Islam has one of the largest religious followings in the world. This is an irrefutable fact. But, throughout most of the world their are "Muslims" attacking things people hold dear for whatever reason they can come up with. These "fundamentalists" pervert and distort the Great Quran which is at the very heart of the Islamic World. Time and time again, they blow up other people in the name of All Knowing Allah. Why don't the millions of great and admirable Muslim people fight this horrific perversion of their faith? If it has happened, why don't we here about it?
I know if people started citing the Book of Mormon as a reason to wage a barbaric war on innocent people, I would do everything in my power to quell that thinking. It's starting to really get to me. Get up and fight these people that say they speak on your behalf!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To whom are you speaking?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I'm speaking to the people that agree with what the Islamic Leaders say when they tell us the Quran is a book that promotes peace.
I'm getting a litle tired of this all out war and the Great Nation of Islam remains largly silent.
[edited to clarify]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Perhaps they fight it just as we all fight Americans trying to prevent people being held captive for the longest periods possible without fair trials and subjected to the worst conditions we feel we can reasonably get away with.
Or perhaps they fight it just as well as people in the UK fought against the often extreme violence between Catholics and Protestants on Ire.
Or perhaps they fight it just as well as the Jewish people fought the economic subjugation of the Palestinians.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Perhaps they fight it just as we all fight Americans trying to prevent people being held captive for the longest periods possible without fair trials and subjected to the worst conditions we feel we can reasonably get away with.
Or perhaps they fight it just as well as people in the UK fought against the often extreme violence between Catholics and Protestants on Ire.
Or perhaps they fight it just as well as the Jewish people fought the economic subjugation of the Palestinians.
This argument is completely illogical; the parallels you draw are not parallels at all. On the one hand, we have one group of Muslims murdering children in the name of their religion, while other Muslims protest that their religion is one of peace, yet do not seem to be doing much to prove that to the world; and on the other hand, we have various groups of people who may or may not have allowed general wrong-doing to occur on their watch.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'm speaking to the people that agree with what the Islamic Leaders say when they tell us the Quran is a book that promotes peace.
Ah. See, it sounded like you were talking to Muslims. Which means that you could have pretty much started with a "Hey, Amira!"
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
No, no. I didn't mean it like that.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Why shouldn't he be talking about Muslims? If someone is doing atrocious acts in the name of your religion, shouldn't you speak out that they don't speak for you? Shouldn't the religious leaders speak out that they do not support the actions?
I thought THAT was his question...but I see now it's more "PC" because we wouldn't want to offend anybody.
-Katarain
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I know if people started citing the Book of Mormon as a reason to wage a barbaric war on innocent people, I would do everything in my power to quell that thinking. It's starting to really get to me. Get up and fight these people that say they speak on your behalf!
People traditionally cite Christianity all the time as a reason to wage barbaric wars on innocent people. Certain extremists are even using Christianity right now as a justification for starting an all out war with Islam. Because as a LDS you are also Christian, what do you do to stop that from happening? It seems to me that the Christian response is pretty much identitical to the Muslim response - complain as loudly as possible that that is not what your religion is about.
[ July 13, 2005, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's not that it's not "PC" to ask Muslims to defend the peaceful nature of their faith more strongly.
It's that there's all of one Muslim on this board -- who posts infrequently, for that matter -- and she already passionately argues for peace.
Posting his complaint HERE is like mailing an open letter to a circular file.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
But Tom, this is the most serious board I post on. It would be hugely inappropriate on Jon's or Mike's website since the audience there is a lot smaller and my chances of a rebuttal are a lot greater here.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think he is suggesting that try to get it to a larger audience. You could send it as a letter to the editor.
Or post in The Fray at Slate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Or, heck, anywhere that actual Muslims are likely to see it.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Why don't the millions of great and admirable Muslim people fight this horrific perversion of their faith?
Well, in the US you do hear plenty of Muslims fighting against it. I think what you want is to hear more protests from within Arabic countries.
I think that doesn't happen as much as you'd like because of politics, not religion. Generally speaking, they HATE us. They hate the way the West continually tries to interfere in the internal politics of their countries. And they feel powerless to stop it. If radical minorities are actually doing something, the majority might not agree with it all, but they probably feel like finally, somebody is standing up to the West on their behalf.
