Advocating for the Devil Hearing Al-Qaeda's Case Against the United States
نویسنده
چکیده
[1] Since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, nearly every angle of these events has been explored in print, pertaining to everything from the individuals and nations involved to the political and historical precursors and ongoing social ramifications of the attacks. Yet few writers have seriously analyzed the actual arguments that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have used (or might use) to defend their actions. Even some of the most thoughtful pieces I have read take it for granted that the attacks were morally unjustifiable, even atrocities. Some writers, such as Noam Chomsky, have dared to propose that we had it coming, due, for example, to the history of U.S. foreign policy, but in the end all seem to agree that the attacks are beyond rational defense. (Chomsky himself called the attack an "appalling atrocity"). The question of the moral justifiability of the attacks, it is assumed, is not even worth asking.
منابع مشابه
How Can a Global Social Support System Hope to Achieve Fairer Competiveness?; Comment on “A Global Social Support System: What the International Community Could Learn From the United States’ National Basketball Association”
Ooms et al sets out some good general principles for a global social support system to improve fairer global competitiveness as a result of redistribution. This commentary sets out to summarize some of the conditions that would need to be satisfied for it to level up gradients in inequality through such a social support system, using the National Basketball Association (NBA) example as a point ...
متن کاملThe United States Sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran; from Unilateralism to Violations of International Human Rights
Today, the global system is formed based on multilateralism, which is based on international relations and the origin of international organizations and institutions. But this matter is endangered by the unilateralism pursued by the United States of America. Coercive unilateral measures such as sanctions, threats, military intervention, and even measures such as withdrawal from international tr...
متن کامل“Hearing from All Sides” How Legislative Testimony Influences State Level Policy-Makers in the United States
Background This paper investigates whether state legislators find testimony influential, to what extent testimony influences policy-makers’ decisions, and defines the features of testimony important in affecting policy-makers’ decisions. Methods We used a mixed method approach to analyze responses from 862 state-level legislators in the United States (U.S.). Data were collected via a phone su...
متن کاملRole of FDG-PET/CT in Assessing the Correlation Between Blood Pressure and Myocardial Metabolic Uptake
Objective(s): We aimed to assess the association between blood pressure and LV myocardial uptake of FDG, hypothesizing that subjects with raised blood pressure would have higher FDG uptake. Methods: We analyzed 86 healthy controls who underwent PET/CT imaging 180 minutes following FDG (4 MBq/Kg) administration. LV myocardial analysis was perf...
متن کامل