-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Justice has been served
- Thread starter Ice House
- Start date
I agree with what you say. But your criticism is more about HOW terrorism is being fought, than about the fact that it IS being fought.SnozzleBerry said:
Someone here said that who prefers security over freedom deserves neither.
I disagree with that statement. Both freedom and security are important and legitimate issues to be concerned with and therefore you need a balanced constitution and law and policymakers who understand this and act in accordance with it.
To say that the balance has been somewhat lost in the past decade is an understatement and i totally agree with you there.
That doesn't refute the basic principle of the state's duty to protect it's citizens.
That's where states are based on in the first place. The concept of states emerged out of the chaos of permanent warfare between tribes, vilages and eventually city states. There where leaders who offered protection on the condition that taxes would be paid and that people would accept their authority. This is how it happened in ancient europe, china, india, the middle-east and other ancient empires that preceded our civilisation and it still applies today.
If governments fail to protect their people, their legitimacy is undermined. And without security there can be no freedom.
You don't have to choose between freedom or security if there are balanced policy's and laws. If you choose neither freedom or security, but justice instead, you actually choose to have both, because that is what justice is supposed to be about: to bring a balance between the elementary rights of people. The right to live, and the right to live the way you choose.
In today's statement from Al Qaeda:
Sorry, but this is why they need to be wiped off the face of this planet.
(And I agree Fractal, it's the idea were fighting - but to fight that idea we must fight those supporting it. In any way necessary.)
Al Qaeda said:
Al Qaeda said:
Sorry, but this is why they need to be wiped off the face of this planet.
(And I agree Fractal, it's the idea were fighting - but to fight that idea we must fight those supporting it. In any way necessary.)
ewok said:
Enough conspiracy. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/06/full-statement-from-al-qaeda-on-osama-bin-ladens-death/?hpt=T1
a1pha said:
what does that mean? The answer to me is clear: free palestine.. Thats how war on terrorism can be fought effectively right now, first and foremost
Steely said:
Yeah well..just becasue CNN says it makes it so! the idea that anyone here finds the answers we have been fed adds up to some sort of truth is disturbing at best..
a1pha said:
And so..who instigated al-qaida in the first place? The idea that al-qaida is the only player in this whole stupid thing is a serious side effect of one track-minded thinking..this isnt pre-school things are more complicated in the real world.
This thread is discusting to be honest and Im sort of embarrassed that it is taking place at this site.
endlessness said:
I agree: there needs to be a free Palestine. No argument here, but I don't think that's the issue.
The issue to me is a moral one. The morality of war is twofold according to Walzer in Just and Unjust Wars, Part 1, Chapter 2-3.
Jus ad bellum, or the justice of war, tells us that war can be fought for either a just cause or an unjust cause. In my opinion, Al Qaeda is fighting a just cause in trying to establish a free state for Palestine. Israel has no right denying these people what has been sacred to them for so many years. So to your point above, endlessness, I agree completely.
Logically independent to Jus ad bellum is Jus in bello, or the justice in war, which describes military conduct. Many argue that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki violated Jus in bello even though the Americans were fighting a just cause. Why? Because many innocents were killed in the bombings and having a just cause does not morally permit the killing of innocents.
McMahan's definition of terrorism in Killing in War: "terrorism involves intentionally attacking people who are innocent, in the generic sense of not being liable to attack, usually to intimidate or coerce others who are related to them in certain ways, as a means of achieving certain broadly political goals."
There is an argument to be made that civilians of the United States are not innocents (as they give power to the government) - but I think it's foolish. The fact that Al Qaeda makes explicit the intention to kill our children is pure evil and they should be hunted down and killed. Sorry if that's disgusting, but it's morally permissible. There are other ways to fight for a free Palestine than killing children or other innocents.
Just War Theory explained
'Until they cause the disaster that makes the children look like the elderly'- I think there has been a misunderstanding as to what this phrase means.It does NOT specifically mean targeting children at all; this is a metaphor which is derived from Quranic verses which allude to the horror of the Day of Judgement when things will be so horrifying that (and these are other metaphors in the Quran for that Days' horror) it will cause the mother to abandon her child fearing for herself, the pregnant camel will prematurely deliver its load, a man will flee from his brother and it will be so shocking that it will make the hair on the heads of people turn white with fear.
