Subject:
|
Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:00:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
315 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
because the terrorists hate freedom.
|
Now THERE is a peculiarly American point of view.
On the basis that terrorists are those who forsake non-violent means of
change, and violently target combatants and non-combatants alike to coerce
changes in state policy, I’d have thought that terrorists love freedom, and
fight for their right to share in it, against a state that systematically
marginalises them.
|
“Loving Freedom” doesn’t mean “Loving Freedom for me”. Denying others’ rights
to win your own hardly qualifies someone as a “freedom lover”-- more like a
disgusting hypocrite.
| |
The ‘terrorists’, so labelled by the states they attempt(ed) to coerce, of
revolutionary (C18) America, republican (C20) Ireland, or modern Palestine,
Israel, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Iraq among others would all likely ascribe
to a love of freedom as their prime motivation. Each would claim with some
justification that their freedoms and aspirations are being significantly
impaired by the freedoms the state in question chooses to exercise in the name
of national security, defending (privileged) minority groups, civil liberties,
or good administration.
|
Oppression never justifies the murder of innocents. What is the gain?
Liberation from Evil = Evil from Liberation.
| |
And this attitude of ‘I can do anything I like in the name of my own national
security’ just fuels the fire. No wonder the North Koreans are rattling their
nuclear sabre. Presumably, with any sense of balance at all, you would find
this entirely reasonable on their part, what with them doing it in order to
defend their national security from an openly predatory United States. And
that once the sabre rattling is done, we can get down to the inevitable
business of brinksmanship, and depending on who blinks first or not, nuclear
war. The path has been well worn, and one would have hoped by now that we
might have recognised that it is in co-operation (through more independent
bodies like the UN) and not competitive urination that stable results can
come.
So its a slow process. And bad stuff can happen in the meantime.
|
What you are failing to take into account is that Evil Leaders do not
represent their countries, they oppress them. Iraq is a good country with
good people; we always believed that. The problem was their leader. North
Korea is a hell-hole of oppression because of KIJ. This is why Democracy is
so important-- it gives the power to the people!
| |
But its an alternative process to armed conflict. And the quality of this
process, its inclusivity, transparency and equity is what guarantees a stand
down of hostility by terrorists. It is the absence of a perception of a
viable alternative that drives violent insurrection.
|
I’m sorry Richard, but you are simply wrong. You cannot negotiate with
terrorists. You think, to your credit, that if everyone were just rational and
all viewpoints were considered, a peace can be formed. The problem is that
there are people in this world who don’t value rational thought.
| |
Now true international co-operation (in contrast to ‘coalition of the willing’
lynch mobs) is not the most attractive solution. Its long and its hard and it
gets cerebral sometimes and it lacks the chest thumping bravado of storm
troopers on beaches and ‘mission accomplished’ and ‘we got him’. But its the
only lasting solution.
|
I’m not so sure.
| |
Anyone who suggests that urban terrorism can be defeated by tighter security
and increased brutality on the part of the state has simply failed to learn
the lessons of other conflicts in other places in other times.
|
Anyone who suggests that negotiating with terrorists will achieve peace has
simply failed to learn the lessons of other conflicts in other places in other
times
| |
When it comes to the
test, against all odds, it is more likely that body that overpowers the lash.
Terrorism can be reduced in this way, sure, but not vanquished, and it can get
a lot worse, and any improvement comes at what cost to the cherished freedoms
of the community?
|
So what are you suggesting???? Not oppose terrorism because you fear that you
might make it worse??? Give in to terrorism? I’m sorry, but the only solution
is to fight it until those who desire change are willing to go about it in a
civil manner.
| |
And for those who are already stinging, and want to point out that my country
(Australia) is not necessarily a leading light on some of these things, I am
entirely ready to agree. Australia still has a lot of problems in working out
how to support and empower our own marginalised and disenfranchised people.
But I am absolutely certain that simply increasing brutality and trampling the
personal freedoms of the marginalised in the name of community security, or
more obscenely ‘in best interests of the marginalised’, is not the answer.
So put away your tribal colours and big guns and crotch-first gait, and start
thinking about what could possibly motivate you to behave like the people you
call terrorists, to sacrifice your life in the service of something that will
likely not benefit you at all.
|
That’s the point!!!! There is NOTHING that would ever motivate me to
deliberately and savagely kill INNOCENT CHILDREN! These people are beyond
rational thinking.
| |
Discover that the things that would make you
behave the way they do
|
That’s a profoundly offensive and disgusting lie! Think what you are saying!
| |
have probably already happened to them, and much much
worse. And start working out how you can deliver on a process that shares
opportunity and wealth more widely and inclusively, one that would undo the
systematic obstacles put in front of some peoples, and which would reduce and
ameliorate the pressures that lead some to feel that their only option is to
burn it all down.
|
You do not understand the problem of Islamo-terrorism I am afraid. The simple
truth is that it has nothing to do with economics. This is about religious
intolerance; you are a target because you are not one of them, not because you
oppress them in some way.
| |
The litany ‘there is simply no excuse for terrorism’ echoes loud from those
who stand to gain the most from the preservation of the status quo.
|
So what? It doesn’t negate the Truth of the statement.
| |
It fails to
realise that this is no answer for those who are abjectly prevented from
sharing in the bounty of the status quo.
|
Again, you fail to comprehend the situation.
| |
Terrorism is a perfectly logical and
inevitable result of a resilient, clever, passionate and aspiring humanity
|
Serioulsy, this is one of the most offensive things I have ever seen printed!
God, I hope you reconsider and retract what you just wrote.
| |
constrained by a system that offers no hope. The materialisation of it then
is only a question of how long before a sufficient number of marginalised
people, with sufficient strength and energy appreciate their hopelessness, and
muster the courage and organisation to oppose it.
And no, I am not tarring all Americans with the same brush. I read some very
sensible and balanced things here. But I also read some scary, short sighted,
chest thumping and jingoistic rubbish. Now maybe its a faulty sample that I
have happened to read, but most of the rubbish seems to be coming from
Americans, who say things like ‘terrorists hate freedom’.
Nor am I blaming the Americans or anyone in particular for how we got here.
The blame thingie is just unhelpful. What is helpful is thinking about what
is the smartest thing to do next.
Perhaps John meant it as a light-hearted poke.
|
Absolutely not! I stand by that statement. Perhaps you’d like to explain how
the killing of innocent people is an example of “freedom loving”
| |
I seem to read similar things
said in all seriousness, and I feel the blood drain from my face in fear.
Terrorism is a scary thing, but the state that fails to recognise the humanity
of everyone, and institutionalises the imbalances and social injustices that
creates the need for terrorism, is only scarier.
|
Evil is evil Richard. Perpetrating evil to combat evil results in evil-- there
is no difference.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
| You know, I had kinda hoped that someone other than John might have spoken up in defence here. Perhaps that they have not is a very good sign. This post is longish, and I do apologise. I don't normally wax quite so lyrical, but it is a deep and (...) (20 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
