"'Terrorism' is what we call violence of the weak, and we condemn it; 'war' is what we call violence of the strong, and we glorify it."
- Sydney Harris, "Nations should submit to the rule of the law", Clearing the Ground (1986)
- Sydney Harris, "Nations should submit to the rule of the law", Clearing the Ground (1986)
36 Comments:
Not everyone addamo...
Learn what words mean Antony (and those with him).
This bit of inept thinking under the heading "Definitions" - "'Terrorism' is what we call violence of the weak, and we condemn it; 'war' is what we call violence of the strong, and we glorify it." shows you need a new dictionary.
Attempting to equate terrorism - the intentional killing of unarmed civilians (Eg, New York, Bali, Madrid, London and every second day in Baghdad) with war - conflict between two armed groups is pathetic - an example of the fallacy of moral equivalence.
None of you (who are with Antony) seem to understand why this reasoning is flawed. We decide whether a person is moral or not when we assign them praise or blame. Clearly you are deserving of a greater "amount" of blame (in terms of killing) when you intentionally kill unarmed civilians, than accidentally killing unarmed civilians. Yes, in both cases they are dead either way, but a thought experiment. Which is worse: being killed as a pedestrian when the person behind the wheel of the car suffers a stroke (of which they had no way of knowing that they were at risk of having), or being deliberately run into by a nutter who is just pissed at the world?
Please read about moral equivalence before you start spouting ill reasoned crap in response.
The 'thinking' goes something like this:
Western states don't conduct terrorism, we only kill by accident, for liberation etc.
Terrorists, non-state actors, or rogue states etc, kill civilians for no reason and are...terrorists.
Western exceptionalism is alive and well.
So both of you leave no place for intentions?
Antony L - can I have examples of killings by the "West" equivalent to London, Bali and Madrid…
Addamo - Yes