My two cents,
Laura
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
reader: you thoroughly missed the point. In each case there are protesters, but that doesn't mean things stop. And also, even the protesters are generally defensive against outsiders.
I think you'll find there is considerable outcry at many actions of muslim terrorists from muslims, both in the "western world" and elsewhere. However, I think you'll also find they're not particularly confident in the west being all that much better.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I don't think it's that simple, Laura. I have read several accounts of people visiting Muslim countries that say that everyone they met deplored 9/11 and other terrorist violence. My guess is, the REAL terrorists don't want to be in a position to meet any Westerners; they don't want to be polluted, or they don't want to have to recognize the humanity of a Westerner.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I'm sure it's not that simple. But I think that's probably a part of it. I don't think that "everyone they met deplored 9/11" sounds very accurate unless they were only meeting only a select group of people. I'd believe that they only heard negative things about 9/11 presented to them. And I'm certain you're right that terrorists isolate themselves from the West.
Another possibility that sprung to mind is lack of education. What's the literacy rate over there? I don't know, but I believe it's pretty low. If you have somebody people trust saying that the Quran says "blank", and the people can't read, they'll believe it. Which isn't to say the person is lying, they probably legitimately believe that from their own interpretation.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Laura,
you'll have trouble getting much of a rise out of someone like me on this issue. Extreme reactions to this sort of thing are exactly what will cause MORE terrorism, not less. "You maintain what you oppose." I'm not saying that the war in Iraq is wrong, necessarily. I think we all take responsibility for our own actions, and reap the consequences, eventually. I don't believe in the good intentions of a person like Dick Cheney, nor do I believe in the usefulness of letting Osama bin Laden and others run loose. The biggest fool is the one who hates Osama or Dick and loves the other.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that terrorists are in any way justified. But pleas like this thread seem to ignore the fact that terrorists don't evolve in isolation. They are recruited from everyday people in those countries. If we want to stop terrorism, I think it's important to understand what drives people to it instead of simply labeling them "pure, mindless evil".
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:nor do I believe in the usefulness of letting Osama bin Laden and others run loose.
That's just not the case, steven. That's blatantly false and you know it.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:If we want to stop terrorism, I think it's important to understand what drives people to it instead of simply labeling them "pure, mindless evil".
Who labeled them that?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Who labeled them that?
Bush labeled them "pure evil" and I frequently feel like that's a popular attitude. I'm sorry I attributed it to your post, since you clearly did not say that.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
First of all I don't think terrorism can be stopped outright and forever. That's just the nature of the beast.
However I do agree with Amanecer as far as having to understand the problem better in order to come up with better solutions. Fighting fire with fire only ends up making the flame bigger.
But I really think it's a little bit mroe complicated than just them hating the US, I think there's quite a bit more to it than that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, Bush didn't say they were mindless, but he does say things like this:
quote:The terrorists are fighting freedom with all their cunning and cruelty because freedom is their greatest fear - and they should be afraid, because freedom is on the march.
quote:Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
quote:The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent.
quote:We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America's resolve. We're fighting against men with blind hatred -- and armed with lethal weapons -- who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: reader: you thoroughly missed the point. In each case there are protesters, but that doesn't mean things stop. And also, even the protesters are generally defensive against outsiders.
I think you'll find there is considerable outcry at many actions of muslim terrorists from muslims, both in the "western world" and elsewhere. However, I think you'll also find they're not particularly confident in the west being all that much better.
Okay, I see what you're getting at now. You're right; I did miss the point. I thought that your statements were meant sarcastically - that is, I thought your statements were saying that the Americans/UKers/Israelis were NOT standing up - significantly - against whatever the problem in question, so why should Muslims be held any more responsible? But I see now that you were saying that just as Americans/UKers/Israelis may protest against various actions and yet not succeed in preventing them, so too the Muslims.
Personally, I don't feel that the Muslims (as a whole) are doing enough to stand up against what's happening - they may officially condemn terrorist attacks, but practically speaking, they don't do much to crack down on terrorists. But that's just my opinion. Sorry again for misreading your argument.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its okay, I do see that reading now and should have protected more against it.
