Justice has been served

[endlessness]

a1pha, you could not practically get every al qaeda person dead, its an impossible task because in the attempt to do so (if we considered that this is USA/western countries' main aim for going to war, which obviously isnt) you are trampling on human rights in other countries creating mass destruction and taking lives of innocent, which generates the feeling that gives rise to extremist thinking in the first place. More generations of al qaeda being born right there. And thats the logical conclusion which I cant see how anyone could not see clear as day.

 

[a1pha]

endlessness, I apologize if I came across as saying we should kill every Al Qaeda person. It was not my intention and I would in NO way endorse violating human rights. What I said was:

If we wiped every Al Qaeda member off the face of the Earth then the world would be a SAFER place.

I was only using this as a hypothetical if/then statement - concluding that if there were no Al Qaeda members (or ideologues wishing to harm innocent people) then this world would be a safer place.

Trust me, I'm about as peaceful as it gets. But I still don't see a good argument against this.

 

[endlessness]

Oh yeah a1pha I never doubted you were a peaceful person

But these "what if" scenarios are useless imo.. Fact is, as it stands, the western "democracies" (lol) are only standing as they are based on the historical and actual parasitical relationship with other nations. This relationship, the unfair wealth distribution, the mass destruction and human rights abuse perpetrated is what causes the world's insecurities in the first place.

If we go for "what if" scenarios, what about: what if" the western leaders that allow this abuse were gone, the western armies in foreign territory gone, then the world would be a much safer place.

 

[ewok]

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.

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.

Saying people should be wiped off the face of the earth is a slippery slope to me. Beliefs gone to far IMO.

"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.

I'm sure Al Qaeda feel if they wipe all the "westerners" of the face of the earth it will be a safer place, get rid of Al Qaeda sure then the next group will pop up. So kill them all OK now another group is there, where does it end. I don't want to put evidence forward I don't know what happened to start it all and I doubt you do either. 9/11 has so much misinformation from all corners arguing about it is pointless. I just can't see wiping out people as the answer to end it.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

Excuse the pretentiousness of quoting myself, but I believe this is the slippery slip Ewok is referring to (please corretct me if I am wrong, Ewok)

2) Allowing the lives of 3,000 innocent people to taken in vain is immoral in my opinion...BTW I don't want to wast my tax dollars keeping him alive in an orange jumpsuit in federal prison.

How does this not make those lives lost in vain? What have we truly gained for all of those lost lives through this action? Revenge? Retribution? I don't see it. Additionally, even if I choose to accept that line of reasoning...what about all of the innocent lives we have taken in the pursuit of this man? Are they not in vain too? And if they are in vain, by your logic, their loved ones must now come after the US to assure they didn't lose their lives in vain...seems like a bit of a slippery slope to me.

 

[ewok]

Excuse the pretentiousness of quoting myself, but I believe this is the slippery slip Ewok is referring to (please corretct me if I am wrong, Ewok)

2) Allowing the lives of 3,000 innocent people to taken in vain is immoral in my opinion...BTW I don't want to wast my tax dollars keeping him alive in an orange jumpsuit in federal prison.

How does this not make those lives lost in vain? What have we truly gained for all of those lost lives through this action? Revenge? Retribution? I don't see it. Additionally, even if I choose to accept that line of reasoning...what about all of the innocent lives we have taken in the pursuit of this man? Are they not in vain too? And if they are in vain, by your logic, their loved ones must now come after the US to assure they didn't lose their lives in vain...seems like a bit of a slippery slope to me.

Correct although on a bit of a broader sense with other comments also I guess.

 

[a1pha]

But these "what if" scenarios are useless imo..

I'd have to disagree with you here. While they might lack any real-world use, they sure pave the way for moral philosophers to debate an objective morality. Would you rather have a moral code based on Islamic law or Christian ideals? I certainly wouldn't and I can't believe you would... talk about human rights violation (the Islamists attitude towards woman/infidels and the Christian view on homosexuals and woman seeking abortion, etc).

