Today the Scottish government demonstrated enlightened thought for us; they did what the US should have done after 9.11. Whatever the politics behind it, the gesture was more conducive to reconciliation and peace than any amount of war-mongering. Ironic that the US, the home of those great founding fathers, should demonstrate yet again that the constitution was one of the most inspirational pieces of empty rhetoric ever penned. If the US had acted with the kind of compassion, and self-examination that their founding fathers and the Scottish response implies, the West may have won more hearts in recent years, rather than the enemies they've made in Iraq and Afganistan, and via their supercilious version of diplomacy.

Squeers <America should have acted with compassion and self- examination after 9.11>

Do you think you would act with compassion if someone came around to where your loved ones live and bombed and burned them to death?
Or if warriors from the neighbouring tribe in the jungle raced over and speared 3000 of your people to death. 9.11 was an act of unforgivable agression. An act of war.
To assume that the West made enemies of the Afghans and people of Iraq is to assume that they were ever capable of being friends with the West in the first place. They never were our friends.

Incidently, I understood that the West was at war with the Taliban who came from Pakistan and took control of Afghanistan, correct me if I have got that wrong.

Let the muslims first show some compassion and self-examination before they threaten the lives of my children by screaming death to the infidel, until then I feel nothing but distrust and suspicion of their motives. Why would I not?

Here in the words of our threads author you can find why I oppose the very left till death.
Why I from birth am unionist, worker, ALP voter, an explorer of communism, then socialism, now center left with pride.
Find no common ground with the very left.
We should look deeper into the crime that was Locabe.
Why was it needed to hurt America so many people ,Innocent humans had to die?
And why did humanity call for this product of unwed parents to be released because his death is near?
Who gave such thoughts to those on that plane.
The reason behind his release has more to do with oil and trade than humanity.
His hero's welcome home, SCREAMS can we believe anything his country does or says?
Is the hate not clear?
What western country, name one, would bring a crowd to cheer a mass murderer?
NOW not tomorrow we must UNDERSTAND the blind unfocused and unreasoned hatred for the west.
From so many in this part of the world can not be fixed with appeasement.
And please those on the very left of reality and truth look for human rights issues in the country's you take to your Brest's too.

Yes it's an emotive issue. But what I'm talking about is the gesture implied in the Scottish decision. If we put aside cynical assessments of there motives, the gesture showed a depth of conviction and decency that is far more effective in the face of naked aggression than kind for kind. I remember thinking after 911 that the US had the opportunity to show the world true greatness, by acting with reason, self-examination and restraint; seeking out the perpetrators, but via diplomatic means, allowing the evil of the crime to speak for itself. Had the US acted in a more sober fashion, I believe they would have garnered far more sympathy and support around the world, and the villains far less.
Neither was 911 comparable to the jungle scenario above. The US reaction was due mainly to outrage and arrogance that they had been attacked on their own turf; while they allow themselves virtual immunity to do as they please elsewhere,
And let's not forget that Jesus Christ advocated the kind of grand gesture I'm admiring here--and the US an ostensibly Christian nation!
Like I say, inspirational but empty rhetoric.

Squeers,

Noble sentiments and I can't help to agree with the principles there in. However, the seeds of your argument's destruction are in the words of your own posts.

The problem is people....they are noble in mind but their actions are invariably some what less so.

As an observation people run the gambit from one extreme to the other and everything in between. Complicating this is that the individuals' range behaviour/behaviours are rarely, if ever, linear or contiguous.
They tend to be an amalgam of attitudes from anywhere in that continuum. This in turn makes generalisations rather tenuous.

A good example of that is whose version of Christianity are you referring to? Denominational rhetoric and dogma tend to introduce very many logic and 'Christian' contradictions. As you imply not all Muslims are comprised of religious extremism and Semtex. In fact it is by far the minority that are.

Mass religions to exist must have dogma and rhetoric without which their hierarchy/power/longevity can't be assured.
Like all laws they are set to accommodate the lowest common denominator and generalisations. Their purpose is to define and then control. i.e. who is one of 'us” and compliance.
If this weren't so then most mass religions are almost interchangeable on principles. love they neighbour, look after the poor etc.

The problem then comes about with those at the top maintaining power.
Those at the bottom misusing the principles as self identification in which there are over/under tones of both superiority and exclusion.
The third element is that that any organisation's primary purpose is to survive and prosper....it's individual members are subsidiary to that.

The out come of this is empathy blindness, a lack of objectivity, proportion and context.
I.e. 911 killed 4000 people (give or take) Yet US road deaths exceed 40000 annually...
Where was/is the rage? War on the car ? devise a better transportation system? One that is functional not ego driven.

Finally the problems are easy to diagnose but people's egos, selfishness, apathy and myopic thinking get in the way of solutions

I think the Scottish justice ministers words said it all.

"Mr. al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power," MacAskill said. "It is one that no court in any jurisdiction, in any land, could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die."

I find it disturbing that there are people who would see his release as weakness rather than mercy and compassion. Are we becoming like the terrorists we hate? Arent we bigger than this? Arent we more civilised and better than them?