Subject:
|
Re: From Reason: "It's all bad news - Chaos in occupied Iraq"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 May 2004 18:31:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1600 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
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.
|
I believe we are talking about rogues, not policy, because that kind of
behavior serves absolutely no useful purpose (as an intelligence gathering
strategy, that is).
|
I agree with the latter part; torture is notoriously unreliable as an
information source. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the torture
at Abu Ghraib (and likely elsewhere) was endorsed by high ranking military
personnel, up to at least the level of General.
| |
But we have been vigilant and condemned the behavior and
are punishing the perps. Where is the same indignation from Berg’s
executioners? There, of course, is none, because this is apparently the will
of Allah.
|
Your comparison holds true only if we accept that these “rogues” acted on their
own initiative and without the knowledge of even a single superior officer.
Every person who was aware of the torture but chose not to act to stop it is
equally culpable.
| |
| |
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.
|
An offensive comparison. At least compare apples to apples. The equivalent
would be our general slicing off the head of a prisoner on camera and
declaring that “our God is better their God”. Of course that would never
happen. The worst part of the Berg execution was the chanting, IMO. Pure
savagery and inhumanity.
|
Why must it be a General? Are you buying the Dubya line that the beheader was
Zarqawi? The only “evidence” that we have is the assertion by the Dubya
Administration that it is so. Since Dubya et al have lied to us for years, then
I flatly reject their assertion without additional corroborating evidence.
A General who publicly claims divine mandate and who commands US military forces
is far more terrifying than a few anonymous thugs in a room.
Even if we accept that these four or five men are inhuman savages, then how does
that justify the murder of innocent Iraqi civilians? If the four or five are
guilty, then let’s get them. But no other retaliatory US action can be
justified by their actions.
| |
| |
Why do you advocate murderous Christian
fundamentalism while decrying murderous Islamic fundamentalism?
|
Are you suggesting that the US policy is guided by Christian fundamentalism?
Please.
|
Well, since you asked.
| |
| |
How many Iraqi civilians
have died because of US action?
|
How many were spared torture and execution at the hands of SH’s regime?
|
If you ask that question, then you tacitly forfeit any claim of US moral
authority. You’re saying, in essence, that we’re entitled to free rein because
we’re not quite as bad as the man we’ve described as a brutal, sadistic madman.
| |
| |
And how many American civilians have died
because of Iraqi action?
|
|
| |
How many were spared because we took the fight TO al-Qaeda?
|
I’ll answer that question once you demonstrate to me the clear ties between Iraq
and al Qaeda that Dubya used as justification for his choice to go to war.
| |
| |
| |
| |
Is it because they kill
innocent civilians in the name of a greater cause?
|
|
|
Let’s be clear here. The deaths of innocents is never our intention. That
makes a big difference. All the difference.
|
Not so fast. If
you’re going to dismiss the actions of a few bad American apples, then you have
to dismiss the actions of a few bad Iraqi apples, too.
Besides which, you can’t just pretend that we’re guiltless in the slaughter of
innocent civilians simply by claiming that it wasn’t our “intent” to kill them.
| |
| |
1. How do you determine that they are insane or inhuman?
|
Because human, civil, sane people do not slice the heads off of innocent
people while chanting to their God.
|
Okay. So those four men are subhuman. How do you determine that the other
Iraqis we have slain were inhuman or insane?
| |
| |
2. How do you determine that you are fit to judge their relative insanity
or inhumanity?
|
My fitness is irrelevant to their immoral behavior.
|
You’re kidding, obviously. Your perception of your own morality is the
yardstick by which you judge their behavior. If you can not demonstrate your
morality to be fit, then there is no basis for accepting your morality in
preference to theirs. Far from being moral relativism, this is a call for you
to demonstrate that your morality is correct and absolute. But it is
insufficient to judge your own morality by the values contained within it; you
must assert a higher, verifiable standard (meaning that “revealed morality,” for
instance, won’t cut it).
| |
| |
3. On what basis do you determine that the United States is fit to judge
their relative insanity or inhumanity?
|
Same as above. Their immorality is unrelated to ours.
|
So you accept our immorality? Now we’re getting somewhere.
| |
| |
4. On what basis do you determine that the United States has the moral
authority to act against them?
|
They acted against us. We have the right to defend ourselves.
|
Innocent Iraqi citizens DID NOT act against us, yet we continue to kill them
and subject them to oppressive military occupation. Do you have convincing
evidence to the contrary?
| |
| |
5. On what basis do you determine the appropriate response to the enemy?
|
Now you are talking specifics and military strategy. I would say we
generally try to neutralize any given threat as quickly, safely, and cheaply
as we can.
|
Does “any way we can” include a house-to-house extermination mission to kill
every last Iraqi? What if that’s the safest and cheapest method available to
us? Are we therefore justified, based on this simple economic assessment?
| |
| |
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?
|
Because we have codes of conduct to which we try to adhere. They have none.
|
I am certain that they adhere to a code of conduct, but because it does not
coincide with yours, you declare it non-existent. Elsewhere, you have declared
that Islamic fanatics wish to impose Shariah, which I believe is a code of
conduct, is it not?
