Neil Faulkner wrote:
Mistral (thinking that, contrary to the subject line, terrorism is really not off-topic here)
Any comparison with Star One and its supposed rights or wrongs strikes me as facile against the appalling reality.
Actually, I wasn't referring to Star One at all, though I think it's a perfectly legitimate comparison. I was speaking more generally to the idea of how far do you go in support of what's right, and the differences between individuals and cultures in the idea of what right *is*. I have spent the last couple of days listening to Americans saying things like "what sort of sick, twisted monsters could attack innocent civilians?" (or, alternatively, "could celebrate the deaths of innocents by dancing in the streets"). Frankly, I am more than a little annoyed at both the cultural arrogance and the ignorance demonstrated by these questions.
Modern Arab attitudes cannot be understood without some grasp of traditional Islamic influence any more than modern U.S. attitudes can be understood without some grasp of Christianity and Judaism. Osama bin Laden and his ilk may be at the extreme end of the acting-out scale, but he is a predictable product of his culture; he embodies certain deep-rooted and traditional attitudes and ideals. [Please note that this is not the same as saying all Arabs or Moslems are potential terrorists.] It doesn't bother me when people *disagree* with another culture; it does however bother me when people don't understand the *concept* of a different culture, and that perfectly sane and rational people can have *completely* different ideas of what right and wrong are.
If one reflects that (1) the terrorists consider themselves at war with the West generally, and the US specifically; (2) the entire idea of non-combatants in war is both very recent historically, and Western in origin; (3) certain traditional cultural views in the Mideast are particularly bloodthirsty [also please note that I am not making any particular moral judgements about bloodthirstiness] it should not be difficult to grasp the idea that a certain segment of the Arab world would not only approve but celebrate these events. It does not make them sick; it simply indicates they are not Westernized.
And when one stops to think that Osama bin Laden and others like him consider that US involvement in Mideast affairs has been a foot on the throat of the Arab peoples for decades, it isn't such a stretch to realize that bin Laden is, in the eyes of many, a freedom fighter like Blake; and to those who believe in that way, the bombing of the World Trade Center and government buildings is exactly analogous to the destruction of Star One (it has demoralized, it has affected the economy, it has shut down many government services [albeit more temporarily than the destruction of Star One]. It has killed many, many people). Being able to see from the enemy's viewpoint doesn't diminish our tragedy, but it would be more likely to lead us to prevent future tragedies than stubbornly clinging to the idea that our culture is the only one that must be taken into account. [BTW, talking about USAns as a group here, not you.]
As far as facility, I think you underestimate both the amount of thought I have put into my position re Star One, and my natural sympathy for the difficulty inherent in being a member of a traditionalistic cultural minority in the modern world.
Mistral