Subject:
|
Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 Mar 2004 04:55:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
455 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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”.
|
(rereading what I wrote) Nope, didn’t say that.
They all
| |
were captured fighting against our forces.
|
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 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.
|
I could swear you are commenting right now. :-)
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.
|
I’ll give a reasonable doubt, but there must be a day of reckoning. No
government agency can be given a perpetual blank check. Many gave Bush the
benefit of the doubt about the “weapons of mass destruction”. He was given his
room to manuever and implement policy as he saw fit, but now he has face the
consequences of his decisions.
“Hope” (benefit of the doubt) is a short term thing that we sometimes must grant
so as not to suffer paralysis of decision making, but ultimately, we must not
“hope”. We must hold decision makers accountable.
| |
| |
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
|
“...including any member of Islam that actually is paying attention to their
own doctrine.” Emphasis added for those not paying attention to what I wrote.
Or do you believe that is specifically not part of Islamic law that women and
children are supposed to be spared? And just to put this in perspective, are
you saying that Christians haven’t violated their own code by doing the exact
same thing (killing the innocent)?
| |
| |
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.
|
Evil is always done in war. Always. No matter how just cause, no matter how
noble the intentions. All you can do is try and hold it to a minimum. You were
making something of absolute statements, and what I’m trying to illustrate is
that those kind of philosophical absolutes don’t really exist.
| |
| |
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?
|
History validates my opinion. Napoleon and Hitler are two shining examples.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
We will? There wasn’t one country urging us to get out as soon as possible in
regards to Germany. We also had the recent lesson of WWI style revenge causing
more problems than it solved.
In Iraq, we already have the spectre of shameless profiteering mucking up our
already murky reasons for being there, which have proven to be wrong, which have
put us in a precarious moral position. There is no world mandate to stay and
“do the right thing”. Further, this was not a case of defeating the totality of
a nation, it was removing a government. Now that the people are free to move
forward, they have the moral right to democratically TOSS US OUT and we have NO
moral imperative to gainsay such an action. There would be extremely
counter-productive damage to stay after such a move.
It may be the intent to stay and do the right thing, but there is no guarentee
that the Iraquis have the same ideas as to what the “right” thing is.
| |
| |
Religious fanatics hate freedom
|
BINGO We have a winner! Islamo-terrorists hate freedom-- isn’t that what
started this?
|
Not all Islamic terrorists are religious fanatics - and I was drawing a parallel
with the hatred of freedom by Christian fanatics.
Part of the problem is ethnic nationalism, regional sectarianism, and perceived
injustice by an outside party. Summing up the totality of the problem as
“islamic fanatacism” is just as wrong as dismissing it as not part of the
equation.
| |
| |
but that applies to most religions.
|
Not mine-- its principles founded this nation.
|
I was specifically refering to this nation and specifically to Christianty, and
primarily the “born-again” segment (who want you to say their prayer in school,
pledge allegiance to God, swear on the Bible, corrupt science in the most
medieval backwards way possible, and on and on). The principles that founded
this nation do often thwart them, but that doesn’t mean the religious fanatics
still don’t hate freedom.
And no, certainly not all.
| |
| |
| |
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!
|
I shall quote a wise man: I ain’t doing your web searches for ya! :-)
Osama has taped his diatribes, so this isn’t the vacumn of information you
indicate.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I agree. I supported chasing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Nothing lasting will
happen unless we understand and address the root causes that brought things to
such a pass, however. There needs to be a resolution to the Israel/Palestian
conflict, and I’m of the opinion that we need to drag both sides kicking and
screaming to a table, come up with some comprimise that both sides agree to live
with, or wash our hands of both of them (i.e. let them kill each other by
whatever means they chose, and absolutely cut them all off of any sort of aid,
arms, or assistance of any kind).
| |
| |
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!
|
They only care about (or possibly on act on) our intrusion into what they
perceive of as their world, so I don’t see you making a case for this theory.
| |
Here’s how I’d suggest. Depose all religious leaders and foster Democracies.
|
Why did you state it that way? Shouldn’t that be depose all tyrants? What if a
religious leader is elected democratically? What if the people under any
particular tyrant don’t want us desposing their tyrant?
On the other hand, at least the Queen of England would have to be tossed under
the religious leader clause! :-)
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
| (...) lol I'll gladly drop it:-) (...) I'm curious. If WMDs were discovered to have been smuggled off to Syria, would Bush be exonerated in your estimation? (regardless of whether you thought attacking Iraq was a good idea or not) (...) I believe (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
