News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

Moral Equivalence?

Started by Chris Johnston, January 02, 2008, 04:13:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Will

#15
Liberals aren't "America-haters", we're just critical thinkers who are capable of constructive descent in order to improve the problems in our country. I'm sure that many conservatives had constructive criticisms when Clinton was in office. That didn't make them America-haters, did it?
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

Chris Johnston

#16
Quote from: "donkeyhoty"These statements are also at a disconnect.  If you ignore how you feel about the war in Iraq, then you can claim no moral equivalence.  But, if you disagree with the war, or think it illicit, then the soldier and the suicide bomber are equivalent.  Both sides are killing for no reason other than someone told them to do it, and they believe they are right.  Whether the number of "innocent" people is higher on one side or the other is irrelevant.  Both sides have been responsible for the killing and maiming of large numbers of "innocent" civilians.

If you consider both sides to be wrong then the actions are morally equivalent.  You can lay the blame on George Bush and not the soldiers, but you still see the actions as wrong.

Imagine as you say, the shoe on the other foot. What if we had the perfect weapon? How would most Americans use it? Would we use it to kill indiscriminately, or would we use it to take out the hatemongers and reality-deniers who want to rule the world?

Now imagine that perfect weapon in the hands of Hamas or Hezbolla or al-Qaeda. How would they use it?

What about human shields? Would we fire through them or use the perfect weapon to miss them and hit the guiltiest? What about them? And would we even use human shields?

To equate the two sides morally is to betray a woefully underdeveloped sense of ethics and morality. And I am sorry that I don't know all the nuances of "liberal" thought to distinguish as you would prefer. My bad.

Chris Johnston

#17
Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"
QuoteIf you consider both sides to be wrong then the actions are morally equivalent. You can lay the blame on George Bush and not the soldiers, but you still see the actions as wrong.

I beg to differ again. Two things which are both wrong need not be morally equivalent. The common civilians of Baghdad or Kabul are not the primary target of the US army. But the common civilians of London and New York are the primary target of the terrorists. IMHO, killing an unarmed civilian is  morally worse than killing an enemy combatant, even if the cause of the war is wrong.

Also IMHO, Muslim terrorists choose their way of life (or death) mainly because of their religion. There are people in all parts of world who have been through worse oppression, but very few have taken up violence in this scale. Cases in point, Jews during the Holocaust, Kashmiri Hindus in Kashmir among others.

I couldn't agree more. Why is it that the news footage of the Arab street showed women and children rejoicing and ululating in the streets immediately after 9/11? And why don't we see that footage any more?

Any religion that teaches a)religious war as holy and b) secured place in paradise sets itself up for this kind of thing. The problem is that the Muslims tend to believe it deep in their souls. Why else would they make costume baby-bomb vests? Why else would every suicide bomber be praised as a martyr throughout the Muslim world? Why else would there be such a dearth of Muslim voices raised against it?

Chris Johnston

#18
Quote from: "Willravel"Liberals aren't "America-haters", we're just critical thinkers who are capable of constructive descent in order to improve the problems in our country. I'm sure that many conservatives had constructive criticisms when Clinton was in office. That didn't make them America-haters, did it?

I apologize for the America Haters thing, I just threw that in there for emotional impact like those great entertainers Bill O'Really and Rush Limburger. Also because I was annoyed that someone decided to take me to task on the word "liberal." Let's not parse ourselves to death.

I do believe that most folks I would disagree with politically do love this country, and I would hate for anyone to think I would look for political conformity.

I also believe, however, that there are fringe elements, especially in the anti-capitalist, anarchist, and perhaps other camps, who would destroy what has made America great. I have a problem with those who cozy up to dictators like Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, as so many of our celebrities have done.

That's an aside, not meant to change the direction of the thread, which is that there can be no moral equivalence unless one decides that all moral distinctions capricious and self-ordained.

Will

#19
C'est la politique. Things are bound to become very impassioned when politics is on the menu.

