Subject:
|
Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 Mar 2004 03:38:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
478 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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.
|
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 why they are there! See the problem? If everyone refuses
to criticize the move because “all the facts aren’t in”, then how can the
problem ever be resolved. We need to take the opposite tack - because the
government refuses to give us the details, we need to strongly criticize
those in power. Otherwise we have a tyrrany.
|
First off, let’s not assume that those detained are “innocent”. They all were
captured fighting against our forces. When I said “all of the facts aren’t in”,
I meant that I didn’t possess all of the facts in order to comment-- and neither
does any other. The fact is that we rarely know all of the facts WRT to
governmental activities-- our only hope is that those in charge are electible
persons who are accountable to the people.
| |
| |
(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.
|
In essense, the rest of the world didn’t care (much) when Osama blew up our
destroyer, but got worried when he blew up an office building.
|
Military target verses civilian.
| |
I suppose one
can argue up and down whether anyone is innocent in a war since their efforts
aid the war (or class struggle, or idealogical battle, or... etc.) but
effectively most societies (including any member of Islam that actually is
paying attention to their own doctrine) find killing women and children
offensive.
|
Would that it were true:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2072851.stm
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
And the irony is, if the U.S. then uses evil to liberate the oppressed, then
it loses any justification for freeing others - that’s the part I think you
are missing.
|
Again, liberation is not an evil act; that innocents are killed is not the
intention; innocents are not the targets.
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
Democratic-Man’s Burden?
|
Perhaps. Also, how about Rich-Man’s Burden? We are yoked twice.
| |
I’ve already weighed in on this on the side of
democracy has to be earned - otherwise the moment we walk out of Iraq, they
will elect a hardline squad of religious zealots who will end democracy and
be a bigger threat to us than Saddam ever was.
|
Why do you have so little faith in Freedom?
| |
| |
The taste of Freedom will forever linger-- it is like Pandora’s box; surely
subjegation will be less tolerated after having tasted it.
|
It would seem so, but watch it go out the window if there is economic
problems (see Germany post WWI).
|
That is why we will do it right as we did with Germany post WWII.
| |
| |
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.
|
Nothing much comes to mind except stuff that involves even more pain and
equal death.
| |
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.
|
Well, here’s a typically ignorant American comment (not yours, the following,
which is mine): are the Palestinians recognized as a nation by the U.N.?
| |
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.
|
Religious fanatics hate freedom
|
BINGO We have a winner! Islamo-terrorists hate freedom-- isn’t that what
started this?
| |
but that applies to most religions.
|
Not mine-- its principles founded this nation.
| |
They
want you to behave in accordance to their religious beliefs. But
“terrorists” have fought against repressive governments for greater freedom:
IRA, for example (I don’t want to debate that particular point, so I agree
that anyone can disagree with that). And, I have to say, I don’t approve of
IRA tactics at all.
| |
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.
|
Yup. And that’s how it gets justified - even more will (allegedly) suffer if
the move is not made.
|
But there is a big difference here: targeted deaths verses unintentional deaths.
| |
But usually if they are that violent and ruthless,
they will remain so once in power.
|
Precisely! What is the country of Palestine going to look like?
| |
| |
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?
|
Because you haven’t been paying attention?
|
Please enlighten!
| |
| |
Was it evil for the US to attack Nazi Germany?
|
Technically, they attacked us (they declared war in support of their ally,
Japan).
|
Squirm;-)
| |
| |
This is the simplistic path. What do you do if the agenda of the
terrorists is to disintegrate your society into anarchy?
|
You can kill ‘em all (but you must ask yourself if that has that worked with
cockroaches).
|
Still, doesn’t mean you don’t still try.
| |
You can remove their support by removing the problem that
feeds their hate (ooooo, but this might involve rethinking our own position).
|
Ah, but what if their problem is your freedom? That, I believe, brings us
full circle!
| |
Some combination of the two?
| |
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.
|
I don’t think you can ever truly stop a true wacko except by hunting them
down and dealing with them, but it may well be a useless proposition if you
keeping feeding the monster at the same time. There’s no point in loping off
the head of the Hydra if two more take it’s place. You have to figure out
how to stop the heads from growing back.
|
Here’s how I’d suggest. Depose all religious leaders and foster Democracies.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
| (...) (rereading what I wrote) Nope, didn't say that. They all (...) Allegedly. Maybe. Maybe not. If they were, two years held without charges? Those in charge are incompetent or evil. Take your pick, we need to get rid of them either way. When I (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
| (...) If the elections are rigged so that only the two entrenched parties can prevail and the facts of the situation are shrouded in secrecy, how exactly are the leaders in any way accountable? (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (21 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
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
|
|
|
|
