Those principles are include freedom of conscious and expression, freedom of self rule and equality of rights, and the use of violence only in self defense or the defense of others. Break those rules, and I will happily tell you that you are wrong.

There are also a number of areas where morality is not so black and white. Charitable giving would be a good example. While I think it is a good thing to do, I would not say someone was ‘wrong’ because they did less of that then me, or even didn’t do it at all. That would be a matter for their own conscious. Similar principles apply with sexual morality, religious beliefs, and a variety of other things. I might would attempt to convince someone that the way I saw things was better, but I would not presume to judge them for it.

I don’t base my principles on any religious text or sext, although I am fascinated by religion and find a lot of good in all the major (and many minor) religious movements. Christianity in particular seems to be have a well developed philosophical base, and admittedly I am most familiar with it, but I do not call myself a Christian or attend formal worship services of any kind regularly. Reason, coupled with humility, is what I strive to use to inform my principles.

In the end though, you either believe in your principles or you don’t. If you only believe in them if no one disagrees, then I don’t think you believe in them at all. I don’t know that I would call that moral relativism, rather a lack of courage in convictions.

You are correct from the POV that we share a common moral base. I suspect that if we were to sit down and write out any number of “check lists” that the major fundamentals would be close to identical. The fact that I am atheist and (I think) you are not would not make too great a difference, other than in matters religious (such as nomenclature, philosophical terminology etc). You might rely more upon belief than I might, though that is a tentative statement rather than definitive.

Au contraire, I do have VERY strong views on what is wrong, what is right. The taking of a human life, for any reason, is totally wrong. The taking of another’s property, for any reason, is totally wrong. I can make exceptions to both - self defence to killing; taxes to a government; for example.

Where we do fundamentally disagree is upon how that moral base should be applied, most especially over cultural (including religious) boundaries.

It is at that point I suspect that so many people like to label me as a “relativist”, and that label is probably correct. I object to the label, mainly because I see it not as a matter of “relative morality”, but of realism.

I am happy with the values that my moral base supports. I will argue that they are worthy of consideration by any other person.

The other side is that I can not, with honesty or conviction, tell another that his moral code is wrong without bringing my own morals into question.

THAT I suspect is where we would differ the most.

You would not hesitate to tell another person that your moral code was “right”, and that his was “wrong”, simply because it differed from your own or came to dissimilar consequences to actions. You would not give thought to the possible moral validity of the alternate conclusion unless it coincided with your own.

Now, if my philosophy means I am likely to join the dinosaurs then I really have nothing to worry about. That is a logical conclusion in any and every case, moral or otherwise.

Would my beliefs fare as well in a different moral code? Probably not, as you have suggested. But then, consider that first I would have been raised within that alternative moral code so its application would be natural to my life. Would I have the courage of a Christian Saint, or Luther, or Copernicus or Galileo, or Ghandi or MLK, or a serviceman in the US Army? I can not tell, simply because I have not faced, nor do I anticipate ever having to face, the kind of moral choices that they made.

I strongly believe that individual human beings have innate rights, and removing those rights is an act of injustice whenever and however they are removed. If Ghandi disagreed with me on that (and from everything I have read about him he would not) then indeed I would oppose him.

Ghandi and I would of course disagree on means. I do not believe that non-violence is the answer to violence and I think Ghandi was quite lucky to have a reletively moral opponent in the British. Ghandi would not have done so well were he a fighting against Stalinist Russia or Moaist China (or any number of other totalitarian regimes.)

I do not think that fundamentally you and I disagree on what is right and what is wrong, our fundamental disagreement is that you do not believe there is such a thing as right or wrong.

I am quite sure that because of this, your philosophy will fail, because a philosophy that has its core principle of not believing in its own justice will have no ability to prevail against those who are willing to sacrifice for their beliefs.

The question that really remains is which believers will triumph, those like myself who believe in the rights of individuals, or those who have other beliefs. Your beliefs can survive under my worldview, they will not fare so well under others.

The UN has this “strange” limitation that protects the right of a nation to govern itself without interference from external powers.

It comes down to “who is right”?

Are you “right” because your champion the cause of universal individual freedom? Or is (was) Ghandi “right” because he created Hindu Nationalism?

Now Ghandi’s “right” might not be the same as yours. Does that make it “right” for him to impose his beliefs on you? Similarly, what right have you to impose on him?

When I look at the world there are many instances where we would agree - “this is wrong, that is right”. But there are probably equally as many where we do not.

So, in those instances where we do not agree, whose “right” should prevail?

