It's been suggested that maybe this OP belongs here in the History forum. Not sure. A small exchange has already developed re this OP elsewhere on this board. So I leave it to the mods to determine whether this OP is already in the right spot, or whether it's better here, or whether the possibility that two different fruitful exchanges might develop thus warrants leaving it in both spots.

Anyway, here goes, for some thoughts on 9/11 and its possible "pedigree":

I know there was never any other time in my life when the palpable sense of something intrinsically malevolent and twisted so shadowed me as in the immediate aftermath of that day. When I saw the wreckage of flight 93, the two towers collapsing, the fire at the Pentagon, the wrenching sobs from loved ones caught on camera, and so much else, I felt more acutely than ever before or since the strong presence of something both ancient and powerful that engulfed us, that negated our humanity, reducing human beings to so many dots on a graph. I've never since been able to view the term "collateral damage" in the same way I once did. At one time, I viewed the term as a callous one coined by impersonal insulated "suits" tucked far away from danger. But now, in the shadow of the fire from downtown, and in the thousand faces in a thousand pictures in shrines set up all over town, there were suddenly faces to that damage. It was not the "collateral" from the mouths of "suits" that now gripped me. Now, it was the real humanity of the "damage" that gripped me.

What spurs any person to contemplate any kind of action that coolly sets at naught the humanity of thousands? This is what 9/11 is, and even though it will not be the last cold-blooded massacre, it will always be the one that I will view as emblematic of a sickening capacity to devalue human beings. Is there really, as some believers say, a palpable demon, call it Satan or whatever, that feeds the egos of some and nourishes sick fantasies which place one at the center of all reality, as if you are all that matters, and that reject any notion that "the other" may count too? It even seems as if actions bred out of that sickness will include any of the reactions against it, as if even those reactions cannot escape the tentacles of this sickness, once it has been loosed. The sick fantasies, whether from a Satan figure or whatever, somehow help rig up a new "normal" in which even any struggle against the results of these fantasies is impossible without also inadvertently buying into the very same notion that "the other" doesn't count. Merely the personnel get changed when it comes to who "the other" is.

I never felt this chill of something so terribly ancient and hungry so palpably as I did in those days right after 9/11. I know that 9/11 is hardly the first time that actions born out of a devaluation of whole masses of humanity have "exploded" into being. But as the tenth anniversary of 9/11 nears, I'm recalling that sense of chill all over again, and I find myself seriously studying the trail of those "explosions" throughout human history. What I'm studying is hardly exhaustive, but the small corners in history that I am studying reveal a continual pattern of action and reaction going back thousands of years, with links right down to the present day.

One thinks of the way in which a strictly symbolic understanding of the different aspects of all human endeavor, from study/contemplation to protecting one's people to economic development to physical labor, as presented through strictly symbolic poetry in the ancient Indian Rig-Veda, morphs in the first millennium b.c.e. into a social strait-jacket of four social sectors throughout ancient India, thanks to unscrupulous manipulation by those only interested in power. Given these four sectors -- the brahmins as the "students", the kshatriyas as the "protectors", the vaishyas as the "developers", the shudra as the "laborers" -- whole families are thus only allowed to pursue one each of these four endeavors for countless ghetto-ized generations, and an arbitrary hierarchy even places these four sectors on a grid from most superior to most inferior. Enter the birth-based caste system imposed by the brahmins of ancient India. Thus is a whole sector of humanity, those families virtually imprisoned in the "lowest" sector, devalued, with any lives of dignity pre-empted from birth.

Then Brhaspati, founder of Lokayata materialism in the 7th century b.c.e., rejects the caste system and the horse it rode in on -- all Vedic beliefs in the divine as promulgated by the brahmins -- but he can not escape the impersonal psychology let loose in the notion of birth-based caste, though deploring caste itself. Instead, his doctrine rejects any moral obligation to feed the indigent or shelter the traveler, thus again dividing the "thinker" from "the other", who is again devalued. His ideas travel to ancient Greece (see http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available ... 156333.pdf), where Diagoras -- disappointed in a lack of retribution against a bitterly hated rival -- and Critias -- seeking to arbitrarily remake all Athens in his own image and abolishing democracy -- pick up the notion that not only doesn't the divine exist but all human beings are purely objects to be impersonally distributed and arranged according to whim: "If anyone among you thinks that more people than is fitting are being put to death, let him reflect that where governments are changed these things always take place" (Critias in Xenophon's Hellenica, early 4th century, b.c.e.). So Critias shrugs off wholesale and cold-blooded extermination.