As atheists we have the incredible benefit of being able to consciously and independently develop an understanding of what morality and ethics are and/or should be. What this also means, however, is that when one atheist compares morality to another, they will inevitably be comparing apples to oranges without much context and prefacing. I, for example, may place more responsibility on the individual US soldier for following illegal orders than you do. For example, a US soldier who's involved in torture would be a terrorist, in my humble opinion. That may not be the case in your opinion, though, so we'd need to explore why I believe this and you don't in order to move forward. Shoot, one of us may end up changing our minds because we find the reasoning of the other party to be superior to our own. Admittedly, someone changing their mind about something political may be rare these days, but when it does happen it's nothing short of a secular miracle. We need more of said miracles.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

donkeyhoty

#20
Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"They cared for science and education as long as it did not contradict the Islamic beliefs. Would they have allowed anyone to teach the theory of evolution in an Islamic state?
There was no theory of evolution then, so that's a moot point.  And, plenty of the stuff they studied should contradict their beliefs, just as with christian liberal arts schools, but they compartmentalize it enough so they are showing the beauty of god's design.  The same can be said of theistic evolutionists.


Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"beg to differ again. Two things which are both wrong need not be morally equivalent. The common civilians of Baghdad or Kabul are not the primary target of the US army. But the common civilians of London and New York are the primary target of the terrorists. IMHO, killing an unarmed civilian is morally worse than killing an enemy combatant, even if the cause of the war is wrong..
So, what you're saying is one is worse than the other, but both are "wrong".
Fair enough, but, ask yourself this, which side has killed more civilians?  Is this simply a numbers game?

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"Also IMHO, Muslim terrorists choose their way of life (or death) mainly because of their religion. There are people in all parts of world who have been through worse oppression, but very few have taken up violence in this scale. Cases in point, Jews during the Holocaust, Kashmiri Hindus in Kashmir among others
And there have been plenty of cases of oppressed people using violent tactics such as Jews in Polish Ghettos fighting back during the Holocaust, and the Algerians during French occupation.  That's all moot.  What's good, or works or doesn't work, for one group isn't always good for another.

Also, war is not a friendly competition.  You fight it with whatever tactics you can to be successful.  Muslims using suicide bombers and IEDs are the tactics they've found to be the most successful.


Finally, some new questions are the "terrorists" as much of a threat as they've been made out to be?

Why hasn't there been any attacks in the US since 2001?  Is it because of the early success in Afghanistan?  Or, because the threat isn't that great, meaning Al-Qaeda didn't/doesn't have the capability of carrying out terrorist attacks on a large scale? Or, has the "intelligence" community stepped up its game and really discovered "sleeper cells"?

How much "terrorist" activity would be taking place in Iraq if A) the US didn't invade, or B) the occupation hadn't been bungled beyond belief?


For the third question my answer is: The Bush Administration walked right into the dream situation for Muslim extremists.  They get to kill Americans and do it while the US makes itself look bad to the rest of the world.  The War in Iraq will go down in history as one of the greatest mistakes any nation has ever made.
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

Smarmy Of One

#21
QuoteAnd Muslim society is not morally equivalent to Western civilization.

Morality is purely subjective. I'm sure that Adolf Hitler considered himself as moral as you or I. Morality depends on where you stand. In a morality based war, all sides have the high ground.

Whether they be a brainwashed islamic suicide bomber or a brainwashed baptist abortion clinic bomber, they are both on the side of morality, and both are breaking the law. The comparison between a suicide bomber and a US soldier is not a fair one however. Suicide bombers are brainwashed to the point that they have relinquished their humanity and have become a weapon.

QuoteIslam is a religion that is mired in the 14th century, and desperately longing to get into the 7th!

Many muslims are very much that way. So are a great many baptists. Creationists, for example, are waging a war against intelligence the likes of which we haven't seen since Fox TV first came on the air.

QuoteHow much effort does the American soldier take to avoid killing an infant or child, who might die while the American is trying to kill a baby-killing, life-hating, death-worshipping suicide bomber?

I am sure the typical American soldier takes much effort to avoid killing a child. Though I think a great many infants and children were killed during the 'shock and awe' campaign the goal of which was to strike terror into the Iraqis. And we'll probably never know the number of infants and children killed since, the pentagon callously seems to have no interest in a body count.