However, I disagree with your feeling. Its calmed down of late, but there used to be regular press releases about our allies in the Islamic world doing things to track down terrorists, for instance.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
scott--that wasn't actually what I meant. I didn't mean to imply that the US government is intentionally allowing bin Laden to run free. I have no idea about that, and I wasn't expressing an opionion in that area. It just didn't cross my mind then.
However, I really find it entertaining that Dick Cheney was such a high muckety-muck at Halliburton and Bechtel before taking office with Bush II. I trust Chenay about as far as I can throw him, if that.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: The terrorists are fighting freedom with all their cunning and cruelty because freedom is their greatest fear - and they should be afraid, because freedom is on the march.
If you changed "freedom" to "the West", I think that's a more accurate sentiment. Do terrorists want freedom in the way we think of it? No, but they do seem to want freedom from us- their coutnries own soveirgnty.
quote: We're fighting against men with blind hatred -- and armed with lethal weapons -- who are capable of any atrocity.
Maybe we should try to not give them so many reasons to hate us. Certainly couldn't hurt.
Wow, I'm coming off very terrorist-loving. Which is not how I feel. They are clearly our enemies and we shouldn't coddle them. Still, I think it's important to understand the consequences of our actions and the causes of theirs.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Amanecer, I hear that a lot. Perhaps you could enlighten me about why they hate us. Maybe something besides the war that started AFTER the terrorism?
-Katarain
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Would you care to tell me when "the terrorism" started, Katarain? I'll take a date, at least a year, or even a decade.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
Heh actually they have a lot of reasons to hate the US. The problems we see right now are only the ripples of problems that have been around for many years. The US certainly hasn't helped and neither has Europe.
No it's not because of the current war but it certainly hasn't helped, all it's done is stirr up the nest causing more angry bees to pour out.
Go on ahead and take a look at their history, it's a lot easier to understand the present conflicts if you have some insight into their past Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
No. You tell me. I'm asking the questions here!
I'm asking a serious question about what we did that made them so mad. Although whatever it is is doubtful to garner any of my sympathy.
-Katarain
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its something that your question rests upon; before I can answer your question I must understand it, and the phrase "AFTER the terrorism" confuses me greatly.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
Well I don't think any of us are sympathethic to them, I abhor their actions and consider terrorists to be at the bottom of the barrel. Taking innocent human lives to "make a point" is abominable.
But to better deal with the problem I think you have to understand it.
Edit: Fugu, I think Katarain is refering to the 9/11 attacks but I could be mistaken.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
fugu, I said that to counteract any arguments that they're committing acts of terrorism because of the war in Iraq, because the war in Iraq started after other terrorist attacks.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
I think we could all do for some research.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, they are committing acts of terrorism because of the war in Iraq. Also because of other reasons, but Iraq caused a marked increase in terrorist activity. It was a wonderful recruiting tool that we handed to them, in particular in combination with things like the "Axis of Evil" speech, and a wonderful way of justifying violence to themselves and others.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
That's a bunch of bull. If it were true, then the terrorism would have started AFTER either war in Iraq rather than before.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Katarain, I'm sure there are people here more qualified to answer this question than me, but I do know of a few things we did to make them so mad. Anybody, please correct anything I say that's incorrect.
For centuries, the Middle East was the most technologically advanced area in the world. Then the West had their Industrial Revolution and started looking at the Middle East as a place to colonize. And colonize they did. The West used the Middle East for natural resources and for selling their finished goods, an unequal trade which seriously hurt the Middle East. Then in 1948, the West took away Israel from a people who had had it for centuries, and gave it to the Zionist Jews. Then the Cold War came, and we messed with their internal affairs like crazy. We were ok with supporting, financially and militarily, horrible leaders with no sense of human rights so long as they were anti-communist. Then, in 1991 the Cold War ended. Our intervention in their internal affairs didn't.
To sum up: The West has a history of using the Middle East to meet their own ends regardless of the effects on its people. We refuse to treat them like independent states.
Edited to add: The War in Iraq didn't cause terrorism, but it's certainly not helping stop it.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Okay.
