When the Evil of Terrorism is Lost in the Moral Debate of It, the Fight is Lost.
Reader comment on item: Washington Protects the Terror Masters
in response to reader comment: Response to Ynnatchkah

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Nov 20, 2007 at 21:34

What a dilemma we find ourselves in, that the moral compass necessary for the leading free country of the current world stage is like the compass in that popular American pirate movie, being stuck and leading us to a place we do not really want to go. Following that course leads many to a place that holds great fortune, but at what cost? Those that rely on terrorism want that great fortune, and are willing to sacrifice anything to obtain it. Those who are in leadership of the free world and should be seeking the higher calling of the greater good for all humanity, are falling short of that calling, and sometimes resort to questionable tactics, thereby calling into the question the real motives.

What is at stake? And what are any willing to risk to achieve the honorable goals? What real talk is there of peace? And what of the American ideal of freedom and the pursuit of happiness; is there any consensus as to what any of the world inhabitants really want? The latest resounding answer appears to be, no. Islam runs rough shod over Judaism in order to contradict Christianity; Hinduism debates Buddhism and Sikhism for a better path to reach some form of higher humanity, and all the rest wrestle in their own fashion to their own form of morality, and a vicious cycle is formed out of all of it to produce every variety of motivation to try and influence their version of the world.

America lost its primary sense of moral guidance when the US Supreme Court struck out the very source of America's spiritual strength, taking the Bible and prayer out of the public government realm, resulting in a series of errant governmental decision-making that plagues the United States today. In light of that, if one thinks that the Iran-contra fiasco was bad and caused America grief then, it pales in stark contrast to the issues that face America today. Further, to make out like the Iran issue of then is like anything America faces with Iran today, the main difference is that Nicaragua was not being dealt with in a nuclear environment.

Another main difference in the situation being debated here is that even though methods are corrupted in achieving some sort of equity for the under privileged of the world, the United States has not said that they will wipe any country of the face of the map, such as the President of Iran did to the chorus of applause of likeminded thinkers. In the face of his new found friendship with western hemisphere allies, one wonders what that will produce in moral guidance.

Terrorism finds itself in the center of the debate, not as the point that needs to be argued against, but as the means to make the argument of the terrorists' position. It is now the main bargaining chip, to be played, like the ‘Palestinians' did to achieve their stated goal of eliminating Israel and establishing a ‘Palestinian' homeland, which unlike Israel, never before existed. If one wishes to take the high moral road and explain why all the world tacitly follows President Ahmadinejad's argument and is looking at Israel to capitulate to terrorist demands for the ultimate concession, this is the debate that needs a moral resolution before it becomes, unlike Nicaragua, nuclear. Who is ready to take the high road on that?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.