Greece introduces many fine things to humanity, but it also introduces -- to Rome and elsewhere -- this cruelly refined cynicism and skepticism duly found in the Critiases of its culture and then adopted by conquering Rome as it overpowers all in its path. When the Pax Romana is enforced to the point of nailing a certain gentle carpenter to the cross (30 c.e.), even that carpenter's later followers can not let go of the urge to devalue "the other", once they gain cultural ascendancy, with their initial raids on Jewish synagogues during the Emperor Theodosius and then culminating in the extreme cruelty of Pope Gregory IX (13th century c.e.), who is the initiator of the Inquisition and also the first to make persecution of the Jews official church policy rather than merely winking at it, as well as the first to establish official support in canon law for slavery (Corpus Iuris Canonici). The scourge of slavery whose horrors even extend into the New World, landing there in 1619, might never have held "legitimacy" for so long, short of this canon law imprimatur from Gregory IX.

Small wonder that a religious institution so subverted by such a man should later spur on a secret rejection from one clergyman so vehement that the very notion of the divine is not only rejected, but a whole class of people repudiated as worth nothing but instant death: "that all the great of this world and all the nobles be hanged and strangled with the guts of the priests." (Jean Meslier, Mon Testament, ca. 1720). Wholesale genocide thus enters the human lexicon as a "philosophy" once more, just as it is momentarily in Critias's day, rather than merely an untidy practice of tyrants and conquerors cloaked in euphemistic terms (conquest, victory, etc.). That "philosophy" lives on in Robespierre's worst excesses during the Reign of Terror (many don't know that Robespierre -- unlike Meslier -- remains a theist through all this), in the "Final Solution" for the German Jewry of Hitler's day, in Stalin's gulags, in the gratuitous Nagasaki bombing, in the Cambodian killing fields, in the Rwandan genocide, or in the fulminations from Osama Bin Laden, leading directly to the massacres on 9/11.

This is the continuing pedigree of the malevolent and twisted presence whose ancient shadow I sensed so palpably around us in the streets of Manhattan in the wake of 9/11. Are we doomed always to have that shadow over us?

Stein

Stein wrote:
What spurs any person to contemplate any kind of action that coolly sets at naught the humanity of thousands? This is what 9/11 is, and even though it will not be the last cold-blooded massacre, it will always be the one that I will view as emblematic of a sickening capacity to devalue human beings.

Hi.
The above more-or-less sums-up your feelings on the issue, I think, so I'll just comment on this...

This issue all boils down to right and wrong and what actions are justified. For instance, we might talk about the Japanese being synonymous with evil/wrong in WW2, but then America (synonymous with good/right) went and nuked Japan, justifying its action within the context of protecting the lives of American soldiers. Yet, I can assure you that if you had been a survivor of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, that you'd probably have had very-similar feelings to the ones you describe in your own post. After all, the devastation in those places - to civilians/children - was [approximately] a 100 times greater than what happened on 9/11.

So, was America justified in nuking Japan? Rather, is any action justified for the sake of the 'greater good'?

I'm certainly of the opinion that nuking Berlin in the early 1940's would have been justified. Yet, there would have been countless suffering involved for the innocent. What's relevant/interesting here, though, is whether a survivor of such an attack would have had the same negative reactions described by yourself. That is, would nuking Berlin in the early 1940's really have been an act of evil? I don't think so, given the destruction/suffering wreaked by the nazis, overall.

Returning to the theme of 9/11, we have to consider that there are people who consider America and The West in general to be a 'great evil'. We don't have to agree with them, but we have to acknowledge how they feel. As such, they think/thought that 9/11 was as justified as, say, bombing Berlin would have been in the early 40's.

The bottom-line? There's no evil, per se - there are only beliefs which give rise to actions which are justified in the mind of the beholder because, of course, his/her beliefs are right/true. Either everything destructive is evil, or nothing at all. That's my opinion, anyway. Cheers.

jamest wrote:

Stein wrote:
What spurs any person to contemplate any kind of action that coolly sets at naught the humanity of thousands? This is what 9/11 is, and even though it will not be the last cold-blooded massacre, it will always be the one that I will view as emblematic of a sickening capacity to devalue human beings.

Hi.
The above more-or-less sums-up your feelings on the issue, I think, so I'll just comment on this...

