adequate disincentives to abetting terrorism.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Cimino" <evopsych@HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <PERCY-L@listserv.lsu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 9:53 PM
Subject: Horribilism
> In this war we wage on horribilism we must thwart any potential
horribilist
> acts, rip apart the network of horribilists, and never underestimate the
> very real threat that is our enemy and the horror they can inflict.
>
>
>
> Is there any person or group which uses violent force in order to
intimidate
> not...terrible? Or do you have to be from the Middle East? What a weird
term
> this "terrorism".
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 22 2002 - 20:15:02 EDT