Fact is, as it stands, the western "democracies" (lol) are only standing as they are based on the historical and actual parasitical relationship with other nations. This relationship, the unfair wealth distribution, the mass destruction and human rights abuse perpetrated is what causes the world's insecurities in the first place.

Democracy (lol) - I agree with that one. Wasn't it Aristotle who said democracy is a devient constitution (albiet the best of a bad lot)? While it's in no way a perfect system, what else would you have? At least I can practice my religion freely (or lack thereof), I can walk the streets in relative safety, I can marry whom I choose (oh wait, not for us gays - but at least I won't be stoned to death, etc.).

If we go for "what if" scenarios I'd rather think that "what if" the western leaders that allow this abuse were gone, the western armies in foreign territory gone, then the world would be a much safer place.

Well I'm sure you remember the philosopher king is the best king - because he's the only one who doesn't want the power while understanding morality and logic. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll live to see the day when one is elected. So again, the lesser of evils? I'm much more comfortable with power-hungry leaders than ones who base the law on some ancient religious text.

I'm sure Al Qaeda feel if they wipe all the "westerners" of the face of the earth it will be a safer place, get rid of Al Qaeda sure then the next group will pop up. So kill them all OK now another group is there, where does it end. I don't want to put evidence forward I don't know what happened to start it all and I doubt you do either. 9/11 has so much misinformation from all corners arguing about it is pointless. I just can't see wiping out people as the answer to end it.

It ends when we rid the world of those who feel justified in killing based on religious law. Al Qaeda et al cannot be reasoned with. They do not compromise. They feel we are infidels and because of this must either convert or be killed. No, I don't know what happened to start it all but it doesn't matter. Please read my above post on fighting a just war versus fighting justly in war. I feel the US spends MOST of its military resources doing just this - fighting justly in war. This is one reason we spend so much blood and treasure on intelligence and targeted strikes - to limit civilian casualties. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, wishes to make the biggest bang possible, regardless of innocent life lost. This is really a big issue in Just War Theory and they don't follow it.

And I'm not going into the 9/11 misinformation thing. It really upsets me when people say this as it dishonors those who lost their lives - so I will refrain from addressing it.

Excuse the pretentiousness of quoting myself, but I believe this is the slippery slip Ewok is referring to (please corretct me if I am wrong, Ewok)

I still don't know if I'd call it a slippery slope, but I see your point and will grant it to you.

Also, I understand I'm generalizing some in the above statements. In no way do I feel all Islamists this or all Christians that. I have friends of each and just trying to make a point - as sloppy as it is.

 

[Steely]

The world, as it stands now, is a pristine example of how killing off the people who disagree with you gets no where, fast.

Death yields no permanent closure, only the onset of more pain.

"democracies" (lol)

Democracy (lol)

I love you two, this made me laugh.

 

[endlessness]

I'd have to disagree with you here. While they might lack any real-world use, they sure pave the way for moral philosophers to debate an objective morality. Would you rather have a moral code based on Islamic law or Christian ideals? I certainly wouldn't and I can't believe you would... talk about human rights violation (the Islamists attitude towards woman/infidels and the Christian view on homosexuals and woman seeking abortion, etc).

I dont understand your point. Moral code? I believe in moral/ethical and cognitive autonomy, developed through education. Moral philosophers can talk all the want, I couldnt care less and I think it means nothing to the world

Democracy (lol) - I agree with that one. Wasn't it Aristotle who said democracy is a devient constitution (albiet the best of a bad lot)? While it's in no way a perfect system, what else would you have? At least I can practice my religion freely (or lack thereof), I can walk the streets in relative safety, I can marry whom I choose (oh wait, not for us gays - but at least I won't be stoned to death, etc.).

I dont know what aristotle said or didnt but if you quote greek democracy, might I remind you that it only included a certain specific section of society, obviously not the slaves, women, poor, etc etc


Pretty much the same nowadays. You say you can walk the streets in relative safety, well, easy for us when the streets were built on resources stolen from other countries. Maybe thats why their corner of the world isnt so safe?

