Subject:
|
Re: From Reason: "It's all bad news - Chaos in occupied Iraq"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 May 2004 20:17:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1242 times
|
| |
|
|
This post is rather long. Sorry about that, for anyone who’s following.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
On what basis do you declare these people to be psychotic, inhuman and
irrational?
|
View the horrific video of these people screaming “Allah is the Greatest!” as
one of them slowly slices off the head of an innocent human being and then
holding up the severed head as a trophy and answer your own question.
|
Well, I watched the entire “beheading” video, and honestly it’s not particularly
more horrifying that the pictures from Abu Ghraib. Yes, it’s a brutal,
premeditiated act, but at least it wasn’t an institutional (and, apparently,
officially endorsed) effort to dehumanize the very people we’ve been claiming to
liberate.
Certainly you must know that I’m no more upset by Muslims screaming ‘Allah is
the Greatest’ than I am about the US President declaring that God is on Our Side
or Generals declaring that
our god is
better than their god. Why do you advocate murderous Christian fundamentalism
while decrying murderous Islamic fundamentalism?
| |
| |
Is it because they go to extraordinary lengths to force others
to accept their extremist religious doctrines?
|
“Extraordinary” doesn’t even begin to describe the degree to which they are
willing to go.
|
Or the degree to which we are willing to go. How many Iraqi civilians have
died because of US action? And how many American civilians have died because of
Iraqi action?
| |
| |
Is it because they kill
innocent civilians in the name of a greater cause?
|
“Kill”? “Savagely butcher” might be a better.
|
Is the beheading of a single person more or less horrific than the airbombing of
40+ civilians at a wedding party?
| |
| |
It is far too convenient to dismiss the views of one’s enemy as insane or
inhuman.
|
Really? But what if that’s indeed what they are?
|
You are arguing by assertion, which is a fallacy. Instead, if you wish to
maintain your claim that these people are insane or inhuman, then you must very
specifically spell out the following:
1. How do you determine that they are insane or inhuman?
2. How do you determine that you are fit to judge their relative insanity or
inhumanity?
3. On what basis do you determine that the United States is fit to judge their
relative insanity or inhumanity?
4. On what basis do you determine that the United States has the moral
authority to act against them?
5. On what basis do you determine the appropriate response to the enemy?
6. On what basis do you determine that the United States is not equally guilty
of the crimes it accuses the so called “insane” of committing?
Clearly, if you are able to declare these people to be insane and inhuman, you
must have clear guidelines for making that determination. Please present those
guidelines, so that we may properly assess these people. Additionally, we must
naturally subject Dubya and his administration to the same review.
I look forward to examining your criteria.
| |
| |
That way, you spare yourself the trouble of considering whether any
of those views have validity.
|
What if those views indeed have absolutely no validity?
|
Again, this is argument by assertion, and it’s a fallacy.
| |
| |
Instead of writing them off, why not consider
their root?
|
Who cares? They are killing innocents, and are dedicated to continue the
same. They do not deserve further consideration.
|
Every objection you have raised thus far applies equally (or more so) to the
actions and policies of the Bush Administration. Do you condemn the
Adminstration equally, or do you apply your criticism only to those who do not
profess to worship at the Americhristian altar?
| |
| |
Might it have something to do with the US’s overbearing and
hair-trigger military presence in most of the world?
|
Perhaps, but then how would you explain their terrorism in other countries?
It doesn’t, and the “US/Israel scapegoat” argument falls completely apart.
|
You’re presenting a false dilemma (again, a fallacy). You are asserting that,
because terrorists strike at American interests for reasons pertaining to
American action, terrorists must therefore strike at all nations for reasons
pertaining to American action.
Since your assertion doesn’t address mine, I don’t see how a response is
relevant.
| |
| |
The United States has no moral authority to condemn any nation or entity for
employing extreme tactics to force that entity’s agenda, even if that agenda
directly opposes that of the US.
|
I reject your moral equivalence.
|
Once again, you are arguing by assertion, which is a fallacy. Please spell out
specifically why you reject the moral equivalence, and state your reasons. A
sound-byte answer is insufficient.
| |
| |
We have shed more innocent blood in
Afghanistan and Iraq than al Qaeda has shed in the entire world.
|
Well, they are 1 WMD away from evening the score and taking a big lead, and
they are trying to do just that.
|
So we’re justified in killing as many innocent civilians as we wish? You’re
explicitly advocating governmental terrorism enacted by the United States
military! And then you wonder at my claims of moral equivalence?
I question your ability to evaluate this subject clearly.
| |
| |
We have no
right to pretend that we are somehow above reproach or fit to judge.
|
We are not above reproach, but we do have the right to judge. You sound
like an anarchist, Dave!
|
Yet again, this is argument by assertion. Why do you assert that we have
the right to judge but Muslim extremists (presumably) do not?
| |
| |
The point is that you’re condemning terrorists for seeking to force the
world to accept their doctrine, but you praise Dubya for his steadfast
insistence that the world accept his doctrine.
|
BINGO! YES! OF COURSE I AM! Because their doctrine is oppression and
tyranny, and Bush’s is Freedom and Liberty!
|
Which Bush are you referring to? Dubya, who closed down a newspaper to prevent
free speech? Dubya, whose administration actively suppresses dissent and
debate? Dubya, whose handlers confine protesters in “free speech” zones to
prevent them from being heard?
Bush has no interest in preserving freedom or liberty in the United States or
elsewhere.
| |
Suffice it to say that Conservatives want the
spreading of Freedom and Democracy.
|
No, that does not suffice. Conservatives what to impose religious doctrine on
the legislature, they want to restrict the right to marry by altering the US
Constitution, they condemn dissent as criminal speech, and they actively call
for the murder, torture, and suppression of Arabs and Muslims.
| |
| |
Have you examined anything by Anne Coulter, Mike Savage, Sean Hannity, or
Rush Limbaugh since the advent of Dubya’s war on terror? They advocate
violent aggression against Arabs simply because they’re Arabs.
|
Please. I have heard and read a lot from these individuals. Please cite
(but I hope you are not talking about profiling).
|
I presume that you mean that, because profiling of Arabs is inherently racist,
we therefore can omit that bigoted tactic from our discussion. Correct?
Well, here are a few besides:
Mike Savage, calling for Iraqis to
have “dynamite put in their orifices.”
Ann Coulter, advocating the
murder of civilians, the assassination of foreign leaders, and the
conversion-by-the-sword to Christianity.
Rush Limbaugh, dismissing the
forced and systematic torture of Iraqi citizens as no worse than voluntary frat
hazing, and that such torture was carried out by “the babes.”
And I can’t find the one I had in mind for Hannity, but
here’s one of loony Pat
Robertson advocating the nuking of the Pentagon because it doesn’t adhere to his
insane notions of propriety.
Okay, I was off the mark in the “Arabs because they’re Arabs” phrasing, so I
retract that. Nevertheless, these Right Wing zealots call for the overwhelming
use of unjust force against the very people they presume to decry as extremist.
How are their calls for torture and murder less dangerous than those of Islamist
extremists?
| |
| |
Sometimes a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then
|
|
It’s not hard to find a nut when discussing Right Wing zealotry.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
163 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
