As a matter of fact, yes, it is morally acceptable for that to happen. If Boeing is building weapons and our enemies destroy the factory where those weapons are being built, killing everyone inside, that is in fact morally acceptable according to the rules of war, because that is a legitimate target. And no, Americans would have no special right to be outraged about it.
I give you credit, Airman, you’re always intellectually honest and consistent, no matter where that takes you. I admire your ability to sublimate emotion and ego and to try to remain objective.
God knows I can’t always do it.
My point was that we’re not the thieves.
Bin Laden’s family is very rich, but I don’t know how much of his own assets he can use because he’s a known terrorist and has gone after the Saudi government, etc. He’s certainly got other backers.
I agree with what what Diogenes said, Airman Doors.
Nope, we’re just buying on the black market :-p
I wish we’d cut our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a long time ago, and we’re coddling Saudi Arabia in a number of other ways. Still, I don’t think you’re right if you’re saying the Saudi people hate us for buying their government’s oil. America isn’t doing anything unique in that regard.
Well, a combination of being one of the larger oil importers, planting military bases like they were sunflower seeds, propping up their monarchy, supporting Israel, generally being the driving force of “the West,” and everything else we’ve done adds up to a lot of big things to be pissed off about.
Like they were sunflower seeds? We’re getting RID of our bases there. And anyway I’m not arguing that other things we’re doing aren’t pissing off the people in S.A. (and other places). I’m sure they are.
Yea, now that we have a whole country to ourselves. Handy how that worked out.
Zagadka, we keep talking about other things. I disagreed with “SA people get a tad ticked off when they realize that not only is their oil being taken, but it is being done by foreign companies by foreign workers.” I think that’s untrue. I never said they don’t get upset about the other things. And yes, you’re right that we’re probably just moving everything to Iraq; your post made it sound like you were talking about Saudi Arabia there.
Like Airman said, yes, it’s ok. I wouldn’t like it, of course, but it’s not an immoral act.
And, I still say that yes, there is a difference between attacking a millitary target when you know civilians might be killed, and attacking a civilian target. Dropping a bomb on army headquarters, even if it kills somebody outside waiting for a bus, is different than bombing a residential neighborhood. Bombing a tank factory is different than bombing a hospital. The first is a legitimate target of war, the second is not. In the first case, the goal is not to kill innocent people, but to damage the enemy’s ability to make war. In the second case, the goal is just to kill people and scare them. I know that’s no consolation to the guy outside waiting for a bus, but the distinction is there nevertheless. If you can’t understand the distinction I’m making, then the fault is mine, because I don’t know how to explain it more clearly.
I still don’t buy it. Why in the world is being one of the larger oil importers a thing for them to be “pissed off” about? We’re probably one of the largest diamond importers too, but South Africa seems to deal with that just fine.
Are you saying that you think these are valid reasons for AQ to be angry, or just how they rationalize it to themselves?
Is it our goal to kill civilians to intimidate a population? If so, could we not have done a better job of it? Dwell on that for a moment.
If you were in a situation where either a close friend or a random person from the opposite side of the globe will inevitably perish, whose life would you value more? It would be irrational to expect the world to share your value judgments, but it is even more so to expect people to have none. And your argument still rides on the false premise that we are out to target civilians.
It’s a necessary evil in war for either side; it is morally acceptable. And while it’s not a crowd pleaser, I wouldn’t be outraged either.
If you’re talking about 100 years ago, I’d agree, but 30 is far more iffy. 30 years ago is recent enough that a lot of the people who were on the receiving end of that treatment are still alive today (or would be if they hadn’t been killed). Claiming that we should only be judged by our current actions is like beating someone up, then when he comes back the next day to do the same to you, you indignantly protest “but I wasn’t attacking you today!”
-
Poor, uneducated masses. You just don’t hear their cries because they don’t have the means and you turn your head. That, and they don’t have access to airlines yet.
-
I’ve already outlined a number of things America has done beyond controlling their oil. I suggest you actually read the entire conversation before nitpicking part of it. I’ll outline a few again so you don’t waste too much precious energy. Propping up their monarchy, supporting Israel, stealing their only natural resource, spreading military bases, interfering with local governments.