This issue all boils down to right and wrong and what actions are justified. For instance, we might talk about the Japanese being synonymous with evil/wrong in WW2, but then America (synonymous with good/right) went and nuked Japan, justifying its action within the context of protecting the lives of American soldiers. Yet, I can assure you that if you had been a survivor of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, that you'd probably have had very-similar feelings to the ones you describe in your own post. After all, the devastation in those places - to civilians/children - was [approximately] a 100 times greater than what happened on 9/11.

So, was America justified in nuking Japan? Rather, is any action justified for the sake of the 'greater good'?

I'm certainly of the opinion that nuking Berlin in the early 1940's would have been justified. Yet, there would have been countless suffering involved for the innocent. What's relevant/interesting here, though, is whether a survivor of such an attack would have had the same negative reactions described by yourself. That is, would nuking Berlin in the early 1940's really have been an act of evil? I don't think so, given the destruction/suffering wreaked by the nazis, overall.

Returning to the theme of 9/11, we have to consider that there are people who consider America and The West in general to be a 'great evil'. We don't have to agree with them, but we have to acknowledge how they feel. As such, they think/thought that 9/11 was as justified as, say, bombing Berlin would have been in the early 40's.

The bottom-line? There's no evil, per se - there are only beliefs which give rise to actions which are justified in the mind of the beholder because, of course, his/her beliefs are right/true. Either everything destructive is evil, or nothing at all. That's my opinion, anyway. Cheers.

I don't see how what you're saying is any different from what I'm saying. I even single out the attack on Nagasaki as another clear example of this urge to devalue human beings. So evidently, you didn't even bother reading my entire post before going off half-cocked.

Tell you what: Next time you want to respond to anything I post, try reading what I write instead of wasting everyone's time.

Stein

Stein wrote:
I don't see how what you're saying is any different from what I'm saying.

Really? So where in your ultra-long ramble did you say:

jamest wrote:
There's no evil, per se - there are only beliefs which give rise to actions which are justified in the mind of the beholder because, of course, his/her beliefs are right/true. Either everything destructive is evil, or nothing at all.

... Well? You didn't say that, of course, for your final comment was:

This is the continuing pedigree of the malevolent and twisted presence whose ancient shadow I sensed so palpably around us in the streets of Manhattan in the wake of 9/11. Are we doomed always to have that shadow over us?

... In other words, it is your opinion that there IS evil, but you didn't stop to think/explain why. Certainly, you didn't consider the finer points of my post, otherwise you'd understand that most [supposedly evil] deeds were instigated with the good in mind (of the perpetrators).

I even single out the attack on Nagasaki as another clear example of this urge to devalue human beings.

Yes, in a blink of the eye, but didn't delve deep enough.

So evidently, you didn't even bother reading my entire post before going off half-cocked.

I'm not quite sure why you're so pissed-off. It's evident that we have different views on the matter. After all, I made it quite clear that [my opinion is that] evil resides within all actions, or none at all - contingent upon a closer scrutiny of what drives our actions. You, on the other hand, only seem to see evil when blood is involved. However, you don't appear to see anything else but evil. Hence my response.

Tell you what: Next time you want to respond to anything I post, try reading what I write instead of wasting everyone's time.

Stein

Tell you what, try thinking deeper, lest you make another tit of yourself. Further, chill out - I was only trying to engage you in intelligent conversation. You've responded as though I've raped your pet sheep.

jamest wrote:

I even single out the attack on Nagasaki as another clear example of this urge to devalue human beings.

Yes, in a blink of the eye, but didn't delve deep enough.

And you didn't even acknowledge that much the first time, which makes you the real tit around here. One can't be a little pregnant. Either I cited it or I didn't. You know damn well you wrote my post as if I flat-out didn't. My singling it out among the dozen or so violations of human dignity that I do single out, when history is replete with countless such examples, and my doing so in an OP of only half a dozen paragraphs or so is hardly a blink of an eye.

jamest wrote:

So evidently, you didn't even bother reading my entire post before going off half-cocked.

I'm not quite sure why you're so pissed-off. It's evident that we have different views on the matter. After all, I made it quite clear that [my opinion is that] evil resides within all actions, or none at all - contingent upon a closer scrutiny of what drives our actions. You, on the other hand, only seem to see evil when blood is involved.

Oh? Does the caste system automatically involve blood? Does not feeding the indigent or sheltering the traveler necessarily involve blood? Does abolishing democracy? Does legalizing slavery? Thought not. I'm right: you didn't read my post.

Go and have fun with your straw men.

Stein

Stein wrote:

jamest wrote:

I even single out the attack on Nagasaki as another clear example of this urge to devalue human beings.