If you assert that our code is better than theirs, then you must present your
objective evidence in support of your claim. If we have a code of conduct but
fail to live up to it, how are we better than another group that fails to live
up to its own code of conduct?
| |
| |
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?
|
Please let’s dispense with the anti-Christian rhetoric.
|
Be careful--you’re approaching the dreaded straw man. I’m not claiming that all
Christians are bad or worthy of contempt. I’m asserting that claims of divine
mandate, or claims that we are somehow uniquely blessed, are hardcore zealotry
and should be treated as the mental illness that they are.
| |
Your attempts at
equivocation are at best specious and at worst offensive to Christians who
don’t appreciate being unjustly compared to the dirtbags who perpetrated the
Nick Berg slaughter.
|
If we apply this to the specific Christians to whom I refer (namely Boykin and
Bush, in this discussion) then I am happy to identify them to dirtbags. I am
not discussing mainstream Christians, but rather those elements of the fanatical
Right who claim either to speak to God or to act on his behalf.
| |
Yeah, Bush is a Christian. So what? It’s where he gets his values.
|
It’s also where he gets his policy, and it’s how he panders to his electorate.
If he got his values from Christianity without using Christianity as a bludgeon
against his ideological enemies, then I’d have no problem with it.
| |
No worse than from where ever you get yours or Kerry gets his.
|
That’s an endorsement of moral relativism, of course. Care to rephrase?
| |
Kerry’s a Christian-- why do you support him?
|
In the most basic sense, I support him because he isn’t Bush. More
specifically, I support him because I believe that his goals for America are
superior to those of Bush, and that those policies will do better to provide
security and economic strength for the country.
| |
By what authority do you assert that the United States has no moral authority
to condemn any nation or entity? You are hoisted by your own moral
relativism.
|
Because the United States sees fit to endorse policies for itself that it
condemns in others, the United States is by definition hypocritical. Dubya
justified the invasion of Iraq on the claim that Saddam tortured, raped, and
murdered Iraqis; the US military has tortured, raped, and murdered Iraqis, so we
cannot presume to judge Saddam.
I haven’t even gotten to my moral relativism yet--I’m merely holding the United
States to the same standard to which it holds other nations. Do you propose
that the United States should be judged by a different standard? Why?
| |
| |
So we’re justified in killing as many innocent civilians as we wish?
|
No, merely pointing out that a numbers-game argument is meaningless.
|
Then I challenge you to write a letter to President Bush every time he invokes
the memory of the ~3000 who dies on 9/11. Dubya is more than happy to argue the
numbers game, even if he doesn’t like “fuzzy math.”
| |
| |
Yet again, this is argument by assertion. Why do you assert that we
have the right to judge but Muslim extremists (presumably) do not?
|
I base it on how we treat our fellow human beings and how they treat
their fellow human beings. Our system is morally and ethically superior.
|
If you are judging your morality and their morality in terms of your own
morality, then it’s no surprise that you judge your morality to be superior. I
may be a moral relativist, but you are a solipsist!
| |
| |
Dubya, whose handlers confine protesters in “free speech” zones
to prevent them from being heard?
|
Protesters? Or hate-spewing partisans who just want the president to look
bad on the evening news?
|
Protesters, such as those who were confined to caged-in “free speech zones”
during Dubya’s visit to Pittsburgh (though it has happened elsewhere, too).
Of course, the hate-spewing partisans (whoever they be) are entitled to a
voice, as well. That’s why I’ve never called for Limbaugh or the rest to be
censored. Dubya (and his administration) are not as tolerant of dissenting
views.
| |
| |
Bush has no interest in preserving freedom or liberty in the United States
or elsewhere.
|
You know, it’s comments like that wot cause unrest.
|
That’s my Rabid Disturbance™ in action!
| |
| |
Conservaties want to restrict the right to marry by altering the
US Constitution,
|
That is only proposed to protect the institution of marriage from being
REDEFINED by activists with their social agendas.
|
I’d like to withdraw this point from the current debate. You know my views, and
I’m happy to go over them again in another thread, but there’s no need to
enlarge the debate already in progress.
| |
| |
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?
|
Theirs is at best rhetoric; the Islamists’ are well-worn policy.
| |
| |
| |
Sometimes a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then
|
|
It’s not hard to find a nut when discussing Right Wing zealotry.
|
I’m just curious. Whom would you describe as a “Left Wing” zealot?
|
You mean aside from myself? 8^)
I don’t know, really. If we define a left- or right-wing zealot as someone who
clings to extremist policies regardless of their applicability to or
repercussions upon the real world, then Nader and Kucinich probably qualify for
the left. Michael Moore probably qualifies, too, though he finds the nut as
often as not. Barney Frank is a left-wing jerk, but I don’t know if he’s a
zealot.
| |
(1) Ha, a shot at my beloved president:-)
|
I think I snipped the antecedant from my reply, but your footnote is pretty
amusing. 8^)
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
