Friday, July 29, 2005

Name a nail?

This post at Protein Wisdom did side-step one significant issue.

I've read more than one interview with a terrorist in which the terrorist claims that the US lacks the moral high ground to complain about terrorism, since the US has been responsible for the largest single attack against civilians designed to achieve a political outcome (ending WWII by dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

(Apparently Osama taught his followers to make this claim.)

An American who understands history might immediately respond with, "Yes we did that, but that's different!". And we'd be right.

But America has not recently provided the international community with a well-reasoned and careful explanation as to why we'd be right. And the US needs to make a timely reply to Osama and his followers.

Part of the answer should be that America's killing of innocents was to stop aggression. This is unlike Radical Islam which seeks to be the aggressor to spread its social order.

Part of the answer should be that the number of innocents killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was so small compared to the death toll of WWII. This is unlike the Al-Queda attack on 9/11 which was an atypically large incident in the battle between America and Radical Islam, or the terrorism against Israel which is commeasurate with Israel's military reprisals.

And part of the answer should be that much of America regrets what happened, especially with the better perspective that time provides. This is unlike the social climate of Radical Islam, in which terrorists exalt in the killing they do.

Update: Much more information here.