Yes, in a blink of the eye, but didn't delve deep enough.

And you didn't even acknowledge that much the first time, which makes you the real tit around here. One can't be a little pregnant. Either I cited it or I didn't. You know damn well you wrote my post as if I flat-out didn't. My singling it out among the dozen or so violations of human dignity that I do single out, when history is replete with countless such examples, and my doing so in an OP of only half a dozen paragraphs or so is hardly a blink of an eye.

jamest wrote:

So evidently, you didn't even bother reading my entire post before going off half-cocked.

I'm not quite sure why you're so pissed-off. It's evident that we have different views on the matter. After all, I made it quite clear that [my opinion is that] evil resides within all actions, or none at all - contingent upon a closer scrutiny of what drives our actions. You, on the other hand, only seem to see evil when blood is involved.

Oh? Does the caste system automatically involve blood? Does not feeding the indigent or sheltering the traveler necessarily involve blood? Does abolishing democracy? Does legalizing slavery? Thought not. I'm right: you didn't read my post.

Go and have fun with your straw men.

Stein

What's your fucking problem? Regardless of whether you disagree with me, or don't understand me, why did you see fit to respond to my [amiable] post with anger? For that alone - regardless of your content's failings - you've appeared to have come across as a bit of a tit. Perhaps you're not. Perhaps you're just in a bad mood for something totally unrelated to our discussion. But don't fucking expect me to just sit here and whimper as you scowl. If you don't want an intelligent discussion; or if you view me as some kind of retard... then just ignore me... for your own fucking sake.

As we’re in the history section, and with few better examples of dispassionate rapacity and human devaluation, as well as for its crucial contribution to the first phase of the Industrial Revolution, its indispensable ‘lift-off’ in fact, allow me to cite the European slave trade, Stein.

Colonial trade created and nourished the cotton industry that arose during the nineteenth century in the hinterland of major UK ports, Glasgow, Bristol etc, but especially Liverpool, the main centre of the slave trade. Cotton and slavery marched together, each expanding phase boosting it further. The African slaves were at first partly bought with Indian cotton goods and when supplies of these suffered interruption through war, revolt, or import restrictions furthered by English woolgrowers, Lancashire took up the slack. The slaves were of course transported to the West Indian plantations, which in turn produced the bulk raw cotton for the British industry, with the planters themselves also buying sizeable quantities of finished cotton goods.

Britain later repaid its debt to slavery by preserving it, for after the 1790s the slave plantations of the southern United States were greatly extended and sustained by the insatiable demands of the Lancashire mills. India was similarly rewarded by being de-industrialized, so turning it into a market for British products. (The same occurred with Ireland of course, in each case with catastrophic outcomes.)

No need at all of Robespierre or the pragmatism that was Rome or Greece.

Are we doomed always to have that shadow over us?

Well, Stein, it is the genius as well as the curse of man to sacrifice his goods, his possessions, and indeed his life for those ideals he deems most precious; more than that, he is willing to so pursue with deadly vengeance those who do not share his aspirations.

Little has changed: man still is willing to kill, to suffer and to persecute: if he were different, he were not man. Amen.

Asconius wrote:As we’re in the history section, and with few better examples of dispassionate rapacity and human devaluation, as well as for its crucial contribution to the first phase of the Industrial Revolution, its indispensable ‘lift-off’ in fact, allow me to cite the European slave trade, Stein.

<sigh> -- and I cited the European slave trade too:

"Pope Gregory IX (13th century c.e.), who is the initiator of the Inquisition and also the first to make persecution of the Jews official church policy rather than merely winking at it, as well as the first to establish official support in canon law for slavery (Corpus Iuris Canonici). The scourge of slavery whose horrors even extend into the New World, landing there in 1619, might never have held "legitimacy" for so long, short of this canon law imprimatur from Gregory IX."

What's the matter with people around here? Can't they read?

SHEESH!

Stein

R.E. the OP - does the cold and calculated cruelty of the plane hijackers which resulted in 3 and a half thousand deaths justify the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan which have resulted in many more thousands than that?

I'm not challenging, just raising a question of equivalence.

KennyH wrote:R.E. the OP - does the cold and calculated cruelty of the plane hijackers which resulted in 3 and a half thousand deaths justify the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan which have resulted in many more thousands than that?

I'm not challenging, just raising a question of equivalence.

