Sure, the Frenchman who merely wanted to survive justified his treachery. Likewise, a Palestinian bomber’s action can be justified in a similar way, can it not ?

I’d assume that becoming a suicide bomber requires definite action FOR it (.i.e. wanting to become one) – correct me if I’m wrong. Being a “traitor” by your definition would be pretty normal human behaviour during occupation. In fact, it is acting otherwise that requires extra faculties, such as courage determination and even overcoming one’s instinct for self preservation (including the instinct to protect one’s family). In other words – whereas to become a suicide bomber Joe Average would have to stop being average, to be a “traitor” during the Vichy period Joe would simply have to be his average self – it is resistance that would require him to be above average.

Now, in a more ideal world (and knowing what kind of a regime the III Reich was) all Joes shouldn’t be Average but Heroic and resist the Reich. As the world is, however, to demand that is rather risky. Unless, for example, you are willing to be made culpable for not showing the same heroic qualities. Being earnest with yourself – have you ever lacked the courage, determination, stretch of will etc. to choose ethical values rather than your most basic needs? If yes, do you expect to be placed on par with the Vichy Frenchman (and by your comparison – with the Palestine bomber) for not acting correctly?

In fact, if we maintain that it is good to demand of all people that they display behaviour negating their own most basic needs (e.g. the need for survival and safety), we’re into deep trouble. Because, seeing the extent of misery in this world, we’d have to assume we’re all an ethically worthless bunch. After all, instead of spending our precious time relieving the poor, educating the unlearned or caring for the sick, we’re commenting on this blog. None of our basic interests are in danger and yet we’re presumably not doing it to the largest extent absolutely possible (but would demand it of others).

if the Americans are not able to dictate what their Government is doing, then surely they are not doing enough, are they ?

On a nation-wide level, that may be true (or may not – I’m no judge). Though to blame all members of any nation merely on the premise the nation as a whole is free to act otherwise, is also risky, unless both sides are willing to face the consequences. If all Americans are guilty of the war with Iraq (regardless of their stance – since it continues, they didn’t do enough) then so are… all the members of the nation of origin of the 9/11 attackers (if they had done enough, 9/11 would not have happened and the US could not use it as a reason to attack Iraq).

And, bringing such an argument to its logical conclusion: all nations are guilty of every conflict and untimely death, unless they were the defending party in that one case, or firmly, and to the largest extent possible, opposed the conflict and aided the victims.

On an individual level, it gets even more complicated since you’d have to ask what exactly can Mr. Henry Smith do if he’s against the Iraqi war and whether, if he did it, it would make any actual difference. You’d have to also ask, for example, what kind of actions would Mr. Smith resign from doing – if all he’s doing is sitting on a couch in front of a TV, the problem seems silly, but if Mr. Smith is caring for his ill relative, trying to earn enough to ensure that his family has what to eat and wear, or say supporting the needy in his community, you’d have to ask a very basic question: is the good that can potentially be done better, than the one he’s obtaining right now (including the probability of that potential good not happening at all, since it doesn’t depend only on him).

I’m willing to admit that on a metaphysical level, we’re all entangled in all the evil of this world (we could be much better people than we are, making the world a better place than it is). But:
1) When making such a statement, I’d start with myself and not with others
2) There is a difference between the fact I’m partly guilty of the hunger in the world (because I live in a consumerist society and partly subscribe to it, using more resources than I need) and actually causing a particular person, presumably close enough for action and fully known to me, to die of hunger.
3) I’m aware we’re talking of an ideal here: in practical terms, whatever I’d do would be insufficient to fulfil that ideal – there is almost always something more you could do than what you’re actually doing.
4) In practice, it is dangerous to say that there is no difference between me (because I don’t try hard enough to be a good person) and a suicide bomber. It’s horribly demotivating – after all, if there is no gradation of evil, why try being better?
5) I would be hesitant to demand of anyone that they be more ethically ideal than I am.

There, that was long.

