I am confused by my own convictions and beliefs

In My Humble Opinion
1

So rather than start some GD thread, which I am not about, I prefer not to debate but to discuss in a more mild manner so pardon me. Please if you feel you have to debate this, please start another thread and link back to this post. Of course, mod’s please move if you have to but if you do I will not participate because this is more of an internal feeling I have than something that can be “debated” with cites and facts.

As I sit here with my precious kitty on my lap, a lot of confusion has set over while watching the news. It’s either that or watch America’s Store but consumerism just isn’t in the stars for me at this time. I don’t really need a radar detector, the cops aren’t looking for the speeders at this time.

I had learned that the Taliban has declared a “Holy War” against our nation much earlier tonight. The people that have apparently been harboring the man our government believes to be behind this attack. What confuses me on this issue is, are we 100% sure that bin Laden is behind this? Do we really have the evidence? Can I as the average citizen know that my government is targeting the right “leader” of the attack?

Okay, so let’s say our government knows and has conclusive evidence that bin Laden is behind this. Do I support the “Wanted, Dead or Alive” comment that Bush came up with given the fact that I am against death as a revenge ideal but believe that justice must prevail. I believe in our Constitution, very deeply and that each shall have representation and if convicted, it should be in a juried trial, our country or not. No citizen of this Earth should have the same rights that we have in our own nation. I can’t believe that a president that defends our Constitution wouldn’t want to uphold what we hold so dear in our nation – even for someone like bin Laden. McVeigh got it, why couldn’t others in the world? I personally find his comments very horrific.

Look, I believe completely in justice. I want to see those that are behind this pay (not with their lives as I am against the death penalty) for this act. I want people to see the people in a court of law. If we kill anyone associated with this, how does this make what they did right? They aren’t against dying for their cause anyway, so doesn’t it make sense to ask them to answer to the charges in a public forum, make them examples and start (yes some civil rights people will be against this) giving them some type of work camps if they are found guilty for the crimes?

Again, I am against the death penalty, the old “Wanted Dead or Alive” ideal. The God I know doesn’t allow us for that much judgement for life or death. In my world, all people deserve the benefit of Constitutional rights, even those living in other countries for that’s what I completely and totally believe in. Without that we are just another rogue nation that has to retaliate in the same way that these terrorists attacked us. We are a free people, so shouldn’t we take any suspected terrorist to trial?

I tell you I am confused and saddened over this all because in my heart I can’t follow what I am hearing from our government but in my logical side (yes I have a little logical thinking) if we just kill them all then we have solved a problem. But then my heart thinks, the more we kill the more people will hate what we are doing…it’s just a big damn circle that baffles me.

Your thoughts are appreciated. And I have to stress that I am against violence in the realm of killing without trial so please know that before you respond.

2

Y’know, my dear, in some ways, you and I are very much alike. I have many of the same reservations, too - making sure we’ve got the right guy, not wanting to create an infinite loop of Hatfield-McCoy type fighting between countries - and I pretty much resolved it by taking a deep breath, sucking up my heartfelt emotions, and decided, “All right… let’s go after this guy.” I would prefer that we find him, alive, and put him on trial. However, now that it is, officially, a war situation, such a resolution might very well be impossible.

But that’s what you have to do. Either you stay locked in indecision, or you make a decision either way. No matter what you do, it’s still going to be an unpleasant situation.

3

There are some forgotten question marks in that post, please read carefully…egads, guess I wanted to talk more than I cared about placing correct punctuation there.

Damnit.

SPOOFE, thanks for confirming that my confusion isn’t alone. I hate to think that we all are resolved to one way or the other. It’s hard to believe in my life I would even consider assasination as a good thing, in my life, it can’t be. Our enemies are enemies, but in many ways we didn’t choose them. I don’t want to see this become a divisive (sp) issue at all but I am afraid that it will.

It’s a confused and weird feeling, very weird, I don’t like it. I want to support what is right and what I know is right is not what our government (Bush) has stated. What I know is right is is violence begets violence, hate begets hate…these are things I don’t want to see happen. I have always been a peaceful citizen of our nation. I have my problems and we all do but never once have I truly and honestly wished death amongst another human being.

Ugh I can type about this all night but you have the idea, I don’t want to see death, no more, no more death in the face of people who disagree. It doesn’t do anything for anyone. And the thought that more attacks at home and the possibility of biological or chemical weapons does frighten me.

This is not the world I know, the world I know is somewhat safe and the world I know or want to know believes in peace, first and foremost.

4

I can completely appreciate the sentiments expressed and I too find that I cannot concieve of a perfect solution.

