mrfish, what you are skirting around here is the idea of judging people as individuals, and not as ethnic groups. Then you say some confusing and generally contradictory things about being able to judge them by groups, but only till you are proved wrong, where you lose me, but the essential bit I picked out, I agree with wholeheartedly - people are individuals, and their worth is based on their character and actions as individuals.
Of course, this opens another bag of worms, that of 'good' people as part of a bad regime.
Since we're all WWII buffs here, take for example Germany in the 30s and 40s. As a 'group', Germans as the population of an aggressive and undeniably evil Nazi state were the enemies of the free world. However, in retrospect we know that everyone in Germany wasn't evil, and in fact the tangible enemies of our armies, the German soldiers, sailors, and airmen, are identified as being very much like the Allied troops opposing them - wanting to serve their country because it was their country. Can we say that all of the soldiers who fought against and killed Allied soldiers were evil? No, no more than we can say that the Allied soldiers who fought and killed German soldiers were evil. Were there evil people among the Allies? Hell yes - look at Stalin. Were there evil people among the Axis? Undoubtedly.
The hatred towards the Germans as a group, though strong, was quickly lost at war end, and the Germans were identified as being 'like us' as the Allied armies moved into Germany even before the end of the war. While the Nazis were rightfully forever demonized, there was a distinction recognized between the Nazis and the general German population, which resulted in Germany being welcomed back into the fold of the respected nations of the world in relatively short order, as is evidenced today by the strong ties between Germany and the countries formerly Allied against it.
Take the view towards the Japanese during that same time period, or towards Arabs in the current climate. The tone of the anger towards these groups takes on a VERY different tone than that against the Germans - and what is the difference? Race. It can be attempted to say that this is not the case, but such arguments fall flat. Because these groups are different than 'us', they are demonized, and referred to with racial terms "Japs", "slopes", "towel heads", "sand cupcakes". By contrast, who were the Germans? "Jerry". Like the guy on TV. Like your buddy at the bar. Americans were "Yanks", British were "Tommy". None of that sounds too bad... 'Tommy' and 'Jerry' could get in a fight at the bar over a girl. But G.I. Joe had to go and kill those 'Nips', and 'yellow bastards'... I think you see the point.
This doesn't mean that I think we shouldn't treat the Taleban with anger, and that we shouldn't go after and kill the people who are responsible for the deaths of thousands of our countrymen and women.
The point is that the color of their skin, and their different upbringing has NOTHING to do with the reasons they should be destroyed, and for the millions of Arabs and Muslims who didn't have anything to do with this, and who are as hurt by violence as much as you or I, they should not have to suffer the hatred of the world based on their physical and cultural similarities to the people who ARE responsible.
I don't feel any reservation for the fate of people who propogate violence against my country, they should be dealt with swiftly and harshly, with no quarter given. Doing this isn't wrong, but attempting to associate race with the reasons for our action, or as a focus of our anger isn't going to make things better when the guilty have been brought to justice.