Continuing along the line of metaphors, if I were to come upto another Nexian and slap them in the face and the Nexian asked me 'Whatcha do that for?' and I replied with no hint of joking 'Coz your breath stinks", you would be in error to assume its because I didnt for example like the colour of your shirt.The greivances that Al Qaida have been spelt out clearly in OBLs statements of the mid-late 90s and has nothing to do with 'Hating freedom' etc.I personally believe their grievances are/were fully legitimate but their mode of dealing with them is unacceptable.But that doesnt detract from the legitimacy of their beef with the Western World.
We Nexians are genrally more probing in our questions/analyses of world issues and I would strongly recommend that people look at the statements of Al Qaida to get an idea, from the horses mouth as it were, of the issues that motivate their actions.And Palestine is one of the 3 issues which is their raison d'etre.
Continuing along the line of metaphors, if I were to come upto another Nexian and slap them in the face and the Nexian asked me 'Whatcha do that for?' and I replied with no hint of joking 'Coz your breath stinks", you would be in error to assume its because I didnt for example like the colour of your shirt.The greivances that Al Qaida have been spelt out clearly in OBLs statements of the mid-late 90s and has nothing to do with 'Hating freedom' etc.I personally believe their grievances are/were fully legitimate but their mode of dealing with them is unacceptable.But that doesnt detract from the legitimacy of their beef with the Western World.
We Nexians are genrally more probing in our questions/analyses of world issues and I would strongly recommend that people look at the statements of Al Qaida to get an idea, from the horses mouth as it were, of the issues that motivate their actions.And Palestine is one of the 3 issues which is their raison d'etre.
corpus callosum said:
I am not familiar with the Quran and if I misread this I am mistaken. Regardless, they have made the attainment of nuclear weapons a priority and it's sorta hard to set one off without killing a few kids.
WikiLeaks said:
People say all kinds of stuff when being waterboarded.Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is a pretty resilient chap hence he needed waterboarding over 100 times.He was also not the detainee who divulged the details of Bin Ladens trusted courier despite the waterboarding.I think this is him trying to unsettle his captors rather than having any veracity.
In the 90s and 2000s Al Qaida sought spiritual guidance about the Islamic position with regards to their actions from notable Saudi scholars such as Salman Al-Oudha and Safar Al-Hawali (both of whom have now changed their opinions somewhat, after a spell in saudi custody).The issue of targetting civilians directly for example flying a plane into the crowd at a baseball/American football match) is unjustifiable under any circumstances ,but the issue of 'collateral damge' when targetting places of military/political/economic significance does have a number of different viewpoints but the correct mainstream position is that this is unacceptable.Even these 2 scholars have never sought to legitimise the use of nuclear ordinance in a western city as this can under no circumstances be acceptable (unless an Islamic state is nuked and the government of that nation chooses to respond in kind).This kind of action can never be legitimised by any oufit other than a government and only as a retaliatory manoeuvre.And believe it or not, Al qaida does put quite alot of importance on the postion of the scholars with regards to their actions.This also leads me to believe that Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds utterances lack substance.
In the 90s and 2000s Al Qaida sought spiritual guidance about the Islamic position with regards to their actions from notable Saudi scholars such as Salman Al-Oudha and Safar Al-Hawali (both of whom have now changed their opinions somewhat, after a spell in saudi custody).The issue of targetting civilians directly for example flying a plane into the crowd at a baseball/American football match) is unjustifiable under any circumstances ,but the issue of 'collateral damge' when targetting places of military/political/economic significance does have a number of different viewpoints but the correct mainstream position is that this is unacceptable.Even these 2 scholars have never sought to legitimise the use of nuclear ordinance in a western city as this can under no circumstances be acceptable (unless an Islamic state is nuked and the government of that nation chooses to respond in kind).This kind of action can never be legitimised by any oufit other than a government and only as a retaliatory manoeuvre.And believe it or not, Al qaida does put quite alot of importance on the postion of the scholars with regards to their actions.This also leads me to believe that Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds utterances lack substance.
fractal enchantment said:
CNN = Corporate News Network. They specialize in feeding the masses large heaping helpings of bovine scat and hyperbole.
Rivea said:
The CNN article above has the full transcript of the statement. Where is the 'bovine scat and hyperbole' in it? (Not that I like CNN much, but there's no misinformation in providing the transcript of a statement.)
