Fanaticism

Then we are back to the same old issues: did Iraq harbor terrorists or not? Did Saddam fund terrorists or didn't he? The issue of WMD isn't even really moot since virtually every person in the previous and present administrations, the FBI, the CIA, the members of the U.N., and the U.N. inspection team were all convinced he had them.

Now if Saddam did harbor or fund or promote terrorism, and he DID have WMD, would it still have been immoral to go after him?

And if it wasn't immoral in that case, would people be less angry at Bush and more angry at the Iraqis and insurgents who are shooting at us and killing us?

0 Replies

Hell, Iraq probably did fund terrorists, but then again, Saudi Arabia probably did too, and they are still friends of the US. Maybe your Saudi friends are hiding the WMD for Iraq, and the real Saddam, not the duplicate you have in custody.

0 Replies

No no no, Cav...he's a clone, not a mere duplicate! The truth is out there, man!

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Maybe that's it. So you three are saying it is morally wrong to oppose the terrorists and that we should pull in our horns, close down the war on terrorism, and all will be well? Or at least we'll be doing the right thing?

Stay focused now, fox. You suggested in an earlier post that citizens ought to grouse about the terrorists RATHER than about their government. That's a false either/or dilemma (ya gotta get this). Should Americans have not spoken out against Nixon, and ONLY spoken against Russia? Ought Americans today to NOT criticize the soldiers presently under indictment for cruelty in Iraq but ONLY mention cruelties (and worse) by terrorists?

So, no, none of us are saying what you suggest. Because it isn't an either/or choice. Where those of us believe that the US administration is doing a whole lot of things wrong, and where we believe that the consequences will be, or might be, profoundly damaging, then there is a citizenship duty to speak out. I'm really hoping I don't have to explain this again.

0 Replies

And you avoided answering my question Blatham Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Then we are back to the same old issues: did Iraq harbor terrorists or not? Yes, a few. So did many other countries. Did Saddam fund terrorists or didn't he? He funded Palestinian families...so far as I know, since 91 or 92, that's it (see Clarke) The issue of WMD isn't even really moot since virtually every person in the previous and present administrations, the FBI, the CIA, the members of the U.N., and the U.N. inspection team were all convinced he had them. Sure, but so? That doesn't logically entail the invasion of Iraq. "Imminent danger" was not the case, nor was it considered to be the case by any but a few, mainly all in this administration (if they believed it themselves is unknown, and at question, as since 1992, their (wolfowitz, perle, feith, etc) published documents had argued for invasion of Iraq

Now if Saddam did harbor or fund or promote terrorism, and he DID have WMD, would it still have been immoral to go after him? The world was going after him already, and had him contained, and had his weapons programs made non-existant or ineffective.

And if it wasn't immoral in that case, would people be less angry at Bush and more angry at the Iraqis and insurgents who are shooting at us and killing us? So whether to go after Sadaam or not isn't the moral question at issue. The moral question at issue is "can citizens question and argue against the strategies and honesty and forthrightness and wisdom of their government?" And the answer to that is, yes, and they should as their proper role in citizenship. Whether such arguments might be shown to be correct or incorrect later, is quite irrelevant. The right and responsibility to do so is absolutely key to freedom. Try to imagine how unsympathetic people like myself are to the claim that the government ought not to be criticized at this juncture, when, if you go back to the first iterations of the US,UN and Iraq threads), you'll find that many of us argued (and quoted careful works that also argued) that invasion was unjustified and bound to produce a significant and dangerous upsurge in terrorist motivation

0 Replies

foxfyre...if your 'question' is "why don't I (or others) expend our energies here on disclaiming terrorism?" then, once again, I disclaim it.

Will that help, do you think? I also disclaim the immoral treatment of pagans by the early christian church, the treatment of christians by Rome, and the murders by Jack the Ripper.

We are morally responsible only where we can have some possibility or liklihood of having any influence.

According to the USA Today poll this morning, the majority of US citizens want the US out right away. I don't. In removing Sadaam, they've produced a consequence similar to what happened when strongman Tito died, and for which they are responsible. And it isn't only a matter of responsibility...it's also a matter of stability and security. A fractious and unsettled Iraq was a real possible consequence which many warned the US administration about before this damned adventure. That's a consequence nobody but the bad guys want. So forces have to stay to actually do nation-building. But as I do NOT believe that is why this administration went into Iraq, I don't expect them to achieve it.

0 Replies

Well the question was actually as series of 'if's" - presence of terrorists, support funding of terrorists, WMD were found when we got there, then would it be a moral war and then would people be angry at the terrorists and not at George Bush.

The issue of whether we should be there and whether we should stay there is being debated ad nauseum in several places elsewhere in the forum.