-- which shows up one of my main points:

"It even seems as if actions bred out of that sickness will include any of the reactions against it, as if even those reactions cannot escape the tentacles of this sickness, once it has been loosed. The sick fantasies, whether from a Satan figure or whatever, somehow help rig up a new "normal" in which even any struggle against the results of these fantasies is impossible without also inadvertently buying into the very same notion that "the other" doesn't count. Merely the personnel get changed when it comes to who "the other" is."

Once this "sickness" is "loosed", it can metastasize anywhere. While people of sound judgement might differ on Afghanistan, since its government was virtually sponsoring Al Qaeda at the time, Iraq is obviously an example in which there is chillingly calculated objectification of the "other". And yes, the civilian fatalities in Iraq are appalling and totally unjustified, as was that whole war. Even in Afghanistan, it is criminal that, with the whole world duly outraged over 9/11 at the time, there was not the slightest attempt made to bring international pressure on Afghanistan to extradite Bin Laden first. Instead, the U.S. tried on its own to extradite Bin Laden, like some thug in the hood who's so macho that he refuses the idea of accepting any help from friends. Disgusting.

Stein

Stein wrote:...where Diagoras -- disappointed in a lack of retribution against a bitterly hated rival -- and Critias -- seeking to arbitrarily remake all Athens in his own image and abolishing democracy -- pick up the notion that not only doesn't the divine exist but all human beings are purely objects to be impersonally distributed and arranged according to whim: "If anyone among you thinks that more people than is fitting are being put to death, let him reflect that where governments are changed these things always take place" (Critias in Xenophon's Hellenica, early 4th century, b.c.e.). So Critias shrugs off wholesale and cold-blooded extermination.

Greece introduces many fine things to humanity, but it also introduces -- to Rome and elsewhere -- this cruelly refined cynicism and skepticism duly found in the Critiases of its culture and then adopted by conquering Rome as it overpowers all in its path. When the Pax Romana is enforced to the point of nailing a certain gentle carpenter to the cross (30 c.e.)...

I think it is a little odd to take the ideas-of which you offer no example-of a single poet and the sentiments of one of the most vicious Thirty Tyrants and then conclude that all "Greece" bequeathed to Rome a "cruelly refined cynicism and skepticism". Moreover, the way you talk about Rome indicates a commitment to a view which is one of many concerning Rome's expansion from local power to "world" power and is far from from certain, as is this:

Instead, his doctrine rejects any moral obligation to feed the indigent or shelter the traveler, thus again dividing the "thinker" from "the other", who is again devalued. His ideas travel to ancient Greece (see http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available ... 156333.pdf)

I've also very little idea what the Pax Romana has to do with the execution of Jesus Christ. I understand, of course, that your post is intended to be more rhetorical than analytical, but greater exposition might have been appropriate for these points.

Stein wrote:
Once this "sickness" is "loosed", it can metastasize anywhere. While people of sound judgement might differ on Afghanistan, since its government was virtually sponsoring Al Qaeda at the time, Iraq is obviously an example in which there is chillingly calculated objectification of the "other". And yes, the civilian fatalities in Iraq are appalling and totally unjustified, as was that whole war. Even in Afghanistan, it is criminal that, with the whole world duly outraged over 9/11 at the time, there was not the slightest attempt made to bring international pressure on Afghanistan to extradite Bin Laden first. Instead, the U.S. tried on its own to extradite Bin Laden, like some thug in the hood who's so macho that he refuses the idea of accepting any help from friends. Disgusting.

Stein

I don't think the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with an ill assessment of the Iraqis' value as human beings, but more the strength of the evidence, in the view of our democratic representatives, that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to carry out attacks of unprecedented violence on Western nations. That evidence turned out to be misleading, but this can only be said with the benefit of hindsight. In my view, assuming the evidence was strong-I've yet to devote enough time to properly assess it-the invasion was justified. Civilian casualties are regrettable, but a nation should not refuse to fight a war on the basis that that war will produce such casualties, as World War 2 well proves.

The Afghan "government", for want of a better term, was, I believe, given several weeks to hand over the individuals responsible for planning the 9/11 attacks. It decided to turn down this thoroughly reasonable demand made by the world's only remaining superpower, and can thus hardly complain or be surprised about the result.

