Subject:
|
Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:29:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
400 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote:
| |
You know, I had kinda hoped that someone other than John might have spoken up
in defence here.
|
(snippage)
| |
How does the Guantanamo Bay gulag fit in with this? This is denying others’
rights in a vain attempt to win improved security and thereby freedom.
Surely John is not accusing the American administration of being disgusting
hypocrites.
|
First, I think we all can agree that no nation is perfect, including the US.
That said, I am reticent about commenting on Guantanamo because I don’t believe
that enough facts are about the interned are readily available. I wouldn’t mind
debating a similar hypothetical situation if all of the “givens” were agreed
upon.
(snip)
| |
| |
Oppression never justifies the murder of innocents.
|
Interesting theory. No sense in it at all in relation to adult ‘innocents’.
The brutally and mercilessly oppressed could well be open to the entirely
sensible argument that those who take benefit from the oppression are guilty
nonetheless. This isn’t a supposition of mine - this is part of the
indoctrination.
|
I have to flat-out reject that assertion. If you cannot agree that women,
pregnant women, the eldery along with children are not innocents, then this
might be a short discussion. This is key, because “terrorism” is defined as the
targeting of innocents with the goal of breaking a society or group’s
resolve-- to use its own humanity against itself in order to cooerce it into
change. It is, in fact, impossible to “terrorize” a military, because violence
perpetrated against an army is called “war”, not “terrorism”. This is why
terrorism is so disgusting, because it is so cowardly. If you want to oppose
a government, then rise up against the government!, not against its citizens!
But the cowards might think, “We are not powerful enough to oppose the
government, let us strike out at it by killing its citizens instead”. This is
not “clever”, but immoral and despicable. Or, at its essence: 2 wrongs don’t
make a right.
(snip)
| |
| |
Liberation from Evil = Evil from Liberation.
|
I don’t get this, sorry.
|
If I am being evilly oppressed, and I use evil to liberate myself, I am mimicing
my oppressor and therefore loosing any moral justification for freeing myself.
| |
I am a fan of democracy. A big fan. I don’t believe in forcing on people,
and I don’t believe in simply giving it to people. Democracy has to be won.
|
This is a very interesting assertion. I’m not sure what to do with it. One the
one hand, I believe that things obtained freely are valued less than things
earned. But does this apply to freedoms which we believe are innate and the
right of every person? Are we all be truly “free” if there are others who are
oppressed? Are we, as Democracies, and especially as Super-Power Democracies
morally bound to help the oppressed people of the world? Are the free obligated
to help the unfree? Are the wealthy obligated to assist the poor?
| |
Democracy carries a great deal of responsibility.
|
I would say: Democracies carry a great deal of responsibility.
| |
It requires a great deal of
tolerance and a commitment that many simply do not grasp. Waltzing in and
passing it out like lollipops is not helpful in the mid to long term.
|
The taste of Freedom will forever linger-- it is like Pandora’s box; surely
subjegation will be less tolerated after having tasted it.
(snip)
| |
Nowhere did I suggest negotiating with terrorists. I am not suggesting
negotiation. We have nothing to negotiate with unless we can present a real
alternative to the systematic injustices that create the suffering and
hopelessness.
|
Are you talking about systematic injustices that we have created, or that
simply exist? Because surely we are not the cause of every problem in the
third world? (As some manipulatively claim, as in the case of the Jews being the
cause of every problem of Palestinians)
And what is to prevent third world countries, who are even being given aid, to
terrorize and blackmail richer nations for more? How far does poverty and
hopelessness allow one to go? I believe that there are worse things than
starving to death.
| |
When we have the alternative, and a perceptible commitment to delivering on
our side, then the negotiation will happen all by itself. Not necessarily
with the titular leaders of the ‘terrorist’ movements, but certainly with
their operatives and their support base.
| |
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.
|
Its true, there are some. But not many. Over time (even if its generations),
and on the evidence of their own eyes, almost everyone can be engaged in a
reappraisal of their ideas. Hopefully even you can come to see the humanity
in these ‘terrorists’.
|
I disagree, and I use the Palestinians as an example. They have “struggled” for
national identity for almost 60 years. Certainly if nationhood were their
agenda, it would have transpired by now.
(snip)
| |
| |
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.
|
I am pleased for you that your life has never exposed you the kind of
injustice that much of the rest of the (mainly non-western) world lives with
every day. It will make it harder for you to understand. Even so, it is a
worthy endeavour.
