Subject:
|
Re: The killing needs to stop.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Sep 2001 18:41:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
293 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Carl Watson writes:
> Amongst the dozens of messages here I would like to offer my support for &
> bring attention to this message posted by Richard Marchetti:
Let me say this before I delve into responding point by point below:
Ideally, I agree with the sentiments below. They reflect the Christian
principles that I hold dear and believe will someday be realized when Christ
returns - but not before then. The idealism belows neglects the reality of
what is. We must face what is, not what we wish would be.
>
> richard marchetti <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message:
>
> > As to everything else, I would simply say this: nothing we do now will
> > rebuild what was savagely torn down -- it's gone; nothing we do now will
> > bring back those we have lost -- they are gone from this world for good.
> > I mourn them all, we all mourn them together.
Amen. Realism. But no one is suggesting that our actions will rebuild or
restore anything. Such actions are intended to deter further violence from
the terrorists. Reagan's actions against Libya are a perfect example. It
worked then. It saved innocent lives, while punishing the guilty. Many other
examples can be given.
> > If you or I do not individually have the right to kill each
> > other, then there is no basis for thinking that the state as a collective >> has in any way been bequeathed such a power either.
So killing is always wrong, right? I wonder what would happen if police
officers would use that rationale.
Answer me this. What about the fourth plane that crashed in PA? The
passengers and crew on that plane fought with the terrorists killing them
and themselves. According to your philosophy, they should have let the
terrorists live, right? Taking life to protect the innocent is NEVER wrong!
Killing *IS* sometimes right.
All religions assume that Diety has delegated the authority of capital
punishment to a responsible human government. I know that Richard does not
accept religion, which makes this all the more befuddling. If naturalism is
true, killing is not only acceptable, it is necessary to natural selection.
> > Justice demands prison terms -- not the hooliganism of war abroad.
"Hooliganism of war abroad?" I defy anyone to define and defend that gem of
wisdom.
> > I want to be stainless before the world and show them they we can bring
> > those who are guilty to justice
> > without having to resort to the low violence of those who have so
> > egregiously wronged us as would be the case with indescriminate bombing.
If we respond with greater military force, it would not be "low violence."
Also, who is talking about "indescriminate bombing?" These arguments are all
built on false assumptions, rendering the conclusions equally false.
We did not defeat Hitler by becoming like Hitler. We did what was right.
According to your "live and let live" philosophy, we should have sat back
and let him conquer the world. Using military force against these terrorists
will save innocent lives by ending their miserable lives.
> > I don't want to create martyrs -- I want to catch murderers. Of those who
> > might peripherally be the support group or relatives of the guilty, I
> > would suggest we engage them in a dialogue and find out what they think is >> wrong that some of them are so vehemently opposed to the U.S.
I addressed this attitude of "try to understand" in another message. Utter
nonsense. They are opposed to our support of Israel. Period. It has been
determined that Saddam Hussein was also behind this. Need we find out was
his greivance is? Seeing that they oppose us supporting Israel, should we
then acquiesce and not support Israel?
> > I would suggest we try to arrive at some kind of policy of "live and let
> > live", if not actual friendship, with such people that future violence and >> terrorism may be forestalled.
You assume that this is possible. We tried that with Saddam before we bombed
the stuffing out of him. You cannot reason with terrorists. This attitude
ignores the FACT that there are evil men. But then you deny evil exists. I
defy you to preach that philosophy on a soap box in front of what was the
Twin Towers. If it was not evil, how can you demand justice or imprisonment.
Which gets back to a previous point: If there is no Diety and no evil, why
the outrage Richard? True naturalism does not prohibit such actions. Your
philosophies do not pan out. The fact is, we all know evil when we see it -
it is a rational intuition. Why is that?
> > Hey, I am just saying that sometimes its hard to see our own faults and
> > that they have to be pointed out to us. It's not okay to point out our
> > faults by killing our people -- surely there must have been another way to >> get our attention. But too, let's be sure they get our attention before
> > they feel more desperate and that there must needs be violence.
They were not trying to get our attention - like some rebellious
adoloscent(?). They were trying to *punish* us for supporting Israel.
> >
> > Peace is not something that happens by itself -- it must be actively
> > worked on! If we applied the same dedication that we have for our
> > interpersonal relationships to foreign affairs, things like Tuesday just
> > wouldn't happen.
Does not equate. When was the last time you were in an interpersonal
relationship where an acquaintance wanted to harm you because of another
acquaintance? Again, it sounds all flowery and fuzzy and warm, but is utter
nonsense. These people have made THEMSELVES our enemies, we haven't. You
cannot have a "friendship" with such people. You are willingly ignorant of
the FACTS here in order to postulate this utter "feel good" nonsense. As I
said, ideally I agree with these principles, but they do not deal with
reality. More people will die if we try to apply this drivel. These are
violent men, if we take the postrure you suggest, they will walk all over us.
