jb814 wrote:
No problem. Much the same conclusion as I reached regarding the sites associated with your links.
I'd like it if the inquisitorial days when looking at both sides of a matter were behind us. It seems though that "if you aren't for us, you're against us" is what most people are happiest with.
Oh for Pete's sake, you hooked me into responding once more.
Look, sometimes there are circumstances in which it is unconscionable to stand around insisting that both sides get fair consideration. There are times when not taking a side is not only cowardly but also morally indefensible.
Slavery and the Holocaust would be two examples that most people would agree upon today. Paradoxically, that was hardly the case at the time, or neither situation would have stood for a moment. Many people attempted to look at them as issues with two debatable sides.
Many people see terrorism, like the attacks in New York, London, Madrid, etc. as equally morally indefensible. When that is the case, history tells us that the only viable resolution is to eliminate those who practice atrocity and those who harbor them.
"Many people" can, of course, be wrong. You, then, have to decide whether or not you agree that what has happened in those cities and in so many places around the world can be allowed to continue or not. If you choose based on fear that involvement will bring the same on your own head, then, I'm afraid, your motivation is unacceptable.