And this is part of what makes the argument about ‘innocents’ (other than
children) rather thin. It is possible to live in such a nice and mentally
undemanding world for so long that it is not possible to imagine it could be
any other way for anyone else. And by this lack of imagination, we can fail
to appreciate issues. And by failing to appreciate the issues, we fail to
address them. By failing to address them we support the very systems that
cause the problem. Its only a short skip and a rhetorical jump to find these
happy, unimaginative people just as guilty as those who participate knowingly.
|
Listen, again I must vehemently disagree. We have not discussed “morality” yet,
but now is a good time. I need to know if you believe that the deliberate
killing of innocents justifies a greater good. From what you’ve said so far, I
believe you do. This whole argument boils down to this, because this was the
idea behind my initial assertion that “terrorists hate freedom”. “Freedom” is a
concept that applies to everyone, not a chosen few. If I gain (my) freedom by
taking away (killing) yours (an innocent), I have liberated 1 life and taken
away (permanently) the freedom of 1 life. The net result is zero change in
“Freedom” in the macro, and the death of a innocent besides. Sure, you have won
your freedom, but at what cost? If you really loved Freedom, you’d
sacrifice your own life, not the lives of innocents. That’s why the term
“suicide bomber” is so disingenuous, because they denotate themselves around
women and children with the intend of homicide. Blow yourself up in a town
square with no chance of hurting others and I’ll believe you love your “cause”.
But they don’t. Because the goal of terrorism is not freedom.
| |
| |
| |
Discover that the things that would make you
behave the way they do
|
That’s a profoundly offensive and disgusting lie!
|
I agree that that there are some people who could simply not countenance the
idea of striking another, and maybe you are one of these. In my time I have
found myself in situations where I knew that if I did not act, and hurt
someone, a much greater hurt would be done. To my own surprise, I have found
it in myself to act.
|
Let’s be clear what we are talking about here. Are you saying that you would
kill an innocent person to alleviate some “greater hurt”? I ask you: what can
be worse than an innocent being killed? I know of nothing, except more of
the same.
| |
As I read about the day to day lives of people living in the
hopelessness of the areas of the world that are the ‘breeding grounds’ for
terrorists, I wonder whether in their world, I might not find myself driven to
act. And I am not suggesting I want to go around putting bombs on trains,
letting saran gass loose on subways.
|
Why not? Terrorists seem to have no trouble doing it.
| |
But far lesser actions, actions directed
at the oppression have unfortunate side-effects for your ‘innocents’, and have
been lumped in with what we call ‘terrorism’. I would hope that I could find
other more useful and less violent things I could do that might actually make
a difference, but if I couldn’t, if there weren’t, what then?
|
So, you are acknowledging that if you tried and tried and tried to liberate
yourself and couldn’t, you could then justify murdering babies (innocents). I
need to know if you believe that if someone is desperate enough, they are
justified in killing innocents.
| |
| |
Think what you are saying!
|
Its a mistake to assume that other people don’t think what they 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.
|
I desperately hope that you are right. Your view is so much simpler.
| |
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.
|
Goodness gracious. Can anyone seriously ascribe to this painfully simplistic
and jingoistic view? Its nice, because you don’t have to think too hard, you
can just work out what religion or club or lodge someone belongs to, and on
that basis, support them or shun them.
|
Show me the economic oppression being suffered by al-qaeda. Their leader is a
multi-millionaire. What are their demands? What do they want? Why don’t we
know these things?
| |
Islam is not new. Its been around for considerably longer than western
democracy, and even longer than the United States of America. Yet the faith
has not been driving people to ruthlessly and violently lash out. For a time,
it was the Muslim world that was the scientific and philosophical light of
humanity. So why has it suddenly reared up now?
|
“Wahabism” is a particularily violent anti-Western form of Islam. Why? Who
knows; who cares. There is no rational or moral justification for it.
| |
This is not a religious issue.
|
I couldn’t disagree more.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
No of course not, but it points out that those who espouse it have a vested
interest that likely overcomes their interest in the truth or falsity of it.
And I suggest that there is an excuse for terrorism, there is a reason for
terrorism, and until we acknowledge it, fail to be shocked by it, and deal
with it, then we’re stuck with it.
|
What if I am correct? That Islamo-extremists want the West to fall in order to
set up an Islamic Theocracy. There is no negotiating with that-- you either
convert or die.
| |
| |
| |
It fails to realise that this is no answer for those who are abjectly
prevented from sharing in the bounty of the status quo.
|
|
|
Even if Freedom were the status quo, there are those who have no interest in
sharing in this bounty.
| |
| |
Again, you fail to comprehend the situation.
|
Mmmmmm.
| |
| |
Terrorism is a perfectly logical and inevitable result of a resilient,
clever, passionate and aspiring humanity
|
Seriously, this is one of the most offensive things I have ever seen
printed! God, I hope you reconsider and retract what you just wrote.
|
I know, it runs counter to established fear based and populist mantras.
|
It runs counter to morality.
| |
And I’m not surprised that you in particular haven’t seen it in print (or even
on the screen). One might suggest you read more widely.
|
What, exactly, do you suggest? What you are proposing is disgusting.
| |
I don’t understand why it should offend you though, although obviously I feel
for you that it does. All this idle taking offence at things is only a
distraction from addressing the issues. Preening and posturing is not
helpful.
