| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jason J. Railton writes:
>
> > It sickens me to see an act committed by a few evil individuals taken as
> > justification for initiating a war.
>
> You're gerrymandering the facts, either deliberately or otherwise. The
> attack on US soil was itself an act or war, and if bin Laden is indeed
> responsible, he himself declared war on the US long ago. If the US responds
> to his declaration by likewise declaring war, that's hardly "initiating a war."
> Further, war would not be declared upon a few evil individuals but rather
> upon the nations knowingly harboring a multinational band of known thugs and
> murderers, as well as the thugs and murderers themselves.
Declarations of war come from nations, not from individuals. His
declaration of war against the US was his own posturing. He does not
represent his country, as the actions of the IRA do not represent theirs.
> > The fight against terrorism will not be won overnight, nor with a single
> > military strike, nor by blaming everyone else. Find another way.
>
> No one is blaming everyone else; the US is blaming those individuals who
> conceived and planned this attack, as well as the nations providing
> sanctuary to them.
And this is exactly my point. Let's do this line by line...
> No one is blaming everyone else;
Good...
> the US is blaming those individuals who conceived and planned this attack,
Marvellous...
> as well as the nations providing sanctuary to them.
Now, here's the issue. Why would they provide sanctuary? Because each
citizen is planning similar attacks? Because they support and fund anti-US
agression? Because they don't happen to sympathise with the US? Or because
they feel they'll be damned[1] if they're going to hand anyone over to the US?
Do you believe this would justify an international decleration of war? I do
not. I think anyone who does is blind to the consequences. And where do
you draw the line? What if someone speaks out against this crusade of
yours? Are they an enemy too?
Jason J Railton
[1] And in some cases, I do mean this quite literally.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) And the Barbary Pirates did not represent any particular country but the US nevertheless declared war on them and dealt with them, quite effectively. If we should decide to make the symbolic act of declaring war on terrorism, it will be the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: War
|
| (...) Why? Power units are the concern, not nations. These are new times and governments will become less important as other power structures evolve. I think you're operating in the old paradigm. Chris (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| (...) You're gerrymandering the facts, either deliberately or otherwise. The attack on US soil was itself an act or war, and if bin Laden is indeed responsible, he himself declared war on the US long ago. If the US responds to his declaration by (...) (23 years ago, 13-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
177 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