Nevertheless, in spite of the above, I do share your dismay at the seeming ease with which people dehumanise others. Your epiphany, if you'll allow me to call it that, was had by me also when reading Martin Gilbert's account of the Holocaust, and in particular when reading about an incident which occurred at a hospital in the Lodz ghetto. These are mostly the words of Ben Edelbaum, an eye witness to the events he relates, who is quoted at length by Gilbert:

"In the Lodz ghetto, on September 1, the Gestapo went to the hospitals...In one of the hospitals, Ben Edelbaum's sister Esther had just given birth to a baby girl. On September 1 the baby was seven days old, with 'a headful of jet black hair'. As no one at home could agree on a name, it was agreed to wait until mother and baby returned. That morning Ben Edelbaum and his parents learned that the hospital had been cordoned off. They hurried to it:

When we got there, the whole area had already been cordoned off. Hundreds of people gathered around and were being kept in place behind the ropes. Dawid made way for us and we were able to get close to the ropes where we had full view of the whole scene. Inside, within the cordoned area, we saw German soldiers and Sonder run about frantically giving commands and taking orders...the Germans, with the assistance of the Sonderkommando, began going from room to room evacuating every patient who was able to get out of bed and walk down with them...Then, as the next group of patients was being escorted to a waiting truck, we saw Esther. She stood there on the truck, looking around to see if we were there, but she didn't see us. She was pale and frightened as she stood there in her pink nightgown. Oh God, how we wanted to jump over the rope, pass the soldiers with their bayonets fixed, run over to her and tell her how much we loved her...The people kept shouting, 'Murderers, where are you taking our loved ones?' 'Murderers!' 'Murderers!' Esther and the rest of the patients in the truck stood there in shock, silent and terrified. Soon the truck drove off and we knew we would never see our beloved Esther again. There was now only one truck waiting. A German soldier got into the truck behind the wheel and drove it closer to the hospital-building wall. There was silence for a moment. No one could figure what was going to happen next.

There were now about six to eight soldiers standing around the truck plus about eighteen more positioned around the rope. Some of the soldiers looked very young, especially one who looked as if he had just graduated from the Hitler Youth. Even the SS uniform he was wearing seemed large on him. Suddenly, two Germans appeared in an upper storey window and pushed it open. Seconds later a naked baby was pushed over the ledge and dropped to its death directly into the truck below. We were in such shock that at first few of us believed it was actually a live, newborn baby. We thought it was an object of some kind until we saw another and another being hurled out the window and into the waiting truck. We had no more tears left. Our eyes had dried out. We could no longer cry and shout and scream since our throats were hoarse and parched as we stood there looking up to the window and to the Almighty...The SS seemed to enjoy this bloody escapade. Just then the youngest of the bunch asked his superior if it was all right to catch one of those 'little Jews' on his bayonet as it was coming down. His superior gave him permission, and the young SS butcher rolles up his rifle sleeve and caught the very next infant on his bayonet. The blood of the infant flowed down the knife on to the murderer's arm and into his sleeve. He tried his talent once more, and again he was successful in catching the wailing child on his sharp bayonet. He tried a third time but missed and gave up the whole game, complaining it was getting too 'messy'.

Each time a baby was hurled out that window we were certain it was our first little niece and my parents' first grand-daughter. We knew that one of the babies was ours for sure. Questions kept whirling in my mind: 'Why this? Why did this have to happen? Why are human beings so cruel to other human beings?

More than two thousand hospital patients were deported from Lodz that day, including four hundred children and eighty pregnant women. Eighteen patients who tried to escape were shot. The deportees were sent to Chelmno and gassed."

This can be read on pages 440-443 of the relevant work. The omissions, indicated by ellipses, are my own. I have italicised where Gilbert indents.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Stein wrote:...where Diagoras -- disappointed in a lack of retribution against a bitterly hated rival -- and Critias -- seeking to arbitrarily remake all Athens in his own image and abolishing democracy -- pick up the notion that not only doesn't the divine exist but all human beings are purely objects to be impersonally distributed and arranged according to whim: "If anyone among you thinks that more people than is fitting are being put to death, let him reflect that where governments are changed these things always take place" (Critias in Xenophon's Hellenica, early 4th century, b.c.e.). So Critias shrugs off wholesale and cold-blooded extermination.

Greece introduces many fine things to humanity, but it also introduces -- to Rome and elsewhere -- this cruelly refined cynicism and skepticism duly found in the Critiases of its culture and then adopted by conquering Rome as it overpowers all in its path. When the Pax Romana is enforced to the point of nailing a certain gentle carpenter to the cross (30 c.e.)...

