Subject:
|
Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 Mar 2004 04:49:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
376 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
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.
|
There are so many different legal issues-- definitions of POWs and of being “at
war” and the Geneva Convention and whatnot. It’s lawyer stuff and I really try
to avoid it. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t people out there who aren’t on
up of it. Let’em.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Women, pregnant women, the elderly, and even children can tie bombs around
their waist and detonate them on buses. Though most children probably
wouldn’t do it if they knew the consequences.
|
I meant as victims, not as perps. Although I would have a hard time condemning
a brain-washed child homicide-bomber. I would be particularily repulsed by a
pregnant homicide bomber or by a society in general that would send their
children to such a disgusting task.
| |
| |
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.
|
I agree totally. Obviously Truman didn’t.
|
Less innocent US lives were lost (as well as aggregate Japanese lives compared
to a land invasion). Also, Truman targeted industrial cities, rather than
Tokyo, a target where the optimal amount of civilian deaths would have occurred.
I agree that it was a difficult decision, because Truman had the power to decide
which innocents would die (not whether innocents would die)
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Does freedom require moral justification now?
|
I am talking about actions taken while attempting to gain it.
| |
| |
| |
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. On
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?
|
Does that include the freedoms that require moral justification?
|
You are missing my point. Everyone has the innate right to be free. What I am
saying is that you do not have a moral right to take away my freedom to obtain
yours.
| |
| |
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?
|
Nope, but it sure does give you a warm, fuzzy feeling.
|
I happen to believe they are moral obligations of the rich and free.
| |
And what about you? Given the world situation in 1945, would you kill
thousands of “innocent” civilians if you were pretty sure it would end a war?
|
It is a hard question, but it must be acknowledged that, either way, thousands
of innocents were going to be killed. All that was unknown was which ones in
particular. Given that rationale, choosing the path which spared the most
innocent lives seems logical.
| |
| |
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.
|
And yet here you say it
can be rational to do so. In the thousands.
|
See above. I am consistent. I said the only thing worse than the death of an
innocent is more of the same. If dropping the bombs saved innocent lives in
the aggregate, then it was a rational decision.
| |
| |
I need to know if you believe that if someone is desperate enough, they are
justified in killing innocents.
|
Do you mean morally or rationally justified?
|
Well, both. Neither are justified in my mind.
| |
| |
Show me the economic oppression being suffered by al-qaeda. Their leader is
a multi-millionaire.
|
But their leader doesn’t fly planes into buildings or blow himself up on
buses.
|
What’s your point?
| |
| |
What are their demands? What do they want? Why don’t
we know these things?
|
Why weren’t we told the real objective of invading Iraq beforehand?
|
We were.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
And yet it will continue until we find out why.
|
What makes you think you can end it by merely finding out the cause? What if
the reason is because they don’t like your freedom?
| |
And yet heinous crimes occur against innocent people every day in your own
country.
|
Perpetrated by whom? Relevance?
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
OK. So show me all the evil in the world. Then show me how you would propose
combatting it.
|
Find the oppressed. Liberate them.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
And do you seriously think the current course is going to stop them?
|
What is our choice? Give in to them? Negotiate with them? We will continue to
oppose them kill them and hurt them until they see the folly of their actions,
or they are all dead. Only then will it stop.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
| (...) But a land invasion was tried first! "Oh well, that didn't work looks like more innocents will die that way, lets go with the nuke and see how well that works". And they didn't stop at one to see if it worked, they killed many more thousands (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
