News A Larger Problem and an Old Problem

[The Smoking Man]

You mean: in their perception there are at least three types.

And in yours, there isn't.

So how many of the people in Guantanamo didn't like bin Laden but merely stood up for the sovereign nation of Afghanistan?

Do you deny this is a possibility?

A couple of years before, the Taliban were the guests of 'big oil' in Texas so perceptions DO change.

 

[Smurf]

And in yours, there isn't.

No no, my perception is entirely different. I'm merely pointing out an inconsitency in your language.

 

[The Smoking Man]

No no, my perception is entirely different. I'm merely pointing out an inconsitency in your language.

We are all coloured with perception.

This is not as simple as a lifeboat scenario.

There WERE people who defended their country and not bin Laden.

Some people were probably even unaware of the 9/11 strike and saw people with guns near their sheep.

Not everyone in Afghanistan had access to CNN but every rural family owned an AK-47. They needed it to defend their property.

They became 'terrorists' through American perception and some are in Guantanamo even now.

 

[Smurf]

We are all coloured with perception.

This is not as simple as a lifeboat scenario.

There WERE people who defended their country and not bin Laden.

Some people were probably even unaware of the 9/11 strike and saw people with guns near their sheep.

Not everyone in Afghanistan had access to CNN but every rural family owned an AK-47. They needed it to defend their property.

They became 'terrorists' through American perception and some are in Guantanamo even now.

Smoking man, I acknowledge that! I agree with you! I was merely pointing out your inconsitancy in your argument.

 

[BobG]

Looks like the KKK are still alive, kicking and growing according to their website http://www.kkk.bz/index1.htm

Perhaps, although I'm sure their website is more wishful thinking than reality.

The http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/kkk.asp is believed to have no more than a few thousand, scattered into around a hundred groups. The large central organizations were too big a target.

The more influential group today is the non-terrorist sister group, the CCC - http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/CCCitizens.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=ccc . While they have stayed on the right side of the law, their rhetoric has always mirrored that of the KKK, except through political channels instead of through violence. That's allowed them to keep an open link with mainstream politicians like Trent Lott, Haley Barbour, Gary Jackson and Dean Kirby.

Almost like the IRA-Sinn Fein relationship.

There's not too much you can constitutionally do to eliminate rhetoric, even if you're disgusted by it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Smoking man, I acknowledge that! I agree with you! I was merely pointing out your inconsitancy in your argument.

Hence our need to cling to the rule of law even if that law ties our hands at times.

 

[Townsend]

There's not too much you can constitutionally do to eliminate rhetoric, even if you're disgusted by it.

As it should be... freedom of speech comes in all forms and should be protected no matter what.

 

[AKG]

Sure is and you have.

All this is from the perspective of YOU making the decisions.

You'll be really surprised when it is decided by someone else that YOU are the one to lose your life just how much things change.

At that point, you don't give a rats keester about 'philosophy'.

Why would things change? I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't cover every possible thing that we might talk about with respect to morality. But nothing I said suggested that, say, laws are bad for society, or anything like that, did I? Again, since I have no idea what you're talking about, I don't know whether what I just said about laws covers your objection (if that's what it was, I can't tell).

 

[AKG]

We do? Please explain why you can kill a person to save another from torture? This is neither utilitarian nor individual. Although you could make the argument for negative utilitarianism.

If the police break into a house where they see a man about to take off a man's arms with a chainsaw, you'd have a problem with the police shooting the man?

 

[Informal Logic]

Without reading this thread (sorry, but it seems rather predictable), I'll respond to the OP and one glaring statement in it:

...the ends do not justify the means.

To quote Condeleeza Rice when questioned about the invasion of Iraq...

I do not condone terrorism of any kind. However, I also dislike the hypocrisy in this country regarding our foreign policy, and so does most of the rest of the world. If the US stops the hypocrisy and policies of self interest, then hatred of the US (and terrorism) will fade away. It is really simple--what is the problem?

 

[Townsend]

If the US stops the hypocrisy and policies of self interest, then hatred of the US (and terrorism) will fade away. It is really simple--what is the problem?

You say we should stop policies of self interest? Who's interest should we be looking out for then?

 

[The Smoking Man]

You say we should stop policies of self interest? Who's interest should we be looking out for then?

Were you asking him to speak for Condoleeza?

 

[Townsend]

Were you asking him to speak for Condoleeza?

I have no idea what you're getting at...I don't study news like you clearly do so please fill in the gaps.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Why would things change? I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't cover every possible thing that we might talk about with respect to morality. But nothing I said suggested that, say, laws are bad for society, or anything like that, did I? Again, since I have no idea what you're talking about, I don't know whether what I just said about laws covers your objection (if that's what it was, I can't tell).

Well, drawing straws is one way of solving the 'lifeboat' problem although a game of chance is hardly a fair option.