QuoteThe funny thing about those Muslim suicide bombers right up to Osama Pigfucking Bin Laden, is that they are not the poorest, most ignorant dregs of society, but generally educated far above the average in their society with a great deal more resources that those who ululate in the Arab street after they perform their "sacred duty" on unsuspecting and innocent bystanders.

I don't think Bin Laden has personally done any suicide bombing, he has ignorant dregs to do that for him.

The real issue here is not religion but power. Religion is used as a catalyst by those who seek power to get their followers to do what they want done.

QuoteIsrael would be a great state if it were in Europe.
QuoteHoly shit....we really agree! The world, my friend, needs more secular thinking.

I don't think Israel should exist as a state at all. I am personally against theocracies, islamic, christian AND jewish, so this is in fact NOT secular thinking.

I do agree that Israel's placement in the Middle East has been perceived by many muslims to be yet another in a long history of western culture slapping islam in the face. They now feel obliged to slap back.

QuoteThey cared for science and education as long as it did not contradict the Islamic beliefs. Would they have allowed anyone to teach the theory of evolution in an Islamic state? I am no fan of the Bush administration, but I don't think it can even be compared to any Islamic state.

This is much like the way the US leans. I agree that the US is very much a secular society, but more and more the christian right has been gaining power. Bush himself has said that he isn't sure whether he believes in evolution.

The christian right is fighting to have creationism taught in schools, to have prayer brought back to the classroom, the 10 commandments back to the courts and to take away the rights of atheists. This is a slippery slope into a second dark age. It is important they do not gain an inch in this battle.

QuoteThere are people in all parts of world who have been through worse oppression, but very few have taken up violence in this scale. Cases in point, Jews during the Holocaust, Kashmiri Hindus in Kashmir among others.

I don't really know my history on the Kashmiri hindus, but the jews did attempt to fight back during the Warsaw ghetto uprising. It was tragically unsuccessful. Also, many jews were hidden during the war and became part of the underground resistance. The resistance carried out 'terrorist' attacks on nazi targets throughout WW2. This was of course a great and brave thing for them to have undertaken.

I am by no means accepting in any way of the act of suicide bombing. I think it is an appalling act of barbarous violence. What I am saying is that when people feel oppressed, they will fight back by what means they can. The key is to win the hearts and minds of people in islamic nations so these radical imams lose their power over their cult followers. This is of course much harder than blowing them up.

Smarmy Of One

#22
QuoteImagine as you say, the shoe on the other foot. What if we had the perfect weapon? How would most Americans use it? Would we use it to kill indiscriminately, or would we use it to take out the hatemongers and reality-deniers who want to rule the world?

The US would most definitely use it. But on who depends on who the US decided to label as hate mongers, then those hate mongers would be killed indiscriminately. I am guessing that a hate monger would be anyone who might stand in the way of any US corporate interests. Then, by denying this reality, the US could rule the world.

Maybe my imagination isn't that good, but I am having a hard time conjuring up a picture of Ronald Reagan on horseback wearing a white hat while waving this perfect weapon in the air.

 :?

bitter_sweet_symphony

#23
QuoteSo, what you're saying is one is worse than the other, but both are "wrong".
Fair enough, but, ask yourself this, which side has killed more civilians? Is this simply a numbers game?
I think the difference here is not who has killed more civilians. What I said that the American army does not target civilians. We don't have weapons that can kill only terrorists. Islamic terrorists, on the other hand target civilians and that too not only of "enemy" countries. They have known to kill musicians and authors too in case they criticize their religion. I fully agree that certain powerful nations in this world are destabilizing the world, but I think an American soldier who is in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban is morally superior to a terrorist planning to blow up a movie theater.


QuoteThis is much like the way the US leans. I agree that the US is very much a secular society, but more and more the christian right has been gaining power. Bush himself has said that he isn't sure whether he believes in evolution.

The christian right is fighting to have creationism taught in schools, to have prayer brought back to the classroom, the 10 commandments back to the courts and to take away the rights of atheists. This is a slippery slope into a second dark age. It is important they do not gain an inch in this battle.

It is only after coming on this forum I came to know about the situation in US. A local Christian pastor told on the TV that US was, unlike India, a nation of atheists! He was arguing why the movie The Da Vinci Code should be banned in India, even though it was not banned in the USA.


