I've come across at least a couple of people who seem to feel it is appropriate to hate those that perpetrated the attack last tuesday. Denouncing them, declaring war on them, killing them all seem fine to me, but do we have to hate them too? I'd have more to say, but I don't want to skew the results of my poll! So....
But you already did, man! I'd say I completely agree with you, but I don't want to skew the results of your poll .
I think the keyword is "should"....it's hard as hell not to.. ....but ya know, for example, list all the peolple you were taught that you SHOULD hate...ya see what I mean?
I don't know that it's "appropriate", but I don't think its inappropriate either, because hate is a natural human emotion. What is unfortunate is the spread of this hatred/need for retribution to other innocents, such as the Afghani citizens who hate these terrorists as much as anyone here does.
I pity them more then hate. They are misguided and brainwashed. I think they have no real concept of what America is all about, they think we are the enemy, when we are the most tolerant nation on the earth. The thing I don't get is all the muslim leaders that support terrorism, don't they see that if they whiped out the Christians and the Jews and the Buddhists, that they would turn on their own? I mean the radicals kill innocent muslims too, it is appalling, and what is even more appalling is what we have to do to stabilize the world. Hatred and war have defined the world for centuries, and until we all have a better understanding of each other it will continue to do so.... DaDakota
It's natural. But should it be an emotion that one rids oneself of to the greatest extent possible? As far as I can tell, no good ever comes of it. Hate seems to corrupt, to lead to indiscriminant punishment, and justify terrible things. Hate serves little purpose. Anger may fuel resolve, but hate simply clouds one's judgement. I can't help but think of all the perpetual cycles of violence in the world and think... perhaps there was a "just" cause for retribution at one point. But the hate poisoned justice, and left us with nihilistic turmoil. I was once fascinated by a discussion about hate between Jerry Falwell and Alan Dershowitz (sp). Dershowitz said we need to embrace our hatred: he professed to hate Nazis, racists, etc. Falwell argued the opposite, for religious reasons. What was so interesting to me, was that I agreed with Falwell for different reasons than he professed... and that those reasons applied to him as well, ironically. Falwell is the type of person that I used to "hate": self-righteous, small-minded, and reactionary. But Falwell comes from a specific context, as do we all. To him, his beliefs and ideals make perfect sense. Without understanding that context, one can hate: but such is blind. Once I came to understand him a little more, i disapproved... and disliked... but I couldn't hate. To me, hatred seems to imply absolute freedom of will. One can only truly hate fairly if the other person is completely and utterly responsible for who they are, and they're maliciously choosing to do what's wrong. I don't believe that's possible, except in the theological case of Satan (whom I don't believe in, incidentally).
I agree with the 'should' reference. Enemies, in my mind, are not like Robert Downey, Jr. You know what I mean? The public 'SHOULD' hate Robert Downey jr. but they don't. Just when you try and hate him he goes and gets on Alley McEatsomethingbitch and revitalizes his career as a luvable drug-head. Then he does some more blow, gets slammed back in the hole and gets released to the open arms of the public. FYI-for those sports fans out there remove 'Robert Downe Jr.' and replace with Daryl Strawberry' and remove 'gets on Alley McEatsomethingbitch' and replace with'gets cancer' clm
What differentiates an innocent from a not so innocent. Anyone who works for the government? Someone in the military? Someone who produces gun handles for the military? I think that line is a little vaque. So who can really make that determination in a time of war. Sometimes the civilians can pull a gun on you just as fast a the military rep. This whole argument about who is innocent and not so innocent a victim is very difficult to determine.
But the same logic can be used to justify incidents like the WTC tragedy. Suppose someone from Liberia is outraged that the industrialized world is supplying the weapons and fuelling a war zone with diamond and black sand consumption. Let's assume he wants the war to stop. Since the US has repeatedly refused to ratify international treaties concerning light-arms, according to this logic he's justified in blowing up a light-arm production facility in the US, since those arms are produced with the full knowledge that they'll eventually arrive in Liberia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe, Columbia, etc. Civilians are killed... but all he wanted to do was destroy the enemy's infrastructure of war. The US employs this policy itself when we dump bombs on Hussein's weapon-producing facilities. They weren't so innocent; they were producing weapons of war. Civilian casualties are acceptable. Ok, then terrorism is simply a weapon of the weak against the strong. They can't declare war and send in the stealth bombers, so they strike as possible. I don't accept this. But the only way to undermine this logic is by denying the legitimacy of attacks upon civilian targets entirely. Sometimes it's going to happen; but if civilian's aren't "innocent," then we have no rubric for legitimizing various enterprises. In this case, there is "only power, " not justice.
