[mburbank]

"Excuse me, but weren't you the one who said "In certain rich parts of the world, we have moved our barbarity to less viceral, more removed practices, because our technology and economy allow it"?

Are you not equating us with them? Perhaps I'm wrong and you could clarify things for me. "
-Kevin the Definer

I love to clarify.

If you think that any time 'Us' do anything 'them' do, it is an equation, fine. Many of them have hair on their heads, as do we. Obviously I 'see no difference between them'. In the sentence you quote, I not similarities and differences, which you may agree with or not as you like. I say we share barbarity, but use different methodology. You say 'they' choose this. Maybe, to some degree. But then, we often 'choose' to use weapons that kill civillians after the fact, and weapon like Napalm and white phosphorus, whose aim is to be terrifying. I believe, strategically, we like the viceral nature of such weapons. When we employ 'shock and awe'. The brutality of the words isn't coincidental, it's intentional. A simililarity, NOT an equation. They believe God gives them the right to do to anyone not practicing their brand of Islam whatever we choose. We are far more retrospect in wether our rights to engage in pre-emptive war comes from God we are demure, less convinced. Most of our citizens even believe that everyone, everyone on earth has certain inallienable rights, and that has to be a HUGE difference.

If you want to adopt as personal philosiphy "You're with us or against us" you should feel free to do so, but I have more respect for your intelligence. I think when you do that, you don't really believe it, it's just a convenient place to argue from.

Would you... whatever the opposite of equate is? Would you say that there are NO similarities between 'us' and 'them', that our behavior on the global stage is without reproach, unimprovable, as 'good' as they are 'evil'? I doubt it. It would be a far easier place to argue with you from, but it would also be beneath me to pretend I thought that's what you'd said.

" That doesn't mean there isn't a great big gap between what we do and what they do. Again, from the tone of this paragraph, you seem to disagree with that. Perhaps you can clarify. "

I don't think I need to. You infer more than I imply. You quoted two paragraphs from me, one in which I talk about the similarities between us and one in which I talk about the differnces, going so far as to say I loathe some of their... cultural differences. You make the choice to see those two paragraphs as an equation. I doubt any mathematician would do the same.

You say the difference between us has never been crystal clear and never will be. I think if we obeyed our own laws, the differnces between us would be a LOT clearer. I think we have the capacity to make the differnces a LOT clearer. You don't. I think it's something we should strive for with every fiber of our national being. That 'never will be' line sounds to my ear more equivative than anything I've said.

I think I'm quite clear. I think it is your rhetorical habit to take things you disagree with and treat them as muddy and bizare or boil them down to the p;oint of meaninglessness.

"What relevance does (insert bad thing America did that's like terrorism) have in comparison to beheading journalists, executing those who pray differently, and enslaving women?"

Okay, how about for my insert, I choose 'cynically funding the religous/paramilitary groups that believe all those things as a hedge against the soviets and other gulf oil interests?' That seems relevant to me. or 'supporting and arming brutal, repressive military strongmen and regimes." Now, is that as bad as personally sawing someones head off? No. I do not equate those two things. But is one relevant to the other? Do you think there's NO relevance? Is that all the choices to you, total equation or irrelivance?

"Do we sit in paralysis over what terrible people we are, or do we stop the enemy? "
-Kevin the Bush

Do we establish a peaceful, democratic middle east, or cut and run and allow the terrorists to kill us all?

Thank goodness those aren't the choices.

What if I said to you

"Do we abandon every single thing America has ever stood for, or do we achieve peace?"

It's a meaningless question, a rhetorical sham. So was yours. Are we 'stopping the enemy'? That's a desired conclusion, not to be confused with a plan. Do you, like Rick Santorum, think this is "The Lord of the Rings"?

I don't think we are the same. And I do think there is an enemy. But that enemy is hidden amongst lots of people who are not the enemy yet. And more complicated still, the 'enemy' is not a defined group of people you can kill, it's a spectrum of belief, attitude, and emoitional response of at very least a third of the world. I don't believe what we are doing has any chance of 'stopping' them. I do believe we are making more of them. And, while I don't find us equivical, I think demonizing the enemy, while perhaps apt, is useful. I think it is counterproductive. Beliefs like that have a way of spreading. I think it's the poisonous nature of that way of thinking that allows them to kill with such abandon. After all, we're the enemy, we're all evil and an affront to God, so it's okay, it's GOOD to butcher us. I don't want us to be like that. I don't think we need to be, and I don't think we should get any closer to that mindset.

I am arguing for us to be as different from the enemy as we can be. AND I think we can do a better job of 'stopping' the enemy by being MORE different. I think spending a lot of time thinking about how much better, more civilized, more human we are than the enemy and how whatever 'dark side' we go to it will never be as bad as those 'evil doers' only makes us more equivalent. And I want to be less equivalent. I hope I've clarified things.

Now you can say "So your for the terrorists." because quite obviously, I am.