QuoteThere was no theory of evolution then, so that's a moot point. And, plenty of the stuff they studied should contradict their beliefs, just as with christian liberal arts schools, but they compartmentalize it enough so they are showing the beauty of god's design. The same can be said of theistic evolutionists.

I think we are talking of different things here. Perhaps you are talking of Muslim civilizations and I of Islamic education. Islamic education has been the same over the centuries, but different Muslim rules have chosen to apply various degrees of Islamic law. At least that's what I know. And I was just giving an example that they wouldn't have taught anything like evolution. I don't remember reading much about these Islamic civilizations and thinking that this is entirely against the Islamic law, though some did choose a liberal interpretation.

Another point I'd like to make is that I am not trying to say that Islam is in any way worse than other religions. I think the problem is that it is only the Muslim community where the majority believes in literal interpretation of the Quran and Hadiths.

QuoteAlso, war is not a friendly competition. You fight it with whatever tactics you can to be successful. Muslims using suicide bombers and IEDs are the tactics they've found to be the most successful.

Ever since suicide bombings have increased the condition of Muslims have, if anything, worsened. The only thing the suicide bombings have achieved is buying them a ticket to heaven.

QuoteAnd there have been plenty of cases of oppressed people using violent tactics such as Jews in Polish Ghettos fighting back during the Holocaust, and the Algerians during French occupation. That's all moot. What's good, or works or doesn't work, for one group isn't always good for another.

There is a significant difference between the above comparisons and the case with Muslim terrorists. All the violent struggles were localized. But this is not the case with Islamic terrorists. There are terrorist outfits in Muslim countries like Egypt and Indonesia, which target Western interests in those countries AND also push for the implementation of Shariat in those lands.

Muslim terrorists all over the world act as a single body. Muslim terrorists from Pakistan attack their own country cause it has been co-operating with the US, which is supporting Israel against Muslim Palestine. It is as stupid as Christians of US attacking the US because of US' close relations with Saudi Arabia, which oppresses the Christians.

The conditions of Muslims in Muslim Indonesia is quite fine, but still an Indonesian Muslim finds reason to blow up a nightclub in Bali, thereby killing around a hundred people. Please tell me this, what connection does an Indonesian have with a Palestinian apart from his religion? And yet, some people say that religion has very little role to play in terrorism.

If you remember, two Lebanese students were arrested in Germany for planting suitcase bombs on trains in 2006 cause the West insulted Islam by publishing those cartoons. Fighting oppression, right?
QuoteFinally, some new questions are the "terrorists" as much of a threat as they've been made out to be?

Why hasn't there been any attacks in the US since 2001? Is it because of the early success in Afghanistan? Or, because the threat isn't that great, meaning Al-Qaeda didn't/doesn't have the capability of carrying out terrorist attacks on a large scale? Or, has the "intelligence" community stepped up its game and really discovered "sleeper cells"?

How much "terrorist" activity would be taking place in Iraq if A) the US didn't invade, or B) the occupation hadn't been bungled beyond belief?


For the third question my answer is: The Bush Administration walked right into the dream situation for Muslim extremists. They get to kill Americans and do it while the US makes itself look bad to the rest of the world. The War in Iraq will go down in history as one of the greatest mistakes any nation has ever made.

By Islamic terrorism do you mean only terrorist activities carried out against USA? The threat of terrorism is very real for people like us who live in a city where public buses and trains have been targeted by these fanatics. Coming back to USA, wasn't the very incident of 9 11 proof that the Al Qaeda was a huge threat to the Americans? Sorry if I sound rude, but how many more 9-11s would satisfy you that the Al Qaeda is dangerous?

Yes, the war on Iraq was a grave mistake by the Bush administration. But one does not need to justify the acts of the terrorists in order to criticize the Bush administration.

QuoteI don't think Israel should exist as a state at all. I am personally against theocracies, islamic, christian AND jewish, so this is in fact NOT secular thinking.

I do agree that Israel's placement in the Middle East has been perceived by many muslims to be yet another in a long history of western culture slapping islam in the face. They now feel obliged to slap back.


