Just because the truth of my arguments is debatable doesn’t mean my logic is bad
[QUOTE=bizzwire]
What do you mean “we,” kemosabe?
Also, Please remember that 9/11 occured ** before** “we” invaded Iraq. And no, I don’t believe that the former in any way justified the latter.
[QUOTE]
what does 9/11 have to do with the Iraq war?
No, the invalidity of your conclusions and bases is what makes your logic bad.
[QUOTE=masheene@comcast.net]
[QUOTE=bizzwire]
What do you mean “we,” kemosabe?
Also, Please remember that 9/11 occured ** before** “we” invaded Iraq. And no, I don’t believe that the former in any way justified the latter.
I believe Bizzwire, like myself, read your OP to mean that we deserved 9/11. I went back and re-read it and realized you were probably saying we deserve terrorism as a result of the Iraq war, not that we deserved 9/11.
If that is what you are saying, I don’t think there is any way you can adequately justify the position. Who’s to say who deserves to die in this world? I know I’m not qualified.
But if your real intent was to say “you should expect terrorism as a result of the Iraq war because for some people it is a negative instead of a positive”, in that case, I agree.
US military personnel in Iraq go to great lengths to avoid killing civilian. The overhwhelming majority of civilians who die in Iraq are killed by the terrorists, who specifically target civilians. Among other things, the terrorists have specifically targeted and killed children asking American soldiers for candy.
Only a fool or monster would insist that our soldiers in Iraq are on the same moral level as the terrorists they’re fighting.
-
Nothing. That’s what I meant when I said it didn’t. However, a sizeable proportion of Americans believe there is a link
-
As RaftPeople has said, I misconstrued your argument. You said we deserved to be terrorized. 9/11 was an act of terrorism. Next time please be a little more lucid.
-
This forum is not like most others. Simply using it as a soapbox to spout your opinions doesn’t fly. Several posters have asked you very specific questions. It is considered very bad form not to address them.
masheene -
As far as I can tell, your position is that the US did not deserve to be attacked on 9/11, but now do. Is that correct?
Is this only because of the war in Iraq, or are there other reasons as well? If there are, could you mention some of them?
You seem to be arguing that if the leader of a country acts unjustly, then the citizens of his country deserve to be subjected to terrorism and to die. (Please correct me if I have misstated or misunderstood your position.) Certain of the insurgents in Iraq are members of the Ba’athist party, and are fighting more or less on behalf of Saddam Hussein. Would you agree that Saddam Hussein acted unjustly in his invasions of Iran and Kuwait? Accordingly, wouldn’t you agree that the people of Iraq deserve to be terrorized, since some of their citizens support the Ba’athists?
Similarly, the Taliban acted unjustly in giving aid and comfort to bin Laden, who we agree acted unjustly in attacking the US. Thus, it would seem that the people of Afghanistan deserve to be attacked, since their leaders acted unjustly. Wouldn’t you agree?
I assume you would also agree that those who died and were injured in the recent terrorist attacks in London also deserved to be terrorized, since it is widely believed that the attacks were carried out in retaliation for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Correct?
And I am interested in your answer to my original question. You said “We” in the title of your OP. I assume from this that [list=A][li]you are a US citizen[]that you therefore deserve to be terrorized[]that if and when you, or members of your family, or friends, are killed and injured, that the US take no action either to prevent or punish the attack. After all, you deserved it.[/list]Right? [/li]
Regards,
Shodan
Could you tell us about yourself?
Is there a personal trauma in your life that has shaped your views?
So then because you are angry about tariffs and mad cow and potatoes, that justifies mass murder? I don’t think so. Also, how many people who died in the attacks were rich? How many were geting rich? Very few I bet. Office workers, secretaries, clerks, standard “Dilbert” types who work because they have to eat occasionally. Your example of the workers getting rich off of Walmart is nonsense too. Walmart pays less than other places. When or if Walmart comes to town and squeezes out other stores, people work for them because they are the only game in town. Wanting to earn a living does not mean they support predatory Walmart behavior, any more than those poor bastards in the WTC or the airplanes on 9/11 supported or contributed to anything.
Do you actively and aggressively support everything your Canadian government has ever done? Neither do we with our government. Blaming and condemning some poor working schmuck for what the government did is nonsensical. By your logic, I can attack Canada because I’m tired of seeing you guys win the Stanley Cup all the time. :rolleyes:
It sure sounds like that is what the OP is saying. Imagine. Britain decides to turn the Middle East into a radioactive sheet of glass for this. By the OP’s logic, it would be justified based on the London bombings and Britain most likely does have the capability.