So that's what the terrorists are after? They're fighting on behalf of their governments to be able to function as independent states?
-Katarain
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Katarain, perhaps you neglected to actually read what you called a load of bull:
quote:Oh, they are committing acts of terrorism because of the war in Iraq. Also because of other reasons, but Iraq caused a marked increase in terrorist activity.
That's the first half. Note the lack of the word "only" in the first sentence, and that "marked increase" implies existing terrorist activity beforehand.
Its quite accurate.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I still think it's bull.
They're using the war in Iraq as an excuse. It's not a REASON, because it didn't exist when they started the terrorism.
The only thing the war in Iraq should increase is military attacks from Iraq.
-Katarain
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, I find your odd return to terrorism having a "start" interesting. Terrorism has been going on as long as there has been recorded history, and many of the terrorists have gone down in history as the good guys -- yes, people who intentionally targeted civilians for death.
Terrorism doesn't have "a cause", terrorism has always existed in an incredibly complex web of social stresses, ideological differences, faults and perceived faults, and much much more. You can't just ask "well, why are they so angry" -- in fact, that you so blithely ask the question is part of why many middle eastern people are so angry, that so many of us are ignorant of what our own society has done. The west (including Russia, or at least in back and forths with Russia) has done terrible things in the middle east. We still are, in fact -- I bet you can find many a common person in Afghanistan who would like to know why we have allowed the drug trade there to resume business as usual, at ever-increasing volumes, funding the local warlords who in many cases oppress them as well as, unsurprisingly, terrorists.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You have a very bizarre perception of reality.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: So that's what the terrorists are after? They're fighting on behalf of their governments to be able to function as independent states?
I'm no expert so I really don't feel qualified to answer this. But I'll answer from my own understanding which is probably full of errors. I don't know that they're fighting for their governments specifcially, but maybe more for their nations, for themselves as a people. I think nations, like people, want to be treated with respect. When they instead get bullied, they'll try and stand up to the bully however they can.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lets say you were a citizen of a small country in a region of small countries. Lets say you already mistrusted America. Lets say American invaded one of your neighbors, and it turned out that the reasons they gave were based on incorrect, shoddily gathered evidence. Nasty as that next door neighbor may have been in the past, the people there are of similar religions and ethnicities, and many of them are dead because of this war.
Out of millions of such people, you don't understand how that would have caused some to become violent, or some of those who were already violent to have become more violent?
Your apparent assumption that the only reasons are logical is problematic.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Just a nit-pick:
quote:But I'll answer from my own understanding which is probably full of errors.
If I start to think this about a thread, I stop posting and read along and do research until I can prove my points.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Where's there list of demands? Since they want things to change? Is it just "Stay out, West"?
-Katarain
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Just a nit-pick:
quote:But I'll answer from my own understanding which is probably full of errors.
If I start to think this about a thread, I stop posting and read along and do research until I can prove my points.
Well, I was asked to explain the psyche of terrorists. I don't know that anybody other than a terrorist could accurately do that. However, based on research I have already done this is my perception. I welcome any evidence to the contrary.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Or perhaps they fight it just as well as people in the UK fought against the often extreme violence between Catholics and Protestants on Ire.
Nitpick: I'm pretty sure they'd like to see it spelled Eire, so as not to confuse it with the quality in question here.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Where's there list of demands? Since they want things to change? Is it just "Stay out, West"?
They've made their wants pretty clear. My guess is you just haven't been listening to them. Here's one of Bin Laden's speeches .
quote: we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Ah. (You're right, I haven't listened to his speeches.)
How about a big wall, then with no In and no Out around the middle east until they work things out. No meddlesome interference from the West.
-Katarain
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, because shutting off their ability to travel, among other things visiting their many friends and relatives abroad or those many relatives coming back, is going to really show how good we are.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Thanks for the correction, Annie, I had completely forgotten that was the preferred spelling.
And many terrorists have many, different demands. Anger does not require demands, though.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: How about a big wall, then with no In and no Out around the middle east until they work things out. No meddlesome interference from the West.
If you're being serious, than a big wall wouldn't be very helpful. The Middle East's biggest problems are economic. Cutting off all trade would only hurt this.