Were Osama to be killed in a military attack I think I would perhaps feel that a sort of justice had been done. However if he were sentenced to death I would have a hard time with that. I know that’s contradictory and that in effect Bush will have sentenced him to death when sanctioning whatever military action goes ahead but the death penalty as handed down in a court of law, to my mind , is completely wrong in all cases and is something difficult to reconcile with America’s stance on Human Rights.

I suspect that the passionless imposition of a state sponsered execution by a court (of law, religion or fanatacism) is something I cant quite stomach as I cannot see the differece between that and murder. Casualties of war , even if directed against an individual I dont have a problem with. Go figure.

I think it may be the superiority that must be expressed by a court which in effect says “we will determine if you live or die becasue our laws and our beliefs and our convictions say that we have the right to do that”

I think one of the worst things that could happen would be if Osama were actually handed over. America is obliged and would treat the man as a human and accord him all of the rights of legal counsel etc. etc. as if he were somehow an equal and not the base animal that he is.

The legal wranglings would be tortuous in the extreme. Whoose law applies? His religous beliefs would have to be respected and an unholy mess of arguements of political, religous and legal rights would ensue. He might even come to be exhonerated on a technicality “well if Allah told you to do what you did it’s not really your fault…temporary insanity…off to the sanitorium at the taxpayers expense with you and be a good boy from now on”

I dont believe that America and Americans believe that this man deserves the rights of protection that the courts in your democracy would afford him.

Consider also that while he lives he can still rally followers and be a focal point for them. He could be as much a martyr stuck in an American jail awaiting death as he would be if his carcass was being picked over by vultures in a gully somewhere in the Kyber Pass.

The only recent precedent for a court of law passing judgement on a terrorist is obviously the Lockerbie affair. A little piece of Scotland was established in the Hague and it took two years and millions of dollars to reach any sort of conclusion and now it appears that the man convicted may be freed on a technicality relating to the improper presentation of evidence. McVeigh nearly got away on a similar issue remember ? If Bin Laden were tired and something like that happened can you imagine the repercussions?

I cannot see that trying Bin Laden in an American court of law will satisfy any sort of Justice.

…in the end though I’m as confused over what should be done as anyone.

5

I can understand your feelings, Techie. But again, remember the people that we are dealing with here. Do you actually think that these people will let themselves be taken into custody? I seriously doubt it. They firmly beleive that suicide is an honor and I imagine they will take as many people out with them as they can. To them this life has little meaning, their reward is in the next life.
I honestly don’t think you will see many of these terrorists taken into custody. It’s just not their way. To them it is an honor to die. Which is one reason that we still live in fear. How many of us will have to go with them when they die?

6

I feel more or less the same way.

These people will not stop short of death. I don’t see any OTHER way to stop them. So much for my pacifistic ideals, I guess.

7

Never get up before breakfast. If you have to get up before breakfast, eat breakfast first.

I’ve been thinking along the same lines as the rest of you. If we assassinate Bin Laden, then we are violating our own laws and our Bill of Rights. If we take him alive then there are three possible endings: 1) He is executed, 2) he is locked up for the rest of his life, or 3) he is acquitted.

I don’t think outcome 3 is likely, so I’ll skip it. If outcome 1, then he becomes a martyr. Much like Jesus, he will become a strong and mystical symbol for the people to rally behind. If outcome 2, then he provides a goal for more terrorism: “Set him free, or we will explode this nuclear device.” That sort of thing.

So it would be better if he never came to trial. “Shot while resisting capture.” Or killed in an airstrike. Or assassinated by a rival faction. Or he has an “accident”. It would be really great if we could engineer it so that he is somehow killed by his own followers. That would be sweet! If we wanted “justice”, we could let him run a gantlet of pissed-off New Yorkers through Central Park.

In other threads I’ve said that while I’ve “always” been in favour of capital punushment, my views have changed over the past few years and I am no longer in favour of it. On the other hand, I’ve said and posted that “some people need killing”.

I’m reminded of To Kill a Mockingbird where Atticus shoots down the mad dog in the street. He didn’t like it, but he did it because it had to be done.

8

What are your feelings about war? Many thousands of Japanese and German soldiers (and civilians) were killed by actions of our government during WWII (and yes, sometimes they were targetted individually, Yamamoto for example), and none of them were given a fair trial.

I imagine you meant to say something different here.

Anyway, since this is IMHO, I will simply say that I do believe in the death penalty, I would support it for the people guilty of the WTC bombing if they were brought to trial, although I am more in favor of simply killing them without a trial, as I believe this is a war situation as opposed to a criminal justice situation, I strongly support the President’s “Dead or Alive” stance, and I would kill with my own hands the perpetrators of this atrocity given the chance.

