Subject:
|
Re: Cease fire (was: Re: Peace in the Mid-East?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:08:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1052 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> Anyone who supports the actions of
> terrorists is just as culpable as the terrorists themselves.
I happen to agree with this viewpoint.It's nice and tidy and has a nice
absolute finality to it. No equivocating. But it has a big problem. It opens
one up to questioning one's own motives.
People who want to assail one's position will (rightly) point out that you
yourself have supported terrorists before. And it's true, the US has in fact
supported groups that were terrorists (sometimes for what seemed good
reasons at the time, sometimes for the personal power or aggrandisement of
particular officials).
Worse, the US public (individually, via donations) supports all sorts of
groups... The IRA, Hamas, Shining Path etc. etc. all get donations from US
citizens even if the government doesn't. Since many repressive goverments
and their state media organs have a lot of trouble with the concept of
independent citizens making independent contribution decisions, that tends
to get lumped in with official government actions.
If one evaluates relative good and relative outcomes, it's pretty clear that
the US is mostly a force for good, whatever the excesses (which are
unacceptable in and of themselves and in a country that is rule of law all
need to be fixed), and that Syria, for example, is mostly a bad guy,
whatever the small good things that it might do happen to be (which all need
to be encouraged).
But you can't make that mostly argument when you use absolutes. Since I'm an
absolutist that's a big problem.
So I'd rather make a relative argument as it's more convenient. For example:
Israel is bad at adhering to rule of law and human rights, but the PLO is
somewhat worse.
Janet Reno is bad at adhering to the rule of law but Fidel Castro is far worse.
and so on...
But as soon as I make that relative argument, I get called on it, because
I'm an absolutist. And pointing out that the callee is worse cuts no
mustard. You see that in effect here, don't you? Any enumeration of PLO
transgressions is met with an enumeration of Israeli transgressions in
reply. Make no mistake, in a perfect world Sharon would be tried as a
terrorist. But in that perfect world a lot of people, worse than he, who are
getting passes now, would be too.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Cease fire (was: Re: Peace in the Mid-East?)
|
| (...) That's odd, it’s my understanding that it is against the law to fund raise for the IRA in the USA... I may be wrong(?). By "repressive governments", do you include those who imprison suspects without trial? Interestingly, the UK will not hand (...) (23 years ago, 1-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cease fire (was: Re: Peace in the Mid-East?)
|
| (...) (Sorry about the butchered pasting): You: mean that I oppose the actions of both "PLO terrorists" and the Israeli > state. My views on human rights and international law, together with my > understanding of recent middle-east history, leads me (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
93 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
|
|
|
|