I don't support the establishment of Israel, but I am firmly against trying to relocate the Israelis or anything of that sort. Unfortunately, human history has many incidents where the native people of a country were forced to give up their land for invaders. It is not possible to undo all those actions, is it? What Israel should do is stop thinking of the Arabs as inferior and take concrete actions in the direction of peace. Hamas and Co. should do the same.

SteveS

#24
Quote from: "donkeyhoty"For the third question my answer is: The Bush Administration walked right into the dream situation for Muslim extremists. They get to kill Americans and do it while the US makes itself look bad to the rest of the world.
I'm not going to stand here and defend the Bush administration, but I highly doubt this is a "dream situation" for Muslim extremists.  You honestly think they'd rather be fighting the American military in Iraq, rather than blowing up civilians in the States?

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Why hasn't there been any attacks in the US since 2001? Is it because of the early success in Afghanistan? Or, because the threat isn't that great, meaning Al-Qaeda didn't/doesn't have the capability of carrying out terrorist attacks on a large scale?
The only way this makes sense is if Al-Qaeda isn't real, or wasn't actually behind the 9/11 attacks.  Otherwise, how could you say they "didn't" have the "capability of carrying out terrorist attacks on a large scale"?  I call ~3000 dead, a few giant office buildings destroyed and/or damaged (including the US Department of Defense headquarters!), and 4 airplanes crashed, all in one day at the same time, convincing evidence of a "terrorist attack on a large scale".

Anyway, its not like they aren't trying.  August 2006 wasn't that long ago (Remember, the bomb plot against airplanes traveling to the US?  Foiled in the UK?  This is why you can't take liquid on the planes anymore?  The clear plastic baggy business.....)

Quote from: "Smarmy Of One"The US would most definitely use it. But on who depends on who the US decided to label as hate mongers, then those hate mongers would be killed indiscriminately. I am guessing that a hate monger would be anyone who might stand in the way of any US corporate interests. Then, by denying this reality, the US could rule the world.
Honestly, these statements were a tad hyperbolic, don't you think?  Its fine if that's your opinion, but how am I supposed to take this seriously?

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"Coming back to USA, wasn't the very incident of 9 11 proof that the Al Qaeda was a huge threat to the Americans? Sorry if I sound rude, but how many more 9-11s would satisfy you that the Al Qaeda is dangerous?
I am American, and I can assure you that 9/11 was clear and unambiguous evidence to me that Al Qaeda was (and most likely still is) a serious threat to Americans.  Not to mention a whole lot of other people.  The bulk of Al Qaeda attacks, and attempted attacks, actually occur outside the US (granted, most aren't as spectacular as 9/11).  MSNBC has a map of events that illustrates this point:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4677978/

donkeyhoty

#25
Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"I think we are talking of different things here. Perhaps you are talking of Muslim civilizations and I of Islamic education. Islamic education has been the same over the centuries, but different Muslim rules have chosen to apply various degrees of Islamic law. At least that's what I know. And I was just giving an example that they wouldn't have taught anything like evolution. I don't remember reading much about these Islamic civilizations and thinking that this is entirely against the Islamic law, though some did choose a liberal interpretation.
Arab and Muslim scholars under Muslim rule added to the Greco-Roman knowledge base in such fields as chemistry, mathematics, and medicine from rougly the 600s-1300s.  They also indirectly contibuted to the Renaissance in Europe because of allowing Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scholars to work together and translate texts while in Muslim controlled Spain.  Look up the Islamic Golden Age for more info.



Quote from: "SteveS"The only way this makes sense is if Al-Qaeda isn't real, or wasn't actually behind the 9/11 attacks. Otherwise, how could you say they "didn't" have the "capability of carrying out terrorist attacks on a large scale"? I call ~3000 dead, a few giant office buildings destroyed and/or damaged (including the US Department of Defense headquarters!), and 4 airplanes crashed, all in one day at the same time, convincing evidence of a "terrorist attack on a large scale".