When dealing with 'food and water' in a lifeboat scenario it may be more logical to say that the 300 pund man will consume far more than the 6 year old girl so she would be less of a tax on the resources and the 'collective' would survive a lot longer.

The fact is that no matter how the process is decided, all parties are in agreement until they see 'who gets the short straw' or 'why the fat guy get's ousted'.

Then it becomes an enforcement issue with the 'selectee' presenting every logical argument and illogical argument to the contrary.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I have no idea what you're getting at...I don't study news like you clearly do so please fill in the gaps.

Study his post then. He blatantly stated he was quoting Condeleeza Rice.

 

[Townsend]

Study his post then. He blatantly stated he was quoting Condeleeza Rice.

oh...sorry...

I just assumed that quotes are at least put in quotes. I don't want him to speak for her...

On another note...
I can't believe she said that,

 

[Art]

Study his post then. He blatantly stated he was quoting Condeleeza Rice.

It's hard to believe Rice said that. I suspect there is a link to Rice missing from the post??

 

[Townsend]

It's hard to believe Rice said that. I suspect there is a link missing from the post??

Thats why I never realized it was suppose to be a quote of her...

 

[SOS2008]

You say we should stop policies of self interest? Who's interest should we be looking out for then?

Umm...maybe take the 'moral' high ground and really be concerned about human rights, poverty, etc. This thread, along with a few others (how the people of Iraq could be freed from a dictatorship) inevitably miss the mark.

First, is it our foreign policy to play a police role? Source this. And if so, how should we do it--within international laws or not? Make your case. And if so, shouldn't we do it across the board and pursue regime change where ever there are oppressed peoples in the world? And if so, how can we prevent over extension militarily, financially, etc. Provide evidence.

In general, if you're going to claim morality, than be moral, and be consistent, and realistic, and please do some research and provide evidence accordingly (another common factor lacking from conservatives in these threads). Otherwise, how can anyone debate intelligently?

 

[SOS2008]

It's hard to believe Rice said that. I suspect there is a link to Rice missing from the post??

This is in reference to confirmation hearings. In response to questioning about the invasion of Iraq, Rice said the ends justify the means.

Per the interview George W. had on January 16th.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush says there is no need to hold anyone in his administration accountable for what has happened in Iraq because the voters have already spoken. "We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections. The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

There were no WMDs we now know. There wasn't a nuke program in Iraq. Iraq wasn't an "imminent threat" to the United States. Bush was wrong. Tenet was wrong (it wasn't a slam dunk). Cheney was wrong. Powell was wrong. Rice was wrong. No problem; no accountability because 51% voted for Bush.

Bush and most of our politicians today fall into the "ends justify the means" theory of politics. Right or wrong doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters is getting re-elected and retaining power. Promises that can't possibly be kept are made to the voters. Lies and half truths are told and retold until the have the mantle of believability. If you can vilify your opponent's character, you can win. Once you've won, the electorate absolves you. You are washed clean by the democratic process.

http://www.jumplink.net/blog/Jan2005/jan1805.htm

See how it works? And this should help explain some attitudes of some Americans (and some PF members).

 

[The Smoking Man]

oh...sorry...

I just assumed that quotes are at least put in quotes. I don't want him to speak for her...

On another note...
I can't believe she said that,

I've got to admit that I have looked high and low based on the whole 'quote', sentences and phrases and can't find a single reference.

Informal Logic, do you have a link?

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

Bush created the American perspective 'If you're not with us, you're against us'.

And that perception is used against terror.

The Smoking Man

So how many of the people in Guantanamo are the defenders of a sovereign nation and how many were defending bin Laden? Perception, my friend.

By looking at Guantanamo's state, most people are able to extrapolate an abundant number and indeed a majority that collude with Bin Laden, so yes, I agree with perception.

The Smoking Man

America sees one foe gathered in Guantanamo when in reality, there are at LEAST three types.

The irony is these foes having conflicts with each other.

 

[The Smoking Man]

And that perception is used against terror.

Not entirely true. He said that of all nations who did not America's actions: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/

By looking at Guantanamo's state, most people are able to extrapolate an abundant number and indeed a majority that collude with Bin Laden, so yes, I agree with perception.

And you know that how since there have been no trials?

The irony is these foes having conflicts with each other.

So now you acknowledge there are three types who don't agree with each other ... So like I said, you have Afghani patriots in cells beside Al Qieda. So do you still maintain that they are all Terrorists or people who wanted to defend their country from invasion as well as terrorists and that nothing has been done to identify who is who?

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

And you know that how since there have been no trials?

Perception. Have you forgotten about it?

The Smoking Man

So now you acknowledge there are three types who don't agree with each other ...

Since when did I or didn't I acknowledge there are three types who don't agree with each other?! you're getting muddled. My last post to the thread was the first time I commented about different types of terrorist activists disagreeing and conflicting with each other.