I appreciate the comment you did make nevertheless.

0 Replies

Seems more like weapons of mass discussion now, doesn't it?

0 Replies

LOL

0 Replies

Quote:

Well the question was actually as series of 'if's" - presence of terrorists, support funding of terrorists, WMD were found when we got there, then would it be a moral war and then would people be angry at the terrorists and not at George Bush.

And what part of your question remains unaswered?

0 Replies

To address your question quoted there, foxfyre, at this point, does it really matter why we're there? The fact is we are, and we need to find a way to end it. Here's a scenario to consider (and radical liberals really need not comment, let's keep this balanced): The US gets themselves into a mess. They try to 'fix' it. Things don't go quite according to plan, so instead of giving the American public the truth, which is what they are entitled to, at least in a biased way, Bush and co. choose complete non-disclosure. So....what is the already divided American public left with? Polarization and the influence of propaganda. If there is some cool secret **** going down in Iraq that we don't know about, well, we ought to, at least to support the claims you make regarding the grossly mislabelled "war on terrorism."

0 Replies

If I may digress just a bit....back when Jimmy was in trouble with the Iran hostage crisis...no progress was made until.....Ronnie stepped in....then problem over ...chumminess begins. What we need is REGIME CHANGE....can't hurt.

0 Replies

So you three are saying it is morally wrong to oppose the terrorists...

I guess Deecups is included in the three so I will answer for myself.

It was morally wrong, in my view, for Bush to slither out of Afghanistan where we knew UBL was loitering about and focus instead on Iraq which not only didn't have WMD, but didn't provide safe harbor to UBL.

It was also morally wrong, in my view, for Bush to go behind Congress' and the American people's backs and use funds allocated for Afghanistan in Iraq.

In fact, it was unconstitutional.

0 Replies

I think the fact Bush went around and behind the US Congress and the Constitution by funneling funds intended for the war in Afghanistan to his war in Iraq, will go down in history as one of the most troubling aspects of an over zealous executive.

I also wonder why the Congress isn't looking at impeachment?

0 Replies

well here is a mind bender:

What is terrorism, who is a terrorist?

What is the standard that is used in making the call as to what terrorism and who a terrorist is.

After I get the answers for this question I have a few fallow ups..... we have to first get the terminology straight.

0 Replies

Yes, indeed, terminological clarity is in order . . . for example, fallow is defined as:

1. [n] cultivated land that is not seeded for one or more growing seasons
2. [adj] undeveloped but potentially useful; "a fallow gold market"
3. [adj] left unplowed and unseeded during a growing season; "fallow farmland"

(Sorry, Boss, it's a cheap shot, i know--but i couldn't resist . . . )

0 Replies

Well, to me, a terrorist is a fanatic of any colour, religious or political, who believes that random acts of violence against innocent citizens are a means to an end. Terrorists do not engage in, or respect the standard rules of conflict or war. Terrorism is simply what said fanatics engage in. As for who is a terrorist? I have no idea. I suppose it depends on the individual, and their motives.

0 Replies

"What is terrorism, who is a terrorist?" yilmaz

Very true.

To the Israelis, Arafat is a 'terrorist.'

To the Palestinians, Arafat is a 'freedom fighter.'

0 Replies

also to the palestinians sharon is a terrorist.....
But here is the catch, the whole terror terminology is invented in the first place to make the people who are doing what we consider terror bad.

One of the factors mentioned is fanaticism.... what is a fanatic, it is someone who is so embedded in their belief of righteousness that they can't possible comprehend that there may be an other or a better way... in that context most of us are fanatics.....
also if we act based upon our fanaticism, of lets say supporting a certain football club ( hey it aint soccer, like the name implies yo gotta play it with your feet for it to be football....) and you get in a brawl and it turns violent with a few killed (rather common in good ole civilised europe, especially england) is that an act of terror?

Or is it to do with the standard rules of war... the US determines the standard rule of war... they have laser guided bombs dropped on civilian places, the israelis launch laser guided hellfire and maverick missles at apartment buildings... the palestinians version of a smart bomb on the other hand is a "terrorist" carrying out a suicide bombing... so if you can afford to get appaches, and f 15 strike eagles and abrams tanks, and use those to kill civillians it is ok, but if you use rudimentary means, it is terrorism..... also indiscrimanate targeting of civillians is a rather shaky argument, the most indiscrimanate targeting of civillians possible is carpet bombing, or even economic sanctions... When you put a country under blockade you are basically targeting the weakest, saddam never had trouble feeding his army, it was the children that suffered the most from the sanctions....
I repeat the question what is terrorism and who is a terrorist, more wil "follow".

You are right Setanta it was a "cheap shot", ever try writing in Turkish? (No offense taken buddy)

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know