I do not need proof to back up an opinion.
No. But you should provide clarification of your opinion, when asked. So, I’ll ask again:
If you believe we deserve it, would you help make it happen. If not, why?
So even though half of the population thinks the war in Iraq was a mistake, they deserve to be killed for it? Yeah, that makes sense.
That’s not quite the way this forum works.
That’s a false dichotomy. I think it’s fair to describe someone who blows himself up on a bus or crashes a jet into a tower as a maniac. But everybody has reasons, and even people who are crazy are generally ‘set off’ by environmental factors. So the act of calling the person a maniac doesn’t mean you automatically decide not to try to understand why they did what they did.
Additional question: what could we do to not be deserve it (or stop being deserving)?
Also, I must wonder what the US has done in Iraq that wasn’t already being done by Saddam–albeight to different groups? Certainly Iraq may have had zero to do with the war on terrorism, but kicking out a guy who killed a million of his own people and then going in and being slightly less but still not particularly benevolent doesn’t seem like something that should justify retribution.
What’s this “we” shit? I’m certainly not a terrorist, and I don’t know anyone who is. So, to answer your OP, I’d have to go with NO.
You posted in Great Debates, not In My Humble Opinion. Was that a mistake?
If you meant to post in great debates, then you should realize that without evidence, your debate is worthless.
Now, as for who deserves to be killed: can you set up clear criteria that determine who deserves to die (or to live in terror), for what specific sins?
It would help if you can clarify whether you believe in a “sins of the fathers” argument–i.e., whether a 2-year-old toddler deserves to be burnt to death if his father supports a war machine in another country.
It would also help if you can clarify whether you reject the Geneva Convention–i.e., whether you think it’s acceptable to target civilians in a country if that country’s military is killing civilians elsewhere.
I am very strongly opposed to the US invasion of Iraq, for a variety of reasons. However, I think that your initial post represents the worst possible perversion of an antiwar position. Its primary effect will be to alienate folks from the antiwar position, confirming their worst suspicions that to oppose the war will be to ally themselves with murderous terrorists.
For that reason, I reject your position as vehemently as I reject the other side of the pro-war position.
Daniel
I kind of see what continuity_eror is saying, even if it implies a contradiction. Nobody deserves to be terrorized, but I think most people in the US think they deserve to be immune from terrorism despite the role the US has played in actually arming and training terrorists, not to even get into the more abstract notions of the US inspiring and fomenting terrorism.
Right, I understand that. My reply to him would be that this is just adding “sins of the government” to “sins of the fathers” in the category of crimes that make it okay to kill innocents.
If I say “The US invites terrorism by this and that foreign policy,” it is not to say, “so the victims have it coming,” but an analysis of the situation. A parallel example would be explaining how AIDS spreads through sexual indiscretion and needle-sharing. To make that observation is not pronouncing that promiscuous junkies deserve to die, but trying to understand and explain the causes of the spread of the disease. Epidemeology is not moral judgment, nor is political analysis. We are not looking for moral explanations, or making moral judgments, but examining causes and effects and making recommendations to control the problem.
Sure, the United States (as with every other country) has its assortment of ‘bad apples’. However, NOTHING warrents the murder of innocent people.
No, but if you support a government that kills innocent people then you’ve lost just a bit of your entitlement to moral outrage.
If this was mere opinion, then it should have been posted in the In My Humble Opinion Forum. If this was just a rant, it should have been posted in The BBQ Pit.
This is Great Debates and when you make a declaration, you need to be able to defend it with facts and logic.
While there are any number of actions that have occurred in Iraq for which the U.S. may be faulted, a simple claim that we have committed (are committing) terrorist acts is not valid without a clear explanation of your meaning and a presentation of facts to support that belief.
If you cannot provide that sort of support for your position, I will be happy to cloase this thread so that you can open a better conceived thread in the proper Forum.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
But there is definitely moral judgment in the statement “we deserve to be terrorized,” and continuity eror said in his first post that “I also don’t believe anyone deserves to be immune from being terrorized.”
I agree that “deserve” has moral overtones. Probably any fruitful discussion would begin with a careful consideration of terms and the outcome of the debate. If the question is a moral one, “Are terrorist attacks on the US just,” the answer is “no.” If the question is a political one, “Are terrorist attacks on the US inevitable,” the answer is, sadly, “probably.”
It’s not just overtones; it’s an explicit judgment. But aside from that I wouldn’t argue with anything you said.
I’m sorry but if you can’t see that a bunch of yahoo’s who hijack planes full of men, women and children and fly said planes into buildings full of men, women and children, the majority of whom have nothing to do with either the US government or the military (and in the case of the WTC’s many of whom weren’t even Americans) ARE a bunch of maniacs then we have no common ground to disccus this issue. In point of fact I HAVE examined the issues and their grievances, I have studied their culture and the history of why all this happened, and while I haven’t learned their language I think I have at least a basic grasp of the issues involved. The fact that they MIGHT have some justification (in their own twisted minds) makes no difference…its the act of a maniac to do what they did in the manner they did it. And I’m not just talking about the 9/11 attacks either.
My working definition of maniac (from dictionary.com):
A person who has an excessive enthusiasm or desire for something
Seems to fit the bill perfectly to me.
-XT
The biggest issue here is the whole everyone-as-a-collective way of thinking. To tell me that the thousand or so victims of 9/11 “deserved” it you need to specifically point out what their crimes were. And when I say what their crimes were, I mean what their crimes were. Not what their families crimes were, or what people in the same part of the world’s crimes were. It sounds to me that you are fine with the idea of guilt by association. For example, if a friend of mine murders someone, I would be considered guilty as well. Just how far are you prepared to take this?
Now, I don’t know where you are, but it appears from your username that you are using the services of a large United States company. What if this company had donated money to the current administration? Or even, just take their taxes into account. In effect, you are supporting the foreign policy of the United States. If you feel that this in itself is worthy of a death sentence, I presume you would be cooperative if someone tried to rip your body to pieces with explosives?
Before openning the thread, how did I know, just from the title, that the OP would have the term “Guest” appear below his username? Man, I must be psychic. 
Your point being?