Self-restraint on behalf of the West would be far more effective. If we don't like a leader- deal with it. If oil prices get too high- deal with it. It's not our playground- it's their home.
I have to go to class now and won't be back till tonight. I'll check back in then.
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I still think it's bull.
They're using the war in Iraq as an excuse. It's not a REASON, because it didn't exist when they started the terrorism.
The only thing the war in Iraq should increase is military attacks from Iraq.
-Katarain
The illegal war in Iraq is a symbol for the overall attitude that the western world holds towards the middle east. we think that we have the right to force our culture on all the other countries of the world, and thought alot of the time, this process is aided by said countrie's own citizens adopting our way of life, there are those citizens that disagree with the process alltogether. you can see this happening within western countries as well, such as in canada, where quebec wants to seperate from the rest of the country, mostly because the french feel that their culture is being overwhelmed by the english one. where as in canada, there exists many non-violent means of expressing and acheiving the goal of non-integration, in the middle east, there aren't as many, and to add to this, many people with a distorted view of their own religion, or moral and ethical obligations feel that it is okay to react violently instead. that is what most modern terrorism is caused by: people wanting to make sure that their culture and way of life is not devoured by ours.
and for the record, we started it. that being said, we are only trying to preserve and expand our culture, but who says we have the right to do that at the expense of others' ways of life? its a question, not a statement
this whole issue really boils down to cultural relativism, which is a very interesting debate
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't really think it's fair to lump the US in with "The West" when it comes to all past transgressions. Europe has been messing with and meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for far longer than the United States, and if you want to say that because the US is made up of descendents of Europeans fine, Europe still did far more damage to the ME AFTER America was formed.
When you look at colonization in the ME, what you really need to look at is France and Britain. France controlled much of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Muslim north Africa. Britan was heavily involved in Iraq and Iran. Much of the strife with the Kurds can be blamed on the Brits, and for that matter the first Gulf War.
America is guilty of propping up bad guys in some nations sure, but we by far haven't done as much long lasting damage as Europe has.
Also, if you want to look at the "Beginning" of purely anti-US terrorism. How many Islamic based anti-us attacks were there prior to 1990? I'd be interested to see what their complaints would be if we pulled our troops out of their countries.
Europe should be doing more to clean up the messes it made a long time ago.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hell, Europeans were there first. The Arabs took the Middle East away from what was left of the Roman Empire. Let the Arabs clean up the mess they made.
Which, if anyone was wondering, is not a serious argument. I put it forward just to show how really stupid this kind of blame-throwing is.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's a valid argument. The Europeans are so often throwing everything back in America's face, blaming them for getting involved too much while they quietly slink away.
They made a mess, we made it worse, but are getting most of the blame.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Which, if anyone was wondering, is not a serious argument. I put it forward just to show how really stupid this kind of blame-throwing is.
Katarain asked why they hate us, I gave reasons. If the reasons were a thing of the past it would be foolish to dwell on it. But the reasons are still present so it's not stupid to talk about them and a long history of similar reasons. This helps us to understand what drives people to commit such heinous acts.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Perhaps you could enlighten me about why they hate us.
To put it simply, here's why:
Because we have used our power to gain more control over the future of their nations and culture than they, themselves, have. We have done this since the end of the Cold War. We are their unelected rulers, and we obey our own conscience, rather than their will.
Iraq is not an excuse. Rather it is a symptom of the above problem. To them, it is a confirmation that we do control them, and are willing to go to war to enforce our values and our ways of doing things upon them. Thus it is part of the cause of terrorism. It does not explain why the threat existed before the invasion, but it does explain why the threat is now greater afterward.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't they would have minded the invasion so much if we would have upheld even half the promises we made when we went in.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Xaposert, Thanks. I can understand that.
Do you think that if the western nations as a whole decided to pull out that things would get better? For them as nations? As several peoples sharing the middle east?
