[Wikipedia-l] Helga again

[Michael R. Irwin]

Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> 
> At 03:31 PM 9/4/02 -0700, you wrote:
> 
> >Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> > >
> > > At 04:29 AM 9/4/02 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > > >Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> > > > >  The totality of the material
> > > > > presented should not be selected to support the frame or view that
> > > > > the Holocaust was undeserved.
> > > >
> > > >But, the Holocaust was undeserved.  That's as uncontroversial a fact as
> > > >"The Earth goes around the Sun".
> > >
> > > Exactly. Otherwise we'd need to carefully avoid suggesting--on each of the
> > > September 11 pages--that the victims were innocent. Either is absurd and
> > > offensive.
> >
> >Absurd and offensive to who?  The prevailing mainstream
> >Arab view seem pretty supportive of the attacks.
> 
> As far as I know, nobody--even the mainstream Arab press--is saying that the
> individuals killed in the September 11 attacks were personally guilty of
> anything:
> the argument by defenders of the attack is that this was an act of war, not
> that
> people who happened to work at Windows on the World or Cantor Fitzgerald or
> the NY Fire Department specifically deserved to die.

Some of the rhetoric reported (in U.S. papers and
magazines, I do not speak Arabic) over the last year has 
seemed to imply that Americans in general deserve some 
negative consequences, in the view of many Arabs.

Most of the people working in the World Trade Center
were presumably Americans as were the responding
emergency workers.

I can only judge the mainstream Arab press reports
(I assume the "mainstream" is written in Arabic for
primarily domestic consumption.) from what I see reported 
in various U.S. sources and media.

There are plenty of U.S. Military targets in the U.S.
and World Wide.  I can only assume that Al Quaeda
felt they were targeting an appropriate target.

Cheering in the streets and funding from Arab
governments would seem fairly supportive.  Foot
dragging on use of military bases in the area for
invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq (who we seem to
think also involved and a future threat) presumably
indicates some opposition to U.S. interests from
somewhere.  Either from factions within the general 
population or in the governments.

Still, reviewing my original statement, your argument,
and my reactions to your argument. It seems 
clear to me that my original statement:

"The prevailing mainstream Arab view seem pretty 
supportive of the attacks."

Could be better stated to more accurately reflect
my own views as something like:

"Significant numbers of Arabs hostile to the
U.S. seem pretty supportive of the attacks." 

Regards,
Mike Irwin