The Smoking Man

So do you still maintain that they are all Terrorists or people who wanted to defend their country from invasion as well as terrorists and that nothing has been done to identify who is who?

And how would you know that? Are you inferring there is no terrorism in Guantanamo? that it's all about defending the country?

 

[The Smoking Man]

Perception. Have you forgotten about it?

Perception is great for personal views but it sucks for justice and legality.

That is, in fact why we have courts of law and frown on lynch mobs.

Since when did I or didn't I acknowledge there are three types who don't agree with each other?! you're getting muddled. My last post to the thread was the first time I commented about different types of terrorist activists disagreeing and conflicting with each other.

Pardon me for quoting you then "The irony is these foes having conflicts with each other." when you replied to my statement that there were at least three groups which include people merely defending the country.

Most people would consider than an agreement when you fail to make a correction but merely extend the thought.

And how would you know that? Are you inferring there is no terrorism in Guantanamo? that it's all about defending the country?

Nothing of the sort. I am stating that nobody knows what is there because there has not been a trial yet.

Knowing what you do of American law, are you going to sit there straight faced and say that America knows who are the terrorists and who isn't? What is the foundation of your law? What is the presupposition of guilt or innocence?

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

Perception is great for personal views but it sucks for justice and legality.

I see, no more opinions. Has it ever occurred to you that we can infer things and discuss them further? that it doesn't have to be about "justice and legality". This isn't a tribunal.

The Smoking Man

Most people would consider than an agreement when you fail to make a correction but merely extend the thought.

That terrorism is tangible in the country and the irony of these different activists conflicting each other whilst figthing American troops? What have I failed to correct?

The Smoking Man

Knowing what you do of American law, are you going to sit there straight faced and say that America knows who are the terrorists and who isn't?

You're misunderstanding things but since you address the problem, what are the solutions to distinguish terrorists from normal citizens?

The Smoking Man

What is the foundation of your law? What is the presupposition of guilt or innocence?

No opinions permitted, remember?

 

[The Smoking Man]

I see, no more opinions. Has it ever occurred to you that we can infer things and discuss them further? that it doesn't have to be about "justice and legality". This isn't a tribunal.

No but a prison with inmates should be.

That terrorism is tangible in the country and the irony of these different activists conflicting each other whilst figthing American troops? What have I failed to correct?

A person in the USA who fights back while on his property is considered a good citizen with a second amendment. Do you consider THEM activists? Your bias' are showing.

You're misunderstanding things but since you address the problem, what are the solutions to distinguish terrorists from normal citizens?

The subsequent trial.

No opinions permitted, remember?

Funny, I was asking if you knew facts.

 

[DM]

The Smoking Man

A person in the USA who fights back while on his property is considered a good citizen with a second amendment.

I'm discussing terrorist groups fighting American troops, you're interpreting it as the USA fighting back and being good citizens with a second amendmnet.

The subsequent trial.

And that distinguishes a terrorist from a citizen? After it has been killed or blown up? How will trials eradicate martyrs and terrorists of all sorts?

The Smoking Man

Funny, I was asking if you knew facts.

"What is the foundation of your law? What is the presupposition of guilt or innocence?"

Really?

 

[AKG]

Well, drawing straws is one way of solving the 'lifeboat' problem although a game of chance is hardly a fair option.

When dealing with 'food and water' in a lifeboat scenario it may be more logical to say that the 300 pund man will consume far more than the 6 year old girl so she would be less of a tax on the resources and the 'collective' would survive a lot longer.

The fact is that no matter how the process is decided, all parties are in agreement until they see 'who gets the short straw' or 'why the fat guy get's ousted'.

Then it becomes an enforcement issue with the 'selectee' presenting every logical argument and illogical argument to the contrary.

Your first post to me seemed to have nothing to do with what I said. I responded anyways, and this seems to have nothing to do with either what I initially said or what I said in my response. I haven't said anything in this thread so far about the lifeboat scenario.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I'm discussing terrorist groups fighting American troops, you're interpreting it as the USA fighting back and being good citizens with a second amendmnet.

No, I am paralleling. Most of the people who fought back in Afghanistan were not terrorists and received no terrorist training. They were an invaded nation fighting back just like an American would if the same thing happened there.

And that distinguishes a terrorist from a citizen? After it has been killed or blown up? How will trials eradicate martyrs and terrorists of all sorts? By looking at Guantanamo's state, most people are able to extrapolate an abundant number and indeed a majority that collude with Bin Laden, so yes, I agree with perception.

Funny, I thought we were discussing the people interred in Camp X-ray. You just declared them Martyrs and terrorists again by 'extrapolation' and you know damn well they have determined as neither legally or in fact.

"What is the foundation of your law? What is the presupposition of guilt or innocence?"

Really?

Yes, really. Where you live, you have the rule of law don't you or are you saying you would prefer to abandon it completely? Unless you're actually living in France ... Innocent until PROVEN guilty.