|
Trust me, it is not idle, but crucial to understanding each other. I have
already posed my questions above. All that might be left is to agree to
disagree.
| |
And it is scary as hell, because it points out that in these ‘terrorist’s’
minds, they are mostly everyday people, with an extraordinary conviction.
|
Again, this is patently absurd. “Everyday people” do not consider targeting
innocents to butcher in the most heinous of ways. Why are you so reticent to
characterize such atrocities as “evil”?
| |
But
we can’t simply kill or imprison them all, even though we seem keen to spend a
great deal of money, and undermine a great many personal liberties in an
attempt to do just this. We really need to find a way to understand.
|
That’s all. All we need to do is understand “evil”. Well, good luck, my
friend. One doesn’t need to understand evil to combat it; only to identify it.
And that is your problem and the problem with the Left in general-- you cannot
acknowledge or identify evil.
| |
| |
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”
|
Well let’s see.
If you loved freedom so, so much that the oppression of other people who you
didn’t know from Adam, in a whole other country, half a world away was just
intolerable to you. They were being imprisoned unfairly, killed
indiscriminately. The terrible people who were doing this to them were
building up their weapons so they could do more of this oppression, and kill
more people.
|
(And quite possibily, you believed, that these terrible people would give those
weapons to people who would use them against you)
| |
And you’ve tried everything. You’ve taken these terrible people to court, and
the court agreed that what was being done was wrong, but the court didn’t DO
anything that stopped it. And you’d tried to starve these nasty people out by
siege, but this didn’t work. And you knew that the only way to restore
freedom to these oppressed people, which freedom you love so well, was to
storm the terrible people, to attack them, to bomb them, and inspire shock and
awe in these nasty people. And you knew full well that in doing so you would
also be killing some innocent civilians nearby, and innocent young soldiers
earnestly doing their jobs in the national defence forces manning
anti-aircraft positions, who had never personally committed any crimes. To
restore freedom to these oppressed people, the only way was to kill some
innocent people.
Wouldn’t that be an example of how the killing of innocent people is an
example of “freedom loving”.
|
There is one difference, and it makes all the difference. The innocents who
lost their lives in the liberation of Iraq were not targets. Their deaths
were unintentional, and great lengths were taken to keep civilian casualties to
a minimum. Contrast that with strapping on bomb belt filled with rusty nails
dipped in rat poison and boarding a public bus or entering a restaurant and
detonating it. I’m sorry; your analogy doesn’t hold up.
| |
If nothing else, surely America is ‘freedom loving’.
|
Does anyone love Freedom? And if so, who more than we?
| |
| |
Evil is evil Richard. Perpetrating evil to combat evil results in evil--
there is no difference.
|
There’s that thing about irony again.
Many count invading a sovereign nation an evil thing to do.
|
Was it evil for the US to attack Nazi Germany?
Was it evil for Egypt, Syria, Jordan to attack Israel in (pick a war)?
| |
And contrary to you
view, I think that it is not necessarily so that this must result in evil.
Whether it results in evil in Iraq depends on what we do next, not what was
done before.
As long as we go on with the ‘there is nothing I ought to do other than hurt
(persecute/imprison/kill) you until you agree to my terms’ the problem cannot
be resolved. The sooner we can understand the social undercurrents that bring
us to where we stand, the sooner we can seek to restore hope, and undermine
the human resources that support terrorism. Then, like a plant deprived of
nutrients, terrorism simply withers and dies.
|
This is the simplistic path. What do you do if the agenda of the terrorists
is to disintegrate your society into anarchy?
| |
Continue on our current course,
evading understanding, thinking that ‘terrorists hate freedom’ only adds
fertiliser around the plant, and makes it grow stronger and larger.
|
Any insight into the reasons/issues/demands of al-qaeda you have would be most
helpful. Understanding WRT movitations appears to be a luxury-- all I
understand now is that if I don’t stop them, they won’t stop.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
| (...) I think Richard was talking about the "givens" that they have been held for up to 2 years without being charged, in the name of "security". Something that the administration would frown upon in the name of freedom. (...) Women, pregnant women, (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
| (...) You have summed up the problem without realizing it, I think. If, for example, an administration wanted to quiet someone, all they have to do is throw them in the Gulag (I like Richard's appraisal of what it is) and simply refuse to divulge (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
| (...) No wonder I didn't get it. I would never have thought that I needed a moral justification for freeing myself from 'evil oppression'. I'll think on this some more. (snip) (...) I am not sure that there is a useful difference between the concept (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Welcome aboard [was Re: Terrorists hate freedom]
|
| (...) …and who is making sure we stay in the dark? The reality is that five Britons were released without charge from Guntanamo Bay this week... a fact that suggests Bush had no reason to hold them! Since their release, they have been giving their (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