Its easy to see how ones own beliefs manifest to divide people of the world as even in a very small community like the nexus a simple post of one person feeling some justice has come after such a horrendous act has divided some here. Its good to have beliefs and be proud of what you stand for but you should also accept others are entitled to there own beliefs. Its this automatic division we do when someone doesn't agree with us and therefore must be wrong that leads to confrontation/attacks/wars. It seems to me that this topic is going down a slippery slope and its sad to see how quickly and easily we allow it to happen.
ewok said:
I don't see a slippery slope in this thread - I actually very much enjoy reading what's been said. Even if I don't agree with some of the points. Most are very well thought and thought-provoking.
Ice House said:
My feelings on the issue of this Holly War have come full circle in the last ten years. My main message in the original post was simple-
End the violence, Bin Laden is dead.
Bin Laden was the reason that we originally went into Afganistan to begin with and it turned into an opportunity by the Bush Mafia to invade Iraq. We, the USA, elected a new President who campaigned on an end the War and close Guantanamo platform. Three years later and we are no closer to doing either then when Bush was in office.
I wonder if Bush knew where Bin Laden was all along. I think he did and didnt want to kill him. The the American public would have demanded and end to the war had Bin Laden been killed early on.
I think Obama has known where Bin Laden was all along also. He was just waiting for the right moment to make himself look good, a year out from elections.
Its sad how human lives are used as a tool by the elite class in this world. Not just by Americans, but by the rich all over the world.
End the violence, Bin Laden is dead.
President Obama? Opportunity is knocking.
ewok said:
"A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom."
For example, lets say the US begins enforcing laws on DMT containing plants. This action would cause many legal complications which themselves would create even more complications. If in fact most plants (and many animals) contain DMT, and you are aware of this fact, then (as Entropymancer points out in his MHRB is Illegal post) this would open the door for someone to be convicted of owning a cat because the cat contains DMT. This is why some feel enforcement on MHRB is not active.
This brings us to Al Qaeda. If we wiped every Al Qaeda member off the face of the Earth then the world would be a SAFER place. I don't see how it would begin a slippery slope. Right or wrong, it's not a slippery slope.
I cannot see how in the world you justify doing anything other than wiping them out. They are hell-bent on killing as many innocent Westerners as possible. Do you think this is right? Just? Even permissible? If so, I'd like to see an argument justifying this claim.
Sorry, this isn't a belief. It's a logical conclusion based on the evidence at hand. If you have more compelling evidence, please present it.
In the end that wont be an end at all to anything and wont help me to sleep any safer. The CIA created al-qaida and took advantage of a situation so they could invade iraq for unrelated profit..the USA has some responsibility to take here as well as others..eliminating al-qaida as if they are the root of the problem is a cop-out because it adresses nothing. It's like beating up a bully on the school yard that you and others instigated over the years to become what they are, and then acting as if the actual problem has been solved. Obviousily that is a crude analogy but nothing is solved this way. Walking in circles is for the blind and insane. You can eliminate al-qaida from the face of the earth and the problem will still remain..even al-from qaida operatives I am sure will remain and re-group unless someone finally decides to address the real problems.
The whole 911 thing seems pointless to debate here since I doubt a single one of us has any clue as to what actaully went on there. This is important since 911 seems to be the event that is so commonly used to spark this sort of single minded hatred towards the east. The whole thing is riddled with "facts" that never seem to add up and testimonies from many respected sources saying outright the thing didnt go down the way they tell us it did. It wouldnt be the first time a goverment has lied to the public. The fact that they didn't even bother to help out all the dying volunteers on site doesnt help they're credibility.. Beyond that 911 isnt even worth discussing becasue it makes no sense...
Until the reality surrounding why Bush really invaded iraq, and how ql-qaida's origions came to be I dont really see any viable solutions to the problem in the long run. Humans will be doomed to swim in pools of they're own stupidity I guess.
The whole 911 thing seems pointless to debate here since I doubt a single one of us has any clue as to what actaully went on there. This is important since 911 seems to be the event that is so commonly used to spark this sort of single minded hatred towards the east. The whole thing is riddled with "facts" that never seem to add up and testimonies from many respected sources saying outright the thing didnt go down the way they tell us it did. It wouldnt be the first time a goverment has lied to the public. The fact that they didn't even bother to help out all the dying volunteers on site doesnt help they're credibility.. Beyond that 911 isnt even worth discussing becasue it makes no sense...
Until the reality surrounding why Bush really invaded iraq, and how ql-qaida's origions came to be I dont really see any viable solutions to the problem in the long run. Humans will be doomed to swim in pools of they're own stupidity I guess.
Similar threads