You see, I know that whether humanitarianism was ever an official reason for this war is highly debated, but it IS a reason why I am in favor of it. I want women and children to have rights and be treated better. I want all of those people to be free to believe in any religion they want to. I support this war because I hope beyond hope that the people will truly become free and have a government supported by the people, separate from the west. That's what I want. It can be asked...well, what right do we have to inflict our way of life on these people? I answer, what right do a few strong, vicious men have to oppress an entire nation? Maybe it's a rationalization, but I say, if the people are given a democratic process, then at least the majority can choose what sort of government they want.
Fugu13 said that I have a bizarre perception of reality, and maybe I do. (Although his assessment was based more on my questions than my opinions, I think.)
Unfortunately, I don't believe that the middle east will ever be at peace because of what I believe the Bible says about it. (Though, to be fair, that is only something I've been taught--it would take some research to actually get a verse to support it.) But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try...
-Katarain
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Maybe it's a rationalization, but I say, if the people are given a democratic process, then at least the majority can choose what sort of government they want.
Which other countries should we invade in order to bring democracy to them?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I don't know. It doesn't sound like a very good idea when you put it like that... But what are we to do?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
You're right Tom. I'm getting pretty upset with this "spread Democracy throughout the world" mentality.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:You see, I know that whether humanitarianism was ever an official reason for this war is highly debated, but it IS a reason why I am in favor of it. I want women and children to have rights and be treated better. I want all of those people to be free to believe in any religion they want to. I support this war because I hope beyond hope that the people will truly become free and have a government supported by the people, separate from the west. That's what I want. It can be asked...well, what right do we have to inflict our way of life on these people? I answer, what right do a few strong, vicious men have to oppress an entire nation? Maybe it's a rationalization, but I say, if the people are given a democratic process, then at least the majority can choose what sort of government they want.
France may think that our abortion restrictions violate human rights, that we are murdering when we execute criminals, that our foreign policy oppresses countless peoples, and that our brand of capitalism is inhumane to the poor. Do you believe that given these beliefs, if they had the power, they should overthrow our conservative government in the name of humanitarianism? Do you think certain Americans might react violently if they did?
I am all in favor of humanitarianism, but I believe we must recognize that in order to gain the right to tell others what to do, we must give them the right to tell US what to do. That's how civil communities work if they are fair. I have for a long time advocated giving the U.N., or a similar world body, more effective powers to vote on laws to ensure a certain degree of human rights throughout the world - but only if ALL nations subject to those rules are given a say, and ALL nations who have a say are subject to the rules. If this is done for real (not just as a sham that the U.S. actually still controls), I think terrorism will decrease.
The other option is to refuse to give any nation power over the rules made by any other. If we think our own autonomy is more important than our humanitarian efforts in other countries, we can take this route. This would be a fair solution to, if we decide it is best, but it would mean no Iraq invasions.
The one thing we can't do, though, is have it both ways in our favor. We can't tell other nations what to do and force them to obey, while simultaneously claiming they have no say in our laws.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's not a totally valid comparison Xaposert.
Americans choose to live the way we do. We choose our economy, and enjoy the results. We choose our conservative government, and for better or for worse appreciate the process. Furthermore, I don't think in the history of the world a nation has ever invaded another for killing what, the couple dozen people a year that are executed?
The nations being discussed on some sort of "Spread democracy" list don't have that choice. Were they to have free elections, and CHOSE to live in a way that we see as wrong, that would be an entirely different equation.
That being said, I wholly disagree with that reasoning for invasion. There are more peaceful ways to bring about change, ones that are far less destructive to the short term survival of a nation.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Americans choose to live the way we do. We choose our economy, and enjoy the results. We choose our conservative government, and for better or for worse appreciate the process.
I don't choose any of the above. I mainly choose between one of a few candidates, none of which usually will change much if they get into office, and as often as not my choice gets overruled by the choices of other groups of Americans who vote in larger numbers.
You can say this is more choice than Iraqis had, but France could just as easily say it is not enough to choice to eliminate the need to invade on my behalf.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The fact that we have an all volunteer army would be another point then. Regardless of what the situation might be, it's not forced conscripts that defend it, but the people who both agree with it and disagree with it.
Something that can only be said for a fraction of the world's armies.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I agree with you scottneb, I detest, abhor, dislike, hate, can't stand, and want to chomp on all those that twist the purity of faith and turn it in to something they can get profit of.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)