It doesn’t, and in no way do I mean to suggest that it does. Nothing justfies mass murder. The problem then becomes, what other options are there? Joe-blow-Canadian-farmer/ranger/logger has no recourse and is left to feel victimized. It is then left to human nature as to what happens next.
Careful SteveG1, your assuming that by “getting rich” I’m suggesting that they are rich by American standards. The reality is that even dude at Walmart making $4.50 an hour is considerably richer than most people in the world who end up making $4.50 a week. That Live8 guy seemed to suggest that even the poorest American is rich compared to third world standards.
And that’s part of the problem. They eat with blissful ignorance of how that food arrived on their plate. Does he care that the coffee he drinks and the mug he drinks out of is cheap because of sweatshop labour? That the shit sprayed on the beans has destroyed local land? Do you care that I now sound like some treehugging-hippy-dochebag? Ignorance does not absolve.
This isn’t even my argument to make. I want my coffee sprayed and my mug cheap. But I shouldn’t be surprised if it pisses off more than a few people.
And as I said above, it pays far more than the sweatshops making the clothes Walmart buys. This all falls under the umbrella of collective-guilt, which I do not agree with. But in this situation, if someone is angry at Walmart there may be a recourse for them. Boycot, sue, protest, start their own Stevemart. What recourse does anyone have against a foreign country?
Well, yes, it sort of does. And one step further, customers of Walmart share in some of the blame too. Both groups are supporting the pratices of Walmart. Do you, personally, feel any guilt knowing that you can get extremely cheap goods at Walmart knowing that its cheap because the cashier is treated like shit? Would you support Walmart if it was practicing slave labour? Imagine the roll-backs then… Its a matter of personal responsibility, and not just closing your eyes to what’s going on around you. Americans, and Canadians, have an incredable quality of life, and most of that comes at the cost to someone else.
No, I take full advantage of what ever comes my way. I also enjoy Walmart and their rock-bottom prices. With that said, I recognize that people might be pissed off, and see me as supporting the problem. Canada has significant military activity in Afganistan right now, and I’m aware of the problems that’s going to cause. My hope is that the Canadian government also recognizes that and acts carefullywhen making their decisions. Should their decisions not be in my best interst I’ll vote them out of office. (I live in Ontario, I can do that)
You should. You’re benifitting from the decisions your government makes. Your gas could cost 4 times as much, but you’d rather it didn’t. Would you be willing to spend $4/gallon if you knew the oil came from a fare-trade country?
I agree. But that working schmuck needs to take some personal responsibility, especially when it comes time to vote or buy coffee.
No, that’s not logic, first off because Canada hasn’t won a Stanley cup since 1993, and second because it has nothing to do with Canadians or our government. What’s too bad is that a LOT of people would agree with your logical conclusion, and a LOT of people use that very logic when deciding where to plant their bombs.
Of course, it would be best if the OP could return and defend his position in some substantive way. No doubt it is only my nasty and suspicious nature that causes me to wonder if that will ever happen.
For some reason, I keep expecting someone to call us “US-ers” and mention that he lives in Belgium. 
Regards,
Shodan
‘My post is my cite’ 
-XT
I suppose I ought to make clear that I am not accusing anyone of being hosiery. But one of the things said of the person I had in mind is that “he brought a different perspective” to the boards. I was hoping that our guest could fulfill that role - i.e. defend the position of the OP without descending into generic anti-Americanism.
If, in fact, the position of the OP is founded on anything else. If he shows up again, so much the better. If not, well…
Regards,
Shodan
The incidents appear to have been committed under directions from the United States military.
No one has been prosecuted for the acts.
The Department of Defense is actively working to supress release of the information about these acts and sweep it all under the rug.
Can we settle for saying that the American government appears to be implicitly condoning these acts?
Your logic in non-existant. When you start with a conclsion and work back to a premise, it’s called rationalisation. Which is what you’ve done.
mm
Imagine IF the US supported terrorism (indiscriminate targeting)…
With all the firepower we had in Afghanistan and currently have/had in Iraq, we could have easily decimated the entire populations of both countries…that is, IF we were terrorists. And I don’t recall the whole citizenry of both countries “preparing to die” because of our “unjust/terrorist” war.
Think about it.
Often I see such comparisons of income and I notice that they leave out one very important fact: the cost of living in both areas. That $4.50 a week may very well be all that’s needed to pay for food, rent, and utilities in that area.
Um, well, ya, that’s a pretty important point when you’re comparing being rich is say, Baltimore or Manhattan. This is now way off topic, but even a homeless person in Toronto can get three square meals a day, and has access to plenty of fresh water out of a public drinking fountain. And like I said, way off topic.
masheene@comcast.net is from the United States
The United States supports terrorism
Therefore masheene@comcast.net supports terrorism and should be prepared to die.