What other system would I have? Ahmmm, I dont know how the perfect system would be but I can tell you some obvious changes: Stop investing in war and military, put that in education, health and sustainability. Give more power to the people with direct participation through internet mechanisms where citizens can propose/vote/discuss laws instead of only relying on a few resource-sucking scumbags who are supposed to represent us but that actually represent lobbies and corporations. What else? hmmm. No immunity/special legal protection for politicians, thats also absurd, they have to pay for their crimes just like everybody else. What else? Politicians with previous mal-use of public funds should be immediately banned forever of any public power position (not to mention prosecuted for what they did). What else? No armies in foreign territory ever. More? hmm ok how about local community-based regulations and guideliness instead of state-imposed laws? etc etc etc, we could be all day thinking changes to current bullshit democracy here

Well I'm sure you remember the philosopher king is the best king - because he's the only one who doesn't want the power while understanding morality and logic. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll live to see the day when one is elected. So again, the lesser of evils? I'm much more comfortable with power-hungry leaders than ones who base the law on some ancient religious text.

How about none of the evils? Im not comfortable with power hungry leaders because its the consequence of their actions that leads people into resorting to other answers such as extremism and following ancient texts because they see the faults of the current western globalized world plan and desperately grasp for air holding onto these other solutions they see in front of them.



btw it was snozz that said the slippery slope thing not me (messed up quote there)

 

[a1pha]

Well I don't think I have anything more of substance to add right now, but thank you guys for letting me hash out what's going through my head - at least it gives me some material to chew on. I don't get this quality of debate elsewhere...

And I fixed the quote endlessness, my mistake.

Thanks again!

 

[benzyme]

sorry, guys
but this changes nothing.

history repeats itself. always has, always will.

 

[Steely]

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..

Out of respect, in the future, please hesitate to show such superciliousness.

As a1pha stated, the link contains access to the original document.

Conspiracy & Speculation do not help anything.

sorry, guys
but this changes nothing.

history repeats itself. always has, always will.

And perhaps this is how it must be?

 

[benzyme]

don't know if that's how it has to be, it's how the history writers prefer it.
those who wield the power are old and traditional, they always copy pages out of history

 

[Steely]

don't know if that's how it has to be, it's how the history writers prefer it.
those who wield the power are old and traditional, they always copy pages out of history

Hmm, I was thinking more along the lines of seemingly senseless wars or anger/hate being a part of the balance that allows humans to keep growing. The closer we are to falling off the ledge, the more careful steps we take?

 

[benzyme]

the wars are senseless to you and I, but they are a struggle for power and resources to the powers that be.

they try to keep us polarized with propaganda.

 

[Steely]

Humans have varying issues with balancing their emotions, and allowing certain ones to irrationally control their lives (hatred, love, sadness). Do you think all these issues are caused by the way the world is today? I think most, not all.

 

[polytrip]

I find many of the comments here quite hypocritical and one-sided to be honest.

This is why we liberals don't rule the world: we're just as emotional, irrational, hypocritical and hardheaded as all the conservatives, when push comes to shove.

Let me give an example of how an alternative, that could work in the israel/palestine conflict and everywhere else: The south-african national party had always said that they wouldn't negotiate with the ANC, wich they blamed of being a communist terror organisation.
The only terms on wich they where willing to negotiate where that the ANC would stop every form of resistance against the regime first.

So the first talks between the national party and ANC prominents where held secretly and the ANC gave their opponents time and opportunity to change their position and explain this change to their supporters.

It wasn't realistic to ask them to change overnight without warning, because the politicians of the national party would't be able to explain the sudden change of policy to their followers. And the same applied to the ANC: they needed time to explain to their supporters that they where doing busines with the enemy.

Be realistic, try to understand the position of your enemy and give them the opportunity to move towards negotiations without having to lose their credibility.

Back to the topic: Letting osama walk would not have been an option for ANY government of ANY nation. The blind anti-americanism it seems to spark here is TOTALLY out of proportion.