But I’m sure you would shoulder such a burden should another country do that to you.
Depends on your interpretation. Were the British taxes and government control a valid reason for the American revolutionaries to be angry, or were they just rationalization to themselves for what they wanted to do anyway?
Well I don’t know how much he got out them them, but the Saudis gave him at least 2 mil.
Sending your buttmonkeys to flight school don’t come cheap.
Some of you seem to think that ordinary trade & commerce is some kind of exploitation, a genuinely goofy concept.
Facts are facts: Saudi Arabia is a barren desert, and does not have anything anybody wants —except oil.
Posted by Zadagka
Nice bit of melodrama. Also, nice link to an AI report on the totally benighted and dysfunctional West African political environment.
So you think it all boils down to wealth and natural resources?
Here’s another Link that I found at a weblog run by The Religious Policeman or “Muttawa”. A much more entertaining and sensible read than, for example, something from Alde.
He is a resident of what he calls the “Magical Kingdom” and he would be dead meat if ever discovered. He is the only commentator on the Middle East in general and on Arabia in particular who is worthy of any trust, particularly when compared to some of the Islamist apologists kicking around the SDMB.
He linked to a story of an interview by John Bradley of one of the Khobar terrorists who, together with three of his fellow jihadists (jihad is a spiritual struggle, you know) spent most of a day killing as many infidels as they could identify – at least 22 - without needing to worry about the Saudi security force which, incidentally, probably formed an integral part of the grisly enterprise, in body and soul.
Throughout the whole of the interview of that depraved individual you will not find any evidence that the supposed exploitation of Saudi Arabian oil was the primary motivating factor. Simply killing infidels was the main focus of their operation.
And they got away with it, of course.
The original OP was about “was it a bad thing that the Saudis support Bin Laden:”
All male Saudis have all received a similar religious schooling as the late, unlamented Bin Laden, and so did the terrorists who were so proud of slaughtering a bunch of unarmed and unprotected infidels. Taking that into account, it’s a miracle that the percentage approval of the now long dead Bin Laden was only in the 50% range.
So, to recap what I believe your argument is: We’re stealing oil from Saudi Arabia because we’re doing business with a repressive, hated government with no popular mandate. And we’re stealing diamonds from South Africa because… we’re doing business with an anti-colonial, popular government that swept the local elections which were particularly celebrated by the BBC? Is there anybody we can buy anything from that you won’t consider stealing?
Dude. Just because I don’t see a reason to respond doesn’t mean I’m not reading.
I’m “nitpicking” because it seems to me like you’re padding your argument. I haven’t mentioned the things that in my opinion are semi-reasonable things to get upset about. I can see where rational Saudis can be angry about the US supporting Israel and interfering with local governments. Others have dealt with your idea that we’re stealing their only natural resource and spreading military bases.
If you stuck “they’re also angry we control the weather” at the end of your list and that was challenged, would that constitute nitpicking to you?
Well, I’m asking you. What is your interpretation?
And are you honestly comparing AQ to the Sons of Liberty?
Why should we be concerned that Saudis support ObL? Because AQ advances a value system that is utterly repugnant to most of us, and should be to anyone who is fortunate enough to live in a democratic society where at least a semblance of equal opportunity and freedom of expression prevails.
Can anyone really live in Los Angeles, New York, London, or Paris and enjoy being inundated with a diversity of viewpoints, and the freedom to speak one’s mind, and live a lifestyle according to choice, and still morally condone ObL’s brand of fascism?
Don’t bother to reply, I already know the answer to that question. :rolleyes:
It’d be nice if you even bothered to read the link.
Hey, genius. There have been diamond wars in Africa for decades. Estimated millions have died. Wake the f* up.
Apparently, you’re not reading, because you replied to a comment about DRC with something about South Africa.
I didn’t. I also didn’t use the term “nitpick.” You said, “oh, just because we’re stealing their oil” and I replied with a list of other things… then you started mumbling about nitpicking and controlling weather.
Winners are rebels and freedom fighters. Losers are terrorists.