Still, I think that their are plenty of good reasons to be serious about Africa. I expect though that the UN and other organizations won’t approach that project with any great vigor (given past history) so either America will have to continue doing very little, or we will have to ‘go it alone’ earning the wrath of the ROW.

The single greatest problem with Africa is thuggish dictatorial governments with no protections for individuals and rife with corruption. It is extremely unlikely that many (any?) of these governments will embrace meaningful reform without violence.

Until the UN paradigm changes from protecting the rights of nation-states to protecting the rights of individual citizens of the world, I don’t think that there is a lot that can be done in that part of the world. This is a huge tragedy, whose cost in blood has been, and will continue to be, huge, but I don’t see a solution at this time.

I submit that being right with the rest of the world as you would have us be, and fighting injustice are mutually exclusive goals. For example, Saddam’s Iraq was certainly a place that was far from just. Even with other reasons for invading, fighting that injustice was hardly popular.

Your first sentence, I think, says it all. There is a lot of injustice about. That, rather than where The Ugly American (remember Greene?) might be standing, is in my mind the true fertilizer of the terrorism crop. How long might it be before Zimbabwe, or Congo, or Nigeria, or Liberia starts growing its own version of AlQaeda, growing in the fertile soils of suppression and poverty? How long before that small seed grows to a pan-Africa organisation with connections to the leading countries of the west?

We (the west) can only do so much, that is acknowledged. With that limitation, we must be certain that we tackle the right injustices rather than the easy. As we two can show (just within this brief discussion) there can be major differences not only on how to resolve an injustice, but where the injustice may actually lie between two opposing factions.

Oh that we had leaders with the wisdom of Solomon (or is it Suleiman?)!

As for Israel, since it is a democratic nation, as well as a nation-state, I hold it to a different, and higher, standard than its enemies. I would be terribly upset is Israel adopted the tactics of its enemies. Also, Al-Qaida has mentioned Palestine and Israel, but that hasn’t historically been their primary focus, that was the pressence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and the effects of the embargo in Iraq. Al-Qaida also frequently mentions the need to liberate Al-Andalusia from infidel hands.

Perhaps after 60 years of having ‘the heat’ on, an enlightened member of Al-Qaida will arise and we can listen. Right now, I am not sure what we would negotiate on. Thankfully, the IRA has given up its weapons and renounced violence as a means. I welcome any who would do the same as an ally in the war on terror, and would certainly support (as best we can) dealing with any injustice they percieve as best we can. That would not extend to returning Spain to Muslim rule, but certainly would extend to helping ensure that any Muslims in Spain are full and equal citizens.

I think that what I am trying to suggest is that a “war on injustice” might be more effective.

2. The importance of Israel I have taken from early translations of OBL press releases early 2001 through mid 2002. Now the translations may be faulty, my recollection may be faulty; I will face that.

What is certain is that if you want a focal point for all of the strife in the Middle East (Mediterranean to Iran) then Israel would be the primary candidate.

Like I keep saying, it is not a matter of abandoning Israel. Israel must be kept to the same standards as are expected of its neighbours.

3. “Taking the heat out” is based upon the experience of the “war” between Britain and IRA. For 60 years, there was war. An enlightened Irishman, and a British PM who was prepared to listen, took the heat off the IRA and dealt with incidents as they arose rather than trying to “win”. Read the papers the past two days - where is the IRA now, only ten years later?

You seem to find some deep meaning in that quote that I do not. Obviously you think it should enlighten us in some way, but I believe it is failing to do so. Perhaps if you could explain what you think it means, and how you think it should apply, we could discuss it, as it is, it seems to me to be an interesting peice of history, nothing more.

I don’t believe that the ‘root cause’ of Muslim discontent is Israel, or even the occuppied territories. I believe that the root cause is failures within their own societies, and Israel has been made a scape goat, in the most original sense of the term, by authority figures throughout the Muslim world to direct anger at an outside, instead of an internal, target. As such, I believe that even if all the Jews left Israel tomorrow, we would face the same issues the next day. Israel is not a reason, Israel is an excuse.

I am also not sure what you mean by taking out the ‘heat’ in the war on terror, you seem to think that a desirable thing to do. I am not so sure. During the 90s the ‘heat’ was out, and terrorists used that time to build up infrastructure and resources and plan devasting attacks. Keeping the ‘heat’ up is to our benefit, not theirs, as we can sustain a higher rate of operations than they can.

So if the heat is to be taken out of the WOT, a goodly part of the solution must involve the relationship between Israel and the US; NOT what Israel does… NOT what the US might think of Palestine’s democracy.

It would be more productive perhaps, if we want to further this discussion, to concentrate on my quote from Eisenhower; whether the application of that form of diplomacy might further the interests of the US more than the present approach.