Anyway, its not like they aren't trying. August 2006 wasn't that long ago (Remember, the bomb plot against airplanes traveling to the US? Foiled in the UK? This is why you can't take liquid on the planes anymore? The clear plastic baggy business.....)
Ask yourself this: Why haven't there been more attacks?  I say its because Al-Qaeda as an organization described by the Bush Administration doesn't exist.  Are there terrorists? Yes.  But not in the way they've been described.

An attack on the World Trade Center occurred in 1993 before anyone heard of Al-Qaeda.  Al-Qaeda has the capabilities of any terrorist or terrorist "organization", which are the ability to carry out a large-scale attack every now and again in foreign countries(read as US and UK) and to conduct indeterminate attacks in "home" countries(read Iraq, Pakistan, Spain, Indonesia).

If Al-Qaeda is a "clear and present danger" to the US in the US then why, after all the news stories about how unprotected critical targets in the US are/were, haven't there been more attacks?  I say because they aren't capable of carrying out large-scale attacks at a rate of more than 1-2 a decade.

To look at that map would serve my contention better than yours.  The attacks are centered around the "muslim world" with the US attacks about a decade apart.  This also answers the question as to whether I think the Iraq war is a dream situation for Muslim extremists.  Also, can you honestly say that all those attacks are definately Al-Qaeda?

I suggest everyone watch the documentary "The Power of Nightmares" and see whose description of Al-Qaeda is closer to the bullseye; the Bush admin. or Adam Curts(the guy who did the documentary).
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

bitter_sweet_symphony

#26
QuoteArab and Muslim scholars under Muslim rule added to the Greco-Roman knowledge base in such fields as chemistry, mathematics, and medicine from rougly the 600s-1300s. They also indirectly contibuted to the Renaissance in Europe because of allowing Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scholars to work together and translate texts while in Muslim controlled Spain. Look up the Islamic Golden Age for more info.

There was never any prohibition in Islam against researching Chemistry, Mathematics or Medicine. Even today fundamentalist Muslims encourage the research in these fields for the welfare of the Muslim community. Islamic Golden Age is half myth and half reality. Non Muslims were treated well in Islamic countries only after they had accepted the status of a dhimmi, a second class citizen. And I am not even talking about the treatment of women and adultery laws.



QuoteAsk yourself this: Why haven't there been more attacks? I say its because Al-Qaeda as an organization described by the Bush Administration doesn't exist. Are there terrorists? Yes. But not in the way they've been described.

An attack on the World Trade Center occurred in 1993 before anyone heard of Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda has the capabilities of any terrorist or terrorist "organization", which are the ability to carry out a large-scale attack every now and again in foreign countries(read as US and UK) and to conduct indeterminate attacks in "home" countries(read Iraq, Pakistan, Spain, Indonesia).
And yet you somehow come to the conclusion that they aren't dangerous. Is it no big deal that 3000 Americans die, say once in a decade and countless Shias, Sunnis, Christians and Hindus die in the "home" countries like the ones you mentioned?

I don't know how Bush projected the Al Qaeda situation in the US, but Al Qaeda is an umbrella organization. It has contacts with many jehadi outfits all over the world but has not carried out all these attacks. Many were carried out by the local jehadi outfits.

QuoteIf Al-Qaeda is a "clear and present danger" to the US in the US then why, after all the news stories about how unprotected critical targets in the US are/were, haven't there been more attacks? I say because they aren't capable of carrying out large-scale attacks at a rate of more than 1-2 a decade.

1-2 attacks a decade will mean killing 6000+ people and that too only on the US soil. I wonder how anyone can say that's fine.


QuoteTo look at that map would serve my contention better than yours. The attacks are centered around the "muslim world" with the US attacks about a decade apart. This also answers the question as to whether I think the Iraq war is a dream situation for Muslim extremists. Also, can you honestly say that all those attacks are definately Al-Qaeda?

If anything, this supports the argument that US shouldn't have attacked Iraq. But that doesn't mean that Al Qaeda is not a danger to the world. I hope you don't think it is OK that these fanatics go on carrying out attacks in the "Muslim world"?

The points you have made argue that the Bush has bungled the war on terror, not that Muslim terrorist organizations are not a threat to the world and also not that a terrorist is morally equivalent to a soldier.