I think it is a little odd to take the ideas-of which you offer no example-of a single poet and the sentiments of one of the most vicious Thirty Tyrants and then conclude that all "Greece" bequeathed to Rome a "cruelly refined cynicism and skepticism". Moreover, the way you talk about Rome indicates a commitment to a view which is one of many concerning Rome's expansion from local power to "world" power and is far from from certain, as is this:

Instead, his doctrine rejects any moral obligation to feed the indigent or shelter the traveler, thus again dividing the "thinker" from "the other", who is again devalued. His ideas travel to ancient Greece (see http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available ... 156333.pdf)

I've also very little idea what the Pax Romana has to do with the execution of Jesus Christ.

I refer you to some pretty candid remarks I previously submitted, in which, among other things, I eventually touch on the subject of knee-jerk defenses of the jackbooted Roman Empire --

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post9 ... ml#p990622

Stein

Stein wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Stein wrote:...where Diagoras -- disappointed in a lack of retribution against a bitterly hated rival -- and Critias -- seeking to arbitrarily remake all Athens in his own image and abolishing democracy -- pick up the notion that not only doesn't the divine exist but all human beings are purely objects to be impersonally distributed and arranged according to whim: "If anyone among you thinks that more people than is fitting are being put to death, let him reflect that where governments are changed these things always take place" (Critias in Xenophon's Hellenica, early 4th century, b.c.e.). So Critias shrugs off wholesale and cold-blooded extermination.

Greece introduces many fine things to humanity, but it also introduces -- to Rome and elsewhere -- this cruelly refined cynicism and skepticism duly found in the Critiases of its culture and then adopted by conquering Rome as it overpowers all in its path. When the Pax Romana is enforced to the point of nailing a certain gentle carpenter to the cross (30 c.e.)...

I think it is a little odd to take the ideas-of which you offer no example-of a single poet and the sentiments of one of the most vicious Thirty Tyrants and then conclude that all "Greece" bequeathed to Rome a "cruelly refined cynicism and skepticism". Moreover, the way you talk about Rome indicates a commitment to a view which is one of many concerning Rome's expansion from local power to "world" power and is far from from certain, as is this:

Instead, his doctrine rejects any moral obligation to feed the indigent or shelter the traveler, thus again dividing the "thinker" from "the other", who is again devalued. His ideas travel to ancient Greece (see http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available ... 156333.pdf)

I've also very little idea what the Pax Romana has to do with the execution of Jesus Christ.

I refer you to some pretty candid remarks I previously submitted, in which, among other things, I eventually touch on the subject of knee-jerk defenses of the jackbooted Roman Empire --

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post9 ... ml#p990622

Stein

I'm not sure why you're linking me to that post, since nothing I've said above involves a "defence" of Roman imperialism. I've merely suggested that the issue is more complex than you seem to believe.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Stein wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

I think it is a little odd to take the ideas-of which you offer no example-of a single poet and the sentiments of one of the most vicious Thirty Tyrants and then conclude that all "Greece" bequeathed to Rome a "cruelly refined cynicism and skepticism". Moreover, the way you talk about Rome indicates a commitment to a view which is one of many concerning Rome's expansion from local power to "world" power and is far from from certain, as is this:



I've also very little idea what the Pax Romana has to do with the execution of Jesus Christ.

I refer you to some pretty candid remarks I previously submitted, in which, among other things, I eventually touch on the subject of knee-jerk defenses of the jackbooted Roman Empire --

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post9 ... ml#p990622

Stein

I'm not sure why you're linking me to that post, since nothing I've said above involves a "defence" of Roman imperialism. I've merely suggested that the issue is more complex than you seem to believe.

Even Colin Powell no longer rationalizes the U.S.'s blatant opting for a war of both choice and aggression in its invasion of Iraq. That was on the same ethical/moral level as Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia. When I read anyone still rationalizing this today, when it's blatantly clear that the Bush/Cheney junta fully intended to invade Iraq way before 9/11, I assume that any accompanying temporizing with the Roman Empire's own cruelty is cut from the same cloth. If I jumped to too many conclusions in assuming that here, then I apologize.

Sincerely,

Stein

Stein wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Stein wrote:

I refer you to some pretty candid remarks I previously submitted, in which, among other things, I eventually touch on the subject of knee-jerk defenses of the jackbooted Roman Empire --

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post9 ... ml#p990622

Stein

I'm not sure why you're linking me to that post, since nothing I've said above involves a "defence" of Roman imperialism. I've merely suggested that the issue is more complex than you seem to believe.

