| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > In fact, State-provided sanctuary for a terrorist, conspirator, and
> > murderer, is de facto identical to committing terrorism, conspiracy, and
> > murder.
>
> According to whom?
I would call it self-evident, though I will attempt to construct a syllogism
for you. In the meantime, I likewise would ask you for your refutation of my
assertion.
> > Is it acceptable to you that bin Laden and his followers commit
> > whatever acts they please and then "tag home" by running to the protective
> > apron of Afghanistan? What if Afghanistan should refuse to extradite him? • Do
> > we just say, "oh well, thanks anyway"?
>
> In fact it's unlikely bin Laden actually leaves his "protective apron" - he
> probably delegates any international tasks to others.
Well, now you're quibbling. Whether he actually leaves the country or sits
on his butt while instructing his followers to commit murder (by the way--I
find "international tasks" to be a disgusting euphemism for the murder of
innocents), the point is the same. He is a murderer protected by the
Taliban and you and Jason seem to be suggesting that all we can do is hope that
the Taliban will somehow be shamed into correct action by our passive
resistance.
> And how is applying military force to the people of Afghanistan, many of whom
> don't follow the Taliban regime, gonna provide any result. It's likely to kill
> a lot of innocent people, and unlikely to cause any major harm to bin Laden.
You're making two assumptions there, neither of which you can really support,
since to date no full-scale coordinated action has been undertaken against him.
In addition, several in this debate have asserted that bin Laden et al are
responding to X number of years of bullying US foreign policy in the only way
they know how. Obviously, then, if it is sufficient in their view to apply
whatever force is necessary to whomoever they can reach, even if they know that
their objective (ie. fundamental change to US policy) cannot be achieved. Our
objective would be to stop bin Laden, which is an attainable goal.
Before you ask me "how would we stop him," I expect that people of higher
military rank than I are better equipped to answer you, so I suggest you ask
them.
> And what if you later find out that bin Laden *wasn't* the perpetrator?
Obviously we are, for the sake of this argument, assuming bin Laden was the
perpetrator. If he was not, and if the real perpetrator is harbored by some
goverment, then the point is the same even if the names are different.
> > They're undergoing civil war already, and if what they believe in is the
> > wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians by a cowardly aggressor, then I say
> > that they should be dealt with as severely and thoroughly as possible. If • they
> > want to be left alone while simultaneously harboring a mass murderer, too bad
> > for them. They've made their alliances--let them enjoy the consequences.
>
> Again, you're lumping the whole Afghan population together here,
Only if you're equivocating on my admittedly vague use of "they." "They"
who are undergoing civil war are indeed the general Afghan population, even
those not directly involved in the conflict. "They" who believe in the
wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians are the Taliban and whoever else
might give haven to bin Laden.
> and I very
> much doubt that they all support bin Laden, in fact I'd be surprised if more
> than a small minority even knows he's there.
That's irrelevant--the "small minority" (which, by the way, is small only in
numbers, not in power) are the ones responsible and the ones who to be held
accountable.
> If it's OK to let these innocent
> people "enjoy the consequences", then why are you so angry that innocent
> Americans just "enjoyed the consequences" of America's alliances?
Equivocation, once again. Do you identify no difference between the
deliberate murder of innocent civilians in civilian aircraft and buildings with
the accidental deaths of those near military targets?
> I realise some people will think I'm heartless making such comments, but
> that's just how I feel about Dave's comments.
I don't think you're heartless; I just think you're engaged in deliberate and
selective misreading--a well-established form of literary analysis but not
really useful in the current debate.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: War
|
| (...) with (...) I realise I've snipped a lot of stuff and I will get back to it later, but I think here lies the fundamental difference in our opinions. The answer is no, I identify no difference between the deliberate murder of innocent civilians (...) (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: War
|
| (...) and (...) According to whom? (...) In fact it's unlikely bin Laden actually leaves his "protective apron" - he probably delegates any international tasks to others. And how is applying military force to the people of Afghanistan, many of whom (...) (23 years ago, 14-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
|
|
|
|
