----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 6:40 AM
Subject: Re: Only 26 Years Ago in Vietnam - Equality Principle


> Let me get this straight Brad, Osama bin Laden and the attacks on the
> WTC are examples of Kantian "moral retributionsim (sic) at work in the
> universe"?

Difficult to say what the motive was behind this act. The WTC was a symbol
and center of the world's largest corporations. It was not solely a US
asset. I think it was an easy target and that was why it was attacked.

As far as the motive is concerned, I suspect that the 'suicide bombers'
believed that the US, or the owners of the WTC, were 'deserving' of the
attack. This act looks suspiciously like an act of 'moral retribution'
against the US. I suspect also that there are some nations, and persons,
that do not like Americans. In the past the Americans have been hated by up
to 49 nations: USSR, China, etc., ad finitum. Canadians on the other hand
are liked by all nations. We don't threaten them....we just sell everything
we own to them, even give the shirts off our backs. We work with Cuba too.

However killing over 400,000 innocent civilians in Vietnam (1961-1964) using
white phosphorous, napalm, agent orange, bombs, other agents of warfare no
other nation would use, does not look like 'moral retribution'. I suspect
that the example of the Americans being in Vietnam may fit some other
category of acts....other than retribution. Maybe like the holocaust, moral
abdication, utter evil.

At one point the US supported the Taliban giving it $2 billion in defense
funds, training. Then in the late 90's, the US began using Tomahawk missiles
in a siege that lasted 71 days bombing Afghanistan in an attempt to kill
Osama bin Laden. I suspect this was why the WTC may have been targeted by
Osama bin Laden or some other organization. Actually Osama bin Laden was an
agent of the US during the period when the USSR was trying to attack
Afghanistan. Osama was a CIA agent....

chao

john

>
> About all I can say, Are you serious?
>
> Steven
>
> But the proper response to this hypothesis
> is that there are always people willing to
> believe anything, however implausible, merely
> in order to be contrary.
>                              Vikram Seth
>                              A Suitable Boy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of brad bartholomew
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 6:11 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Only 26 Years Ago in Vietnam - Equality Principle
>
>
> No doubt most of you are thinking that John and I are
> doing some self-righteous rant of our own with this
> Vietnam stuff. Vietnam ended 26 years ago so let's
> forgive and forget. (ie forgive ourselves and forget
> what we did)
>
> Trouble is outrageous events in history have a nasty
> habit of repeating themselves.
>
> Just a couple of months ago George W. came out onto
> the White House lawn and anounced to a relieved world
> that the Taliban had been routed and the warlords had
> been reinstated in power in Afghanistan. "Ah," said a
> relieved world "the warlords - thank God for that."
>
> Last time I heard talk of warlords was at school
> learning about the Chinese revolution. The US was
> supporting Chiang Kai Shek and the warlords in their
> fight against Mao Tse Tung.
>
> I don't know the pedigree of these warlords but I
> imagine they are just the most successful gangsters in
> the district who got there by being more violent and
> ruthless than anyone else and have taken unto themself
> the grandiose title of warlord.
>
> The only thing that can be said in their favor is that
> they will not commit acts of terrorism against the US
> provided the US keeps feeding money into their Swiss
> bank accounts.
>
> There can not be the slightest doubt that these
> warlords are being paid for it. The trouble is that it
> is actually the US who is on its back with its legs
> open faking an orgasm. This is not a sustainable way
> for a prostitute to earn a living.
>
> Suppose Kant is right and there is some principle of
> moral retributionsim at work in the universe. Then
> this may be the answer to this ridiculously naive
> question that the yanks are asking "Why us? Why does
> Osama bin Laden hate us so much?"
>
> It was only the Christian world that breathed a sigh
> of relief at the news that the warlords were back.
> >From the Muslim point of view this is yet another
> reason why the US is the Great Satan. It gives Osama
> bin Laden a further reason for calling for Jihad.
>
> This moral retributionsim of Kant's could also account
> for the escalation of extremism amongst the
> Palestinians.
>
> If Kant is right then the primary ethic of US
> capitalism is wrong - "you can get away with anything
> as long as your bomb is bigger than the next guys."
>
> Regards,
> Brad
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/