Even Colin Powell no longer rationalizes the U.S.'s blatant opting for a war of both choice and aggression in its invasion of Iraq. That was on the same ethical/moral level as Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia. When I read anyone still rationalizing this today, when it's blatantly clear that the Bush/Cheney junta fully intended to invade Iraq way before 9/11, I assume that any accompanying temporizing with the Roman Empire's own cruelty is cut from the same cloth. If I jumped to too many conclusions in assuming that here, then I apologize.

Sincerely,

Stein

Of course, I don't agree with your assessment of the intervention in Iraq, and I expect historians of the future will be kind to my view. I fail to see where I have "temporized" with respect to anything.

Your hostility towards Roman imperialism is, I'm sure, to your mind very noble. That's fine, but be sure not to let that hostility lead you to think that someone who is not as impassioned as you are, and recognises the complexity of Roman expansion, is Rome's apologist.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Stein wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:


I'm not sure why you're linking me to that post, since nothing I've said above involves a "defence" of Roman imperialism. I've merely suggested that the issue is more complex than you seem to believe.

Even Colin Powell no longer rationalizes the U.S.'s blatant opting for a war of both choice and aggression in its invasion of Iraq. That was on the same ethical/moral level as Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia. When I read anyone still rationalizing this today, when it's blatantly clear that the Bush/Cheney junta fully intended to invade Iraq way before 9/11, I assume that any accompanying temporizing with the Roman Empire's own cruelty is cut from the same cloth. If I jumped to too many conclusions in assuming that here, then I apologize.

Sincerely,

Stein

Of course, I don't agree with your assessment of the intervention in Iraq, and I expect historians of the future will be kind to my view. I fail to see where I have "temporized" with respect to anything.

Your hostility towards Roman imperialism is, I'm sure, to your mind very noble. That's fine, but be sure not to let that hostility lead you to think that someone who is not as impassioned as you are, and recognises the complexity of Roman expansion, is Rome's apologist.

The other reason why I may be overly allergic to (possible) "temporizing" with Ancient Rome's cruelty is because of the frequent anti-Semitic baggage that I've often found in tandem with it, especially within the skeptic community, sad to say (see http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=281356 ).

Stein

Stein wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Stein wrote:

Even Colin Powell no longer rationalizes the U.S.'s blatant opting for a war of both choice and aggression in its invasion of Iraq. That was on the same ethical/moral level as Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia. When I read anyone still rationalizing this today, when it's blatantly clear that the Bush/Cheney junta fully intended to invade Iraq way before 9/11, I assume that any accompanying temporizing with the Roman Empire's own cruelty is cut from the same cloth. If I jumped to too many conclusions in assuming that here, then I apologize.

Sincerely,

Stein

Of course, I don't agree with your assessment of the intervention in Iraq, and I expect historians of the future will be kind to my view. I fail to see where I have "temporized" with respect to anything.

Your hostility towards Roman imperialism is, I'm sure, to your mind very noble. That's fine, but be sure not to let that hostility lead you to think that someone who is not as impassioned as you are, and recognises the complexity of Roman expansion, is Rome's apologist.

The other reason why I may be overly allergic to (possible) "temporizing" with Ancient Rome's cruelty is because of the frequent anti-Semitic baggage that I've often found in tandem with it, especially within the skeptic community, sad to say (see http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=281356 ).

Stein

I don't know how this relates to my response.

Tracer Tong wrote:

Stein wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Of course, I don't agree with your assessment of the intervention in Iraq, and I expect historians of the future will be kind to my view. I fail to see where I have "temporized" with respect to anything.

Your hostility towards Roman imperialism is, I'm sure, to your mind very noble. That's fine, but be sure not to let that hostility lead you to think that someone who is not as impassioned as you are, and recognises the complexity of Roman expansion, is Rome's apologist.

The other reason why I may be overly allergic to (possible) "temporizing" with Ancient Rome's cruelty is because of the frequent anti-Semitic baggage that I've often found in tandem with it, especially within the skeptic community, sad to say (see http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=281356 ).

Stein

I don't know how this relates to my response.

It may not. It does relate to mine, though.

Stein

Stein wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

Stein wrote:

The other reason why I may be overly allergic to (possible) "temporizing" with Ancient Rome's cruelty is because of the frequent anti-Semitic baggage that I've often found in tandem with it, especially within the skeptic community, sad to say (see http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=281356 ).

Stein

I don't know how this relates to my response.

It may not. It does relate to mine, though.

Stein

So why quote my post in the process? If you're quoting someone, it is reasonable to expect that you'll address what is being quoted.