 

[joedirt]

Excuse the pretentiousness of quoting myself, but I believe this is the slippery slip Ewok is referring to (please corretct me if I am wrong, Ewok)

2) Allowing the lives of 3,000 innocent people to taken in vain is immoral in my opinion...BTW I don't want to wast my tax dollars keeping him alive in an orange jumpsuit in federal prison.

How does this not make those lives lost in vain? What have we truly gained for all of those lost lives through this action? Revenge? Retribution? I don't see it. Additionally, even if I choose to accept that line of reasoning...what about all of the innocent lives we have taken in the pursuit of this man? Are they not in vain too? And if they are in vain, by your logic, their loved ones must now come after the US to assure they didn't lose their lives in vain...seems like a bit of a slippery slope to me.

Sorry I simply don't understand this logic? So we hunt down the person that financed the killing of 3000 people....and you think the lives of the people that died in the attack are now in vain? What?

Come one people....there is idealism and then there is just being silly....

Look I'm a pretty peaceful person myself and would like nothing better than to live in the perfect world we all dream of, but I'm grounded in this reality and in this reality when a person can master mind the killing of thousands of people that individual needs to be brought to justice....

 

[endlessness]

You mean bush and obama and leaders of other western powers and past and present leaders of israel and etc too? Because they definitely knowingly have destroyed many lives directly and indirectly and commited (and let be commited) all sorts of abuses too, and I dont see any of them being brought to justice or the public/media demanding it (or even people in this thread). I dont want to sound like a track on repeat but this sort of "realistic" idea of how it should be (invade foreign countries for stated reason x or y) is whats generating the problems in the first place.

 

[polytrip]

You mean bush and obama and leaders of other western powers and past and present leaders of israel and etc too? Because they definitely knowingly have destroyed many lives directly and indirectly and commited (and let be commited) all sorts of abuses too, and I dont see any of them being brought to justice or the public/media demanding it (or even people in this thread). I dont want to sound like a track on repeat but this sort of "realistic" idea of how it should be (invade foreign countries for stated reason x or y) is whats generating the problems in the first place.

When germany was defeated in WW1, the french and the brits enforced the versailes treaty that totally exploited the defeated and defenceless german state. Germany suffered decades of extreme poverty.

It is this poverty that sparked the political instability that eventually lead to the rise of the nazi's.

So..YES, it is true that if all this injustice would not have taken place, the nazi's would not have existed.

Does that all of a sudden make the nazi's nice guys that shouldn't have been hindered? Would cancelation of the versailes treaty have stopped hitler?

Is al-qaida a reasonable organisation that you can negotiate and make a deal with?
Are the enemies of the west reasonable people you can bargain with? Do they understand the principle of give-and-take?

I think not. Their may be very valid points at the root of their anger. I don't think anybody disagrees with that.

But their anger has grown out of controll. It has become a reason for itself. A cult of hate has arisen.

It's no longer contained to justified anger: islamic fundamentalists kill thousands of muslims who don't subscribe exactly to their version of islam. If you're a muslim who disagrees with killing every other muslim who does not subscribe exactly to version X of islam, then you're a muslim who does not exactly describe to version X of islam yourself and therefore you will be killed.

THAT's the kind of enemy we're dealing with here. The suffering within the islamic world caused by the west is minute compared to the big atrocities caused by these fundamentalists themselves and the reason why you don't hear many people complaining about that is because of fear. They fear the friends of bin-laden much more than they ever feared the west and THAT is the truth no-one mentions.

No-one here endorses western hypocrisy.
But everybody who blames western governments of being intolerant because they don't passively sit and watch their citizens being slaughtered has lost touch with reality.

If you're realy such a bipartizan pacifist, and you believe in turning the other cheek at all times, then you should feel that this time al-qaida should turn the other cheek as well and not make such a big deal about the so many'th single murder.

Such radical pacifism reduces your relationship with the planet to a mere shrugging at all times, but that is not my problem.