It seems we feel…differently…

9

I believe, techie, that you are complicating the issue for yourself. First prioritize your loyalties. Isn’t it the Japanese that say a man cannot server 2 masters? If your god comes before your country, then you uphold only those laws which do not conflict with your god’s law.
I can’t help you decide what your beliefs should be but I’ll share a bit of info that helps me make decisions. My personal philosophy is that my belief system must be internally consistent. This ensures that I will (hopefully) never be guilty of hypocrisy.
Make your decisions with the information you have and accept that you did the best you could. To paraphrase from a sig I saw somewhere, it’s ok to have an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out. You have to fill in the circle and move on to the next question. The serenity prayer from AA has some good advice too. God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change…
You are not responsible for anyone but yourself. Do not try and be responsible for others whether they be your brother, neighbor or the president of your country.

10

Actually, I think that was Jesus…

11

Then I need to resolve myself to stick with my beliefs and go along with the idea to accept the things I can not change. Then the next step to support my nation as best I can in a way that doesn’t go against what they are doing but doesn’t compromise my belief system. Maybe that’s the internal issue with me.

My issue may be that I know it will happen, I don’t want to compromise my belief system but I need to somehow find it in my heart to support my government. I guess that goes along with my post in the “Forgiveness” in GD…I will let you all look it up it’s on the 2nd page of the thread.

Anyhow, internal conflict over what you believe to be right is hard.

Oh and Weird Al,

My statement of:

Should have had a question mark on the end of the sentence to complete the thought. That’s why did my second post…it should have read:

Hope that makes better sense, ugh.

12

I find I’m getting kinda pissed off at folks in Palestine.

Scratch that, they’re not ‘folks’. I’m getting very angry at fanatics in Palestine and Pakistan.

I’m reading in this morning’s paper that Yasser Arafat’s Cabinet Secretary Ahmed Abdel-Rahman issued death threats against cameramen and journalists. Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, and Reuters all caved to the threats, and thus stopped airing photos and footage of Palestinians cheering the destruction of the WTC. When Hamas supporters started waving pictures of Osama bin Laden, cameramen in the area were arrested and had film and tapes confiscated.

This pisses me off.

I understand why Arafat clamped down on photos coming out of Palestine-- they’ll get him and his people killed. It also explains why he offered a ceasefire – he’s realized that in the current state of affairs, he seriously fucked up by not working things out after winning the Nobel peace prize.

Being greedy has suddenly turned into a losing proposition for Palestine.

Another article (Marcus Warren, Daily Telegraph) is an interview with some Taleban supporters jailed in Pakistan. These freaks are quoted saying they would kill the interviewer if he did anything that opposed Islam.
They also say the WTC attack only killed U.S government workers, which shows how little they know about reality.

Definitely not a peaceful attitude. But thankfully not an attitude shared by more than 99 percent of Muslims.

I’m just wondering how surprised these guys will be when representatives of 62 nations come stomping into the area demanding revenge for their countrymen killed in the WTC attack.

What’s gearing up is not Islam v. the West, as much as hardliners would like it to be. I firmly believe that most “westerners” have no problems at all with Islam.

This will be a prolonged action against terrorists and their support groups that will cost a hell of a lot of lives, and will end with the elimination of those that support repression.

But the sad thing is that the people fighting on the side of repression will never know the real reason we’re killing them.

13

Frankly techchick68, you don’t sound very confused about your convictions and beliefs. You are just facing up to an ugly, complicated and difficult situation and wondering what the right course of action is. You are not sure how to apply your principles. Doubt in the face of radical uncertainty is not moral confusion. You haven’t let your heart rule your head, jumping to some simplistic conclusion for the sake of reaching one. You want your head to serve your heart, and your head is telling you that you don’t know the answer (yet). Seems a fair position to me.

14

what you think.

15

techchick68, I pretty much agree with you that the comments coming out of officials, especially the dead or alive remark from Bush, seem horrific. However, I believe they are very measured, thought-out statements meant to elicit reactions in the middle east. That is part of the reason the US is very slowly building up in the area instead of quick striking. The rhetoric and show of force are meant to incite panic and fear in the possible target countries, which causes unrest and rebellion, which could make it possible for us to do nothing violent. Why bother attacking Afghanistan with our own troops and weapons when we can make the natives overthrow the Taliban themselves, or possibly have Pakistan do it?

If someone is reciting a scripted speech, like Bush is doing all the time, then paying close attention to the exact wording and asking “what is he trying to accomplish by saying that statement in that fashion?” will lead you to the true purpose of the speech.

At least, that is my theory.