|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: War and Morality. Al Qaeda v USA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
From an outsiders perspective I stand amazed at the child-like shock expressed after 9/11. America has been pushing it's weight around, around the world, for decades .. then someone manages to step inside your defences and gives you a bloody nose. So, what? America deserved it? They should retire humbly to lick their wounds and reconsider their ways? Bin Laden attacked the West because we are not Muslim not because of our human rights abuses and voracious capitalism. The Taliban was supported by and gave protection to Bin Laden and his network. They ruled a good portion of Afghanistan in 2001, which they took by force, and were culpable. If you want to talk about people throwing their weight around you should look at what the Taliban did while in power. Look at regimes like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Libya among others.
You could have delayed gratification. Classic plush stuffed arm chair quarter-back luxuriating in the vast expanse of his freedom. Why don’t you try heading over to Kandahar and hand out a few bibles. Outsider indeed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
This still doesn't explain the motive behind hating the US. As I understand it, in UBL's case, it is simply a matter of us having the wrong religion. It is difficult for us 'educated' folks to imagine the mind set of a goat herder in Afghanistan. It seems to me that if some militarily superior alien force invaded Canada and started building vastly superior schools, hospitals and friction-free highways, the last thing that I would do would be to go around killing Canadians. Even if I owned a highway building company. Maybe someone else can adjust my metaphor to be more accurate. What really annoys me are those who would bask in the luxury of our society, enjoy all of it's benefits and then, out of the other side of their face, condemn the principals that have created it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
So Jar, are you saying that UBL and Al Qaeda have a defensible justification for their actions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Just for a little context, these are the people you guys are defending.
quote:source quote:source quote:source quote:source
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Have they stopped the drone attacks? How about Guantanamo? Waterboarding? Good ole America isn't always the good guy the patriots paint it to be..... No, they sure aren’t. Fortunately, we can say so without too many repercussions. Have a look at the paragraphs surrounding your quote.
quote: I agree that the drone program is wrong in alot of ways. Somehow cowardly. I also think that there is something wrong with people who would hide behind their children knowing full well that they are putting them in harms way. But hey, minor details right. Like disparaging the policy of waterboarding people who would cut your fucking head off if the positions were reversed. Like crying foul when your country unintentionally kills civilians but ignoring the fact that your enemies deliberately target schools (the ones with no girls in them) and hospitals. Having pointed these things out, I also want to say that we should and we do hold ourselves to a higher standard. In fact, can you point to any that are higher?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Just because what the other guy would do is worse doesn't somehow make it OK for us to torture people. I agree and that is why I made the higher standard comment. In the real world, who conducts their wars with a higher regard for human rights and civilian casualties? Yes we can and should do better. Just because we are not perfect doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that the enemy is worse by magnitudes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
quote: quote: From your Amnesty Int. links.
The fact that anyone can, in good conscience, suggest that the US has a higher regard for human rights and civilian casualties, just shows what a great job is done to mold the opinion of US citizens through news and media outlets. Watch out for the counter spin. How many civilians died in the Iran/Iraq war? How many did the Russians kill in Afghanistan? How many has Qaddafi Duck killed? What about the Syrians? Your own links point out that the Taliban are killing more civilians than anyone else. Intentionally. Then we could review the executions for adultery and stonings and cut off arms and honour killings that take place during peace time. How many of those slip past the 6:00 news? Look. I am not some group ‘W’ bench candidate straining at the leash and calling for blood. 56 countries have taken part in the Afghan war. SOURCE. Pakistan, China, Russia, Egypt, Oman, Kuwait, UAE and Turkey among them. There was a fair chunk of the world that agreed that invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do in response to 9/11.
So, 19 hijackers kill 3,000 civilians, and we retaliate by killing 12,810 civilians in Afghanistan -- and that you consider a high regard for human rights and civilian casualties? You know that there could have been as many as 40,000 people in the WTC that day. We have been in Afghanistan for 10 yrs., so yeah, I do. While we sure could do better I think that a lot of folks seem to forget that we are the good guys. It’s fucked up I know. Oh and Hiroshima?!? Come on man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
onifre writes: Dogmafood writes:
No it doesn't. It says the Taliban are responsible for the most human rights violation. But then it goes on to say that that doesn't excuse NATO forces from their responsibility - which is mainly, to concern themselves with the human rights violations, which they have not done. Your own links point out that the Taliban are killing more civilians than anyone else. Yes it does.
quote: Over half was actually over 60%.
I'm not trying to play down the attacks. Fuck 40,000, there were 3,000 and that's enough to be horrifying. But the fact is that Afghanistan, and especially the civilians, had NOTHING-ZERO-NADA to do with those attacks. The men who did died in the attacks. The masterminds should have been brought up on charges and tried in International court. We should not be in Afghanistan AT ALL. So the death toll, while seemingly reasonable to you in a span of 10 years, should be ZERO since there is no reason to be there in the first place. These people want to kill you Oni. All of us because we are not Muslim. Here are some quotes from Mullah Omar, the then leader of Afghanistan.
quote:source and from Mullah Manon Niazi Governor of Mazar-e Sharif speaking to a crowd in a mosque after the fall of mazar city.
quote: source The free world should have invaded Afghanistan even if 9/11 didn't happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
But how would you see the endpoint of invading Afghanistan? What ultimately needs to be achieved in order to justify the intervention in the first place? I don’t know. Everyone wearing Nike and a McMohammed’s on every corner? The intervention is justified when the horrific-ness of the regime is abated. Define the objective, gather the willing, gird up the loins and be willing to stick it out knowing full well that it may take generations. It may be that we are just too different to integrate. The most intolerable offences are at the heart of the Taliban ideology. Even moderate sharia law offends most non-muslim people. Of course, the fact that we let our women roam around with their ankles showing is offensive to the Taliban. It is nothing less than a clash of cultures. I certainly don’t know all the answers. I do think that it is unreasonable to vilify the US for it’s behaviour in the war with Afghanistan when 55 other nations also took part. Real countries with real armies and really smart people in positions of authority. How moral is it to abandon them to their fate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Even my country wants their 20 soldiers back More loin girding!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Sorry to keep you waiting but I have been out revelling in fine decadent western style. Gotta keep that Great Satan alive and writhing.