Smarmy Of One

#27
QuoteMuslim terrorists all over the world act as a single body. Muslim terrorists from Pakistan attack their own country cause it has been co-operating with the US, which is supporting Israel against Muslim Palestine. It is as stupid as Christians of US attacking the US because of US' close relations with Saudi Arabia, which oppresses the Christians.

I think that's being a bit paranoid. There is no proof to support this. The delusion that all muslims are unified under a common cause is the same as saying that all christians are the same. Ask any protestant if their beliefs are the same as that of a catholic.

QuoteThe US would most definitely use it. But on who depends on who the US decided to label as hate mongers, then those hate mongers would be killed indiscriminately. I am guessing that a hate monger would be anyone who might stand in the way of any US corporate interests. Then, by denying this reality, the US could rule the world.

Honestly, these statements were a tad hyperbolic, don't you think? Its fine if that's your opinion, but how am I supposed to take this seriously

Not at all. The question was 'if the US had a perfect weapon do you think they would use it indiscriminately.' My answer is 'yes.' No hyperbole at all.

The second phrase is hyperbolic to poke fun at the right wing fantasy about the US being a mythical hero righting all the wrongs in the world. A hyperbole is an exaggeration to make a point, but it doesn't remove any credibility from that point. Sorry you didn't get it.

SteveS

#28
Smarmy Of One:

Quote from: "Smarmy Of One"Not at all. The question was 'if the US had a perfect weapon do you think they would use it indiscriminately.' My answer is 'yes.' No hyperbole at all.
Can you give me some reason for why you hold this opinion?  The reason I ask is that the United States, as a nation, has some truly impressive weaponry --- and yet I don't see the nation employing these weapons in an "indiscriminate fashion".  Perhaps we're going to argue over what a "perfect" weapon is, :lol:  .

For what its worth, I agree that the original statement:

Quote from: "Chris Johnson"Would we use it to kill indiscriminately, or would we use it to take out the hatemongers and reality-deniers who want to rule the world?
is equally "hyperbolic".  :wink:  

But - the important point is that the US (and other nations) have the capability to use immensely powerful weapons (i.e. Nukes) in an indiscriminate fashion and yet refrain from doing so.  If Osama Bin Laden could contrive to detonate a nuclear device within the boundaries of a nation like the US I sincerely believe he would do it.

If the terrorists are unwilling to kill indiscriminately, then why did they hijack airplanes with unknown passenger lists and use them to crash into buildings with unknown occupants?

If the US is willing to kill indiscriminately then why is it employing expensive precision munitions when any old cheap-arse bomb will do the job?  Why bother fingerprinting and identifying Iraqis so that it can be determined which ones are the insurgents?  Why not just kill 'em all, sort through the bodies later?

Quote from: "Smarmy Of One"The second phrase is hyperbolic to poke fun at the right wing fantasy about the US being a mythical hero righting all the wrongs in the world.
Surely, that is a fantasy.  I certainly agree.

Quote from: "Smarmy Of One"A hyperbole is an exaggeration to make a point, but it doesn't remove any credibility from that point. Sorry you didn't get it.
My point was that the statements were exaggerations (hyperboles), so what didn't I get?  :?  

donkeyhoty:

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Ask yourself this: Why haven't there been more attacks? I say its because Al-Qaeda as an organization described by the Bush Administration doesn't exist. Are there terrorists? Yes. But not in the way they've been described.
I have no doubt that the description of the terrorists as a large hierarchical organization (do they have an org chart?  :lol: ) composed of 1000's of agents in sleeper cells does not exist.  I agree - this is B.S.  But - the fact that the description is exaggerated does not mean there are no terrorist groups and that those terrorist groups are not dangerous.  Smarmy just illustrated that same point:

Quote from: "Smarmy Of One"A hyperbole is an exaggeration to make a point, but it doesn't remove any credibility from that point.

Okay,

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"An attack on the World Trade Center occurred in 1993 before anyone heard of Al-Qaeda.
Indeed - and people died of the flu before anyone heard of a virus.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Al-Qaeda has the capabilities of any terrorist or terrorist "organization", which are the ability to carry out a large-scale attack every now and again in foreign countries(read as US and UK) and to conduct indeterminate attacks in "home" countries(read Iraq, Pakistan, Spain, Indonesia).
We are in agreement on this point.  Isn't "the ability to carry out a large-scale attack every now and again in foreign countries(read as US and UK)" a worrisome ability to have?  Does this not constitute a clear threat to the US?

