Insurgents, Terrorists or what????

That's great, but what does it have to do with the present conversation? Are you trying to compare the terrorist/insurgent in Iraq to those in America in the 1700's? To what end?

You call what we're doing there freedom?

I doubt you even know what freedom means anymore, McG.

Cycloptichorn

McGentrix wrote:

That's great, but what does it have to do with the present conversation? Are you trying to compare the terrorist/insurgent in Iraq to those in America in the 1700's? To what end?

I am simply pointing out that, dance how you will, you cannot escape what JoefromtheWindyCity has repeatedly attempted to point out--to wit, those who act in the name of their own liberation from oppression can easily be described as terrorists by your criterion, while remaining patriots.

Iraq has an elected government now.

What the insurgents are doing is in no way what is best for the country of Iraq.

Not patriotic. Not what is best for their country.

McGentrix wrote:

What the insurgents are doing is in no way what is best for the country of Iraq.

By whose criteria do you judge what is in Iraq's best interests?

McGentrix wrote:

Not patriotic. Not what is best for their country.

Again, by whose criteria?

The majority of the population. The mena, women and children of Iraq. After all, that is what a country is right? a population of people living together within defined boundaries?

How is inciting a civil war good for a country?

How is spreading terror and fear good for a country?

How is purposeful destruction of infrastructure good for a country?

What criteria are you using to suggest that the actions of the insurgents and terrorists are patriotic?

McGentrix wrote:

The majority of the population. The mena, women and children of Iraq. After all, that is what a country is right? a population of people living together within defined boundaries?

I'm not sure how you've been able to divine the wishes of the majority of Iraqis, since no one else has, to my knowledge, been able to do that. But let's ignore, for the moment, the fact that you have no possible way of knowing what the majority of Iraqis want. Are you suggesting that being right and being in the majority are identical?

McGentrix wrote:

How is inciting a civil war good for a country?

How is spreading terror and fear good for a country?

How is purposeful destruction of infrastructure good for a country?

What criteria are you using to suggest that the actions of the insurgents and terrorists are patriotic?

I am using their criteria, since I have no reason to prefer an objective standard of "patriotism" over a subjective one. Indeed, I have no reason to suppose that there is any objective standard for "patriotism," so I am left only with the each individual's own subjective standard. And under that standard, a person is a "patriot" if that person believes what he/she is doing is in the country's best interests. Consequently, if one believes that inciting civil war, or spreading terror, or purposeful destruction is good for the country, then one is perforce a "patriot."

The wishes of your average Iraqi can't be too different than your average Iranian, Egyptian, Palestinian, German, Italian, American, Russian, Korean, Tibetan, Afghan can it? Raise a family, make some money, have nice things, get some education, be free from people killing them, not worrying about a car blowing up while at the market, not having a dictator tell them how to think, perhaps some travel.

This isn't new to you is it? I can't imagine the average Iraqi wants to be killed at random by some deranged Islamic jihadist.

Do you know something I don't?

They are identical if it's right for the majority.

Then are you theorizing that patriotism knows no difference between good and evil?

I disagree.

Baldimo wrote:

What point would it serve to blow up civilians other then to create terror.

Are you saying that terrorists cannot be patriots?

McGentrix wrote:

The wishes of your average Iraqi can't be too different than your average Iranian, Egyptian, Palestinian, German, Italian, American, Russian, Korean, Tibetan, Afghan can it? Raise a family, make some money, have nice things, get some education, be free from people killing them, not worrying about a car blowing up while at the market, not having a dictator tell them how to think, perhaps some travel.

This isn't new to you is it? I can't imagine the average Iraqi wants to be killed at random by some deranged Islamic jihadist.

Probably not. But then it's always possible that the average Iraqi just wants some deranged Islamic jihadist to kill his neighbor instead, or to kill all the American troops on Iraqi soil.

McGentrix wrote:

Do you know something I don't?

Ah, McG, I don't think this site has enough bandwidth to handle all of the information that I know and that you don't.

McGentrix wrote:

They are identical if it's right for the majority.

What the hell does that mean?

McGentrix wrote:

Then are you theorizing that patriotism knows no difference between good and evil?

I disagree.

If you think that patriotism is always "good," then you are saying that there is an objective standard by which one can judge a person to be patriotic or not. What is that standard, McG? Whose criteria for "good" do you use?

That is what I'm saying. Terrorists do not have the best objectives or intent in what they do.

Can we agree that blowing up people standing in line for a job is a bad thing? Can we agree that blowing up a car bomb during the busy part of the day to kill people who are shopping and then waiting for the police to show up and then blowing up another car bomb are also bad? How do actions such as this benefit the Iraqi population?

I will say it again in case you missed it. When you target civilians for the express purpose of killing them then that does not make you a patriot. It makes you a killer. If you were only attacking the police (who are already trained) or the military then that is a different story.

I am not saying or thinking patriotism is always good. Did I imply that? I asked if you were "theorizing patriotism knows no difference between good and evil?"

...and there's not enough bandwidth? Pft. You can barely understand a question from a statement. :wink:

McGentrix wrote:

I am not saying or thinking patriotism is always good. Did I imply that? I asked if you were "theorizing patriotism knows no difference between good and evil?"

A patriot always thinks that he is doing what is best for his country -- I stated that before. To that extent, then, patriotism is always "good" in a subjective sense. If you are suggesting, on the other hand, that there is an objective standard of "good" by which all patriotism is measured, then it is up to you to identify that standard.

McGentrix wrote:

...and there's not enough bandwidth? Pft. You can barely understand a question from a statement. :wink:

"Understand?" Don't you mean "differentiate?" Gee, McG, it must be awfully embarrassing to make such a juvenile error while boasting of your supposed intelligence. But don't worry. Just keep reading these posts. It's the only way you'll learn.

I would say there is an objective standard of what is evil and therefore what is not evil, must be good.

Killing civilians - bad
Killing civilians purposefully to create terror - evil

mistreating prisoners - bad
beheading hostages after not getting demands met - evil

torturing prisoners through beatings, burns, dog bites - bad
torturing prisoners using acid baths, wood chippers, axes, etc - evil

the list goes on, but I think you get the idea.

Now, when a patriot kills innocent civilians while targetting a military convoy, that can be looked at as bad. They had a proper target, but with unfortunate side effects. When a terrorist kills innocent civilians because they are targetting them, that's just plain evil.

See how it works? You can be a patriot and bad, but not a patriot and evil.

You must be mistaking me for a liberal.

I would never boast about my intelligence as that would make anyone that does look foolish and stupid.

I didn't see that you were just boasting, sorry about that.

McGentrix wrote:

I would say there is an objective standard of what is evil and therefore what is not evil, must be good.

You're confused again, McG. You say that "what is not evil must be good," but then you give examples where evil is not contrasted with "good" but rather with "bad." If it's true that "what is not evil must be good," and if "bad" is not "evil," then your conclusion must be that "bad" is "good."

Now, I understand that, in the reality-divorced world of George W. Bush, this kind of Orwellian position might make some sense. I, however, fail to see the logic.

McGentrix wrote:

Killing civilians - bad
Killing civilians purposefully to create terror - evil

mistreating prisoners - bad
beheading hostages after not getting demands met - evil

torturing prisoners through beatings, burns, dog bites - bad
torturing prisoners using acid baths, wood chippers, axes, etc - evil

the list goes on, but I think you get the idea.

Yes, I get the idea. Rather than stating some guiding principle, you prefer to rely on ipse dixits.

McGentrix wrote:

Now, when a patriot kills innocent civilians while targetting a military convoy, that can be looked at as bad. They had a proper target, but with unfortunate side effects. When a terrorist kills innocent civilians because they are targetting them, that's just plain evil.

See how it works? You can be a patriot and bad, but not a patriot and evil.

In a world where "bad" equals "good," this might make some sense.

McGentrix wrote:

You must be mistaking me for a liberal.

You can be quite sure that I'll never make that error.

McGentrix wrote:

I would never boast about my intelligence as that would make anyone that does look foolish and stupid.

You are wise not to boast of your intelligence.

McGentrix wrote:

I didn't see that you were just boasting, sorry about that.

As Dizzy Dean famously said: ""It ain't braggin' if you can back it up."