It is still the fault of the US that this is taking place. What, that the Taliban are killing their countrymen by the score? Or that we have paused long enough to notice that it is happening? You don’t think that they kill each other when we are not there? What about the 30 million Afghans who are living without the basic human rights that we take for granted. Every day, on and on, war or no war.
Look, I get that they want me dead, but so what? Al Qaeda has less members than any militia here in the US. It took about 2 dozen people to pull off the 9/11 attacks. Maybe 100 more zealots with $millions actually is something to worry about.
13,000 civilians killed to stop such a small force - at the cost of BILLIONS lets not forget - while our economy falls apart, doesn't seem worth it. As I understand it, most of the money goes back into your economy. Maybe that is the most immoral part. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could bring them into the world economy. Just give them the money to develop their own resources. The problem is that they would have to start with building schools and teaching people how to do science. Next thing you know they would be listening to music and having opinions. Shall we pass this problem onto our children as well? How is this shortsightedness different from Chamberlain’s? Do you really think that the world would be a better place if the Taliban were still ruling Afghanistan? If UBL were still alive and running training camps and perfecting his craft unmolested. If Saddam Hussein was still in charge of Iraq. Should we stand idly by while North Korea gets some nukes. You know North Koreans are shorter than South Koreans due to chronic malnutrition.
The US should have gone into Pakistan and Saudi Arabia i It's where the hijackers where from and where Bin Laden was found, respectively. There are some really smart people at the helm in the free countries of the world. Maybe not the Bush’s and Blairs and Harper’s but all those people behind them. People whose entire lives are dedicated to deciphering satellite photos or rooting through the morass of international politics and the global economy. People who don’t care about who gets elected next but only that we can still hold elections. Maybe they know some things that we don’t see on CNN. While Pakistan and Saudi Arabia both have some dismal human rights records, do you really think that the world would be a more peaceful place had we invaded them?
Afghanistan was one of the worse countries in that area, and since our invasion, has become worse yet. How so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
The logical conclusion of your combined statements is that the conflict will only be over when Islamic fundamentalism has been eradicated. Do you think this is a realistic goal? I think that it is a necessary goal. Every bit as realistic as eradicating polio or malaria.
I don’t know of any nation that isn’t desperately trying to end it’s involvement. The US among them.
How moral is it for them to be there in the first place? What are they trying to achieve and how morally justified is that aim? That is the question you (and they) should be asking. I think that it is more moral than not being there. More kind than starving them down with sanctions in order to save ourselves the discomfort of boots on the ground. More humane than abandoning all of those innocents to the tyranny of the war lords and religious despots.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Well if that is the actual aim we should hardly be surprised that Islamic fundamentalists see it as an us or them fight to the end. No wonder they are willing to blow themselves up. This attitude is an absolute recipe for terrorism. Yeah, it sucks Straggler, I agree. So we should just give up? Let them carry on? We are right and they are wrong. I suppose we can wait until they bring the war to us but I would rather not.
"Ourselves"....? Would you go there to fight? Would you send your kids there to fight? That is a good question. I think that I might if my situation were different. I am not much of killer though. I would certainly go build a bridge or school. If my children wanted to go I would support that decision.
If the people: A) Vote in an Islamic fundamentalist regimeB) Tell us they don't want us in their country Would you consider that good enough cause to stop interfering? Do people vote in Islamic fundamentalist regimes? If your neighbour is beating his wife and she says, through bleeding lips, that it is OK, would you look away? When the brain washed members of a cult say that it is OK for them to kill themselves and their children is that enough cause to not interfere?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Your approach is a recipe for unending conflict with both sides equally convinced of their own moral righteousness. Something has to give. Yes. Something does have to give. Should we change our opinion on universal human rights? Shall we not champion them for the oppressed? Do you really think that Islamic fundamentalists have a viable approach to the world that should be tolerated in the name of religious freedom? There is a big difference between saying that you have to behave like this and saying that you cannot behave like that. Is there ever a point when we should pick up our guns and make a stand for what we believe? The conflict is there and we ignore it at our children’s peril. What is your real world alternative? Appeasement? Peace in our time?
But that is hardly comparable to occupying another country and plundering it's resources in the name of freedom is it? I do not think that is what is happening in Afghanistan. Do you have some evidence to the contrary?
The aim (the official one - not your aim of wiping out Islamic fundamentalists) in Afghanistan and Iraq is for an elected government. It is quite possible that a rather extreme Islamic and anti-Western government could be voted in. What do you suggest we do at that point? More pre-emptive strikes and regime change until the people have the sense to vote in a government you approve of? I guess it boils down to if we believe in universal human rights all the time and for everyone or only when it is easy to do so. What do we do with criminals who commit another crime?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024