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"If Al-Qaeda is a "clear and present danger" to the US in the US then why, after all the news stories about how unprotected critical targets in the US are/were, haven't there been more attacks? I say because they aren't capable of carrying out large-scale attacks at a rate of more than 1-2 a decade.
There are a few things that I object to here.  I don't really care about the qualifier "in the US".  Are they a clear and present danger?  I say yes.  Is this always a danger to the US "in the US"?  Who cares where?

If you're right, and the only reason there have not been further attacks is because it takes 5 to 10 years for them to pull another one off - then what should we be doing to prevent another attack?  Has anything done by the US and other foreign nations made any difference at all?

If the terrorist organizations have lost some of their ability to operate due to impact of US and multinational military, law enforcement, and intelligence activities, wouldn't this also explain why there have been less attacks in the US recently?  Isn't it possible that some of the actions taken by the US and other nations has had some effect on the terrorists?  Even if they weren't optimal?  

Anyway - since we both agree there are terrorists, even if they can only conduct a major attack every 5 to 10 years, I am in complete agreement with bitter_sweet_symphony when he says:

Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"1-2 attacks a decade will mean killing 6000+ people and that too only on the US soil. I wonder how anyone can say that's fine.

About the map,

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"To look at that map would serve my contention better than yours. The attacks are centered around the "muslim world" with the US attacks about a decade apart. This also answers the question as to whether I think the Iraq war is a dream situation for Muslim extremists. Also, can you honestly say that all those attacks are definately Al-Qaeda?
Just a reminder, my contention was:

Quote from: "SteveS"I am American, and I can assure you that 9/11 was clear and unambiguous evidence to me that Al Qaeda was (and most likely still is) a serious threat to Americans. Not to mention a whole lot of other people. The bulk of Al Qaeda attacks, and attempted attacks, actually occur outside the US (granted, most aren't as spectacular as 9/11). MSNBC has a map of events that illustrates this point:
Dude - I specifically mentioned that Al Qaeda is a threat to others as well - the bulk of the attacks (and attempted attacks) occur outside the US.

Also, to say the US attacks are about a decade apart seems erroneous to me.  There are 5 incidents on the map within the US that occurred (although not all were successful, they were still attempts, right?):

2 in 1993
1 in 1994
1 in 1999
1 in 2001

I make this 5 events of significance in 8 years.

Can I be 100% sure all these events were conducted by Al Qaeda?  Of course not.  Primarily because I agree with you that the description put forth by the administration, the "political propoganda", if you will, is not correct.  But - what difference does it really make?  I'll happily change my statement to:

"I am American, and I can assure you that 9/11 was clear and unambiguous evidence to me that terrorist groups were (and most likely still are) a serious threat to Americans."

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"I suggest everyone watch the documentary "The Power of Nightmares" and see whose description of Al-Qaeda is closer to the bullseye; the Bush admin. or Adam Curts(the guy who did the documentary).
I think a more fair comparison would be Adam Curtis vs. Rush Limbaugh or some other ridiculously partisan source.

My problem is that I can't really trust partisan sources.  They tend to be so transparently biased that I find a hard time drawing anything meaningful from their commentary.  Whether it appears in a documentary film or not.

I don't think you have to accept the extreme left's position to be critical of the position of the extreme right.  I don't think its wise to use the zeal of our dislike for the Iraq war to convince ourselves that Al Qaeda doesn't exist and/or isn't a significant threat.

I don't think its wise to use the ineffectiveness of the war in Iraq to convince ourselves that the awareness and cooperation in intelligence gathering and sharing has had no effect on the ability of the terrorist groups to operate.  If anything good has fallen out of the 9/11 attack, surely the increased willingness of nations to cooperate in their efforts to apprehend terrorists and foil mass-murder plots is that one good thing.

McQ

#29
Well spoken, Steve.  :cheers:
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette