Subject:
|
Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:40:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
368 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
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. :-)
|
lol I’ll gladly drop it:-)
| |
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.
|
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)
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
I believe the “Jihad” card trumps any morality card in the deck of Koran....
| |
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)?
|
Let’s put this in perspective. Ask any Christian (who has a basic knowledge
of history) whether the Inquisition or the actrocities committed during the
Crusades by Christians were evil-- 99% would say “yes”. The fact that such
atrocities occurred in the events of distant Christian history is beside the
point I believe (unless we didn’t condemn them, but which we all do).
| |
| |
| |
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’ll agree with that. War is hell. But I wouldn’t equate homicide bombers
killing innocents to the deaths of innocents at the hands of the US while trying
to liberate Iraq.
(snip)
| |
| |
| |
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
|
They aren’t?
Oops. Sorry>:-D
| |
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.
|
I was basically referring to al-qaeda. What you’ve described sounds like
Palestinian terrorism to me.
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I think they just want to be able to do those things, but that is another
argument for another time:-)
(snip)
| |
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.
|
Yeah, I’ve heard the blah, blah about US presence in SA, blah blah.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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).
|
On what grounds would you sever allegiance to Israel our ally? For that matter;
on what grounds don’t we attack the Terrorist Palestinian leaders as we did in
Afganistan?
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
The utter hypocrisy of the hatred of the West is almost beyond comprehension.
Nobody seems to mind the billions of dollars we spent to buy their oil!
| |
| |
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?
|
Well, yeah, depose all tyrants (who are commonly manifested as religious
leaders)
| |
What
if a religious leader is elected democratically?
|
As long as it is a Democracy, as opposed to a Theocracy.
| |
What if the people under
any particular tyrant don’t want us desposing their tyrant?
|
Hmmm, people who prefer oppression to freedom-- In Masochistopotema? :-)
| |
On the other hand, at least the Queen of England would have to be tossed
under the religious leader clause! :-)
|
Ouch. Too harsh; I retract:-)
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