> > We wouldn't be mad at others in the world -- they would be our friends and
> > nieghbors. We would have a forum for settling disputes without war. We
> > wouldn't let our neighbors and friends kill each other over issues like
> > where the fence can be erected, we would have a dispute resolution
> > methodology in place to stop such things. Hey, people get on each others
> > nerves -- but must it end in bloodshed?
Again, sounds great. But what happens when Saddam or Usama say fooey? We
must be prepared to deal with such things. Spanking such men will save more
lives than are taken. The bombs dropped on Japan in WWII dramatically
shortened the war thereby saving lives!! This is so frustrating! I can't
believe that apparently intelligent people can't grasp this!!
If the other side does not share your idealism, what do you do? Lay down and
let them kill you? No way! Why is that so hard? You create this paradox by
denying evil and/or right and wrong. You have in the past denied the
existence of right and wrong, yet now say this is horribly wrong - and not
only that, but that there must be justice. How can this be? Can't you see
how incredibly incongruent this is?
> >
> > Giving peace a chance might mean something like turning over 1/2 of what
> > we spend on the military and giving it over to education (I have the insane
> > belief that educated people tend to shy away from violence as the only
> > solution).
Again, sounds enlightened, but has no basis in fact. This is basic Plato -
have we come no farther than this. This ignores the fact that most serial
killers are highly intelligent. Saddam is intelligent. Adolf was
intelligent. We already spend too much on mindless education. Most of what
is being taught in public schools is equally drivel. Private schools get
better results with less money. Again, the facts are against you. Money is
not the answer, substance is.
> > Giving peace a chance might mean engaging "third world"
> > countries in a meaningful share of the riches of the world, instead of
> > just bleeding them for cheap labor.
Many "third world" countries are such by their own hands - by that I mean
the governments not the people. Most third world countries are military
dictatorships - which goes back to everything I've said thus far. Bad men
have imposed poverty on people who will not rise up and say "no." These
people are oppressed because they have applied your fuzzy logic. All of
those countries have resources and available technology to become as
prosperous as we are. You sound like you assume that we have just been lucky
and that our prosperity has nothing to do with working for and earning it.
They would be prosperous if they would follow our example. There are more
than enough resources for the world to share in our wealth. Their own
governments "bleed them for cheap labor."
> > Maybe peace might mean a computer in every human dwelling -- so that no one >> feels left out -- everyone can dialogue with anyone else in a time of need >> (Motherbox anyone?).
More drivel.
> >
> > Do we want peace or do we want to move forward as brutes? That's the
> > choice. If all we do is keep enacting the Hatfields and McCoys in the
> > world, who then is the first to put down their sword or drop their gun?
> > Shouldn't the strong yield to peace first?
Peace will never exist apart from God. Until then peace can only exist by
threat of superior force. That's why we have cops. Do you think our streets
would be as safe as they are without cops?
> >
> > I say we are the strong and that we may yield to peace first.
We are the ones who seek peace. Allowing these thugs to perpetrate such acts
with only the threat of imprisonment is a joke. Our federal prisons are like
Hiltons to these people. We'd be doing them a favor.
> > -- Richard
>
> I would also like to add this myself:
>
> IMO the argument of 'they started it' won't help to bring world peace.
> Someone at some point has to stand up & say "I am bigger than that, I will
> not take part in any more killing".
Again, if the people on the fourth plane had applied this nonsense, the
death toll would be much higher.
>
> Surely the most powerfull nation in the world could go a long way towards
> bringing this world closer to peace.
>
> Carl
Why do you assume we haven't?! No other country has done more to foster
peace than the U.S.
We have gone more than a long way to foster peace! Ever hear of WWI or WWII?
This is such floggin' pap! If it wasn't for us the world would be a far more
barbaric place. Protecting our own - not to mention making the world safer
by removing this scum - is not contradictory to the notion of peace. I will
say again, sometimes war and killing actually saves more lives!!!! I have
already given many incidents where this has been PROVEN to be undeniable
FACT - and I haven't even scratched the surface. Gad flippin' zooks, this is
so &#@%$* frustrating - come back to REALITY! The world is what it IS - not
what you WISH it was. We can't deal in fantasy - we'll never fix anything
that way.
Bill
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The killing needs to stop.
|
| (...) Don't be silly. You are trying to extrapolate from something very personally immediate to something largely abstract. Of course, people have the right to protect themselves even by killing an assailant if need be. Plus in the scenario you are (...) (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | The killing needs to stop.
|
| Amongst the dozens of messages here I would like to offer my support for & bring attention to this message posted by Richard Marchetti: richard marchetti <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message news:GJMBso.CFI@lugnet.com... <snipped talk about (...) (23 years ago, 14-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- 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
|
|
|
|