That’s exactly the problem not the solution, PB. The people with the most money win. Pretty much all the time, the winners are the ones who are the most selfish and greedy.

I think it is quite clear that most of us are just looking after our own interest. What was clearly a wrongdoing could be justified if one’s argument was put forward in a different light.

If we don’t clearly make a distinction between right and wrong, as what is happening to the world right now with the increasing grey area, I’m afraid that we will once again be brought back into the age of warring tribes.

Sure, the Frenchman who merely wanted to survive justified his treachery. Likewise, a Palestinian bomber’s action can be justified in a similar way, can it not ?

In the land of the free, if the Americans are not able to dictate what their Government is doing, then surely they are not doing enough, are they ?

Poland is not that politically correct yet internally, because there is not a need. Her homogeneity keeps out the threats of diversity – religion, culture, ethnicity and way of life. However, externally Poland is as politically correct as the most of the world simply because that’s what diplomacy is all about – being a pussy and a dick all at the same time.

My apologies again if my comparison offends anyone.

Actually I applaud not being politically correct because the whole business is, IMO, quite fake and countreproductive. Thumbs up.

Bud I uphold that, say, a person with Down”s syndrome, does not equal “a retard” (in the non-medical sense). Primarily, because for me acting stupid (colloquial understanding of retarded) means acting below one’s justly expected capacity, not below a certain absolute level (in pretty much the same way that a small baby is not stupid if it cries instead of telling you what it wants).

You are entitled to your own opinions, of course. Just remember that while using too mild language brings the risk of being labelled “politically correct” (yuck), using a language that is too strong brings the risk overdoing it. There were traitors is France, but was simply trying to live during the Vichy years an act of treason (it did benefit the III Reich)? War on Iraq may be aggression, but are therefore, all American taxpayers aggressors? Harsh words, seem to me, to be quite hard to handle justly an this level of abstractness (though, I admit I’m having the same difficulty with milder English words, which have been incorporated into the PC jargon – thank goodness Poland is not that politically correct yet and there still IS the option of using words that are relatively neutral and factual).

My apologies. It should be ‘Special Olympics’.

I could have used a politically-correct term like ‘intellectually challenged’ but obviously I was not trying to be politically correct.

Likewise, you could have called a Frenchman who assisted the Nazi as a collaborator, but really, was he a collaborator or just a pure traitor ?

Or you could have called the Americans the liberator of Iraqi people, but really, are they not just agressor of a sovereign nation ?

How exactly does being a paraolympic sportsman equal retardation? Let me be clear, I’m not “offended”, I just don’t get the logic.

Unless loosing a limb in an accident is in itself proof of retardation, or being born blind automatically means one is stupid, there is no definite link between winning gold during paraolympics and being a “retard”.

Of course, you may have intended to use some other word to describe the fact that paraolympic sportsmen have to be disabled. That would make sense. But I’m quite sure they don’t have to be obtuse. Neither does their disability have to be the effect of what could be called a “retardation” in medical jargon.

Or, you may have wanted to refer to the sporting event for the mentally disabled (Special Olympics). However, also in that case, using the word “retard” is a rather bad choice. Even though their intellectual capacity is lower (and it does not necessarily need to be dramatically lower), it does not mean they’re stupid – just as being smart/intelligent does not equal being wise.

(Some of them may indeed be on the level of, say, a six year old when they are thirty, but I would still seriously reconsider using the word “retard” unless one considers normal six year olds to be stupid by default as well, which so far as I can see, most people don’t).

So yes, there is still a lot to be done, but considering the aggressive overture from organizations like the IMF and the major banks like Deutsche Bank that really tried to push our currency (therefore our economy) off a cliff to gain on their forex spreads and then come in with “emergency” loans – but they failed with Poland and our Czech neighbors. I am as &^#$ off as the next Varsovian that it takes more than 8 hours over shoddy roads to reach Germany – but its going a lot better for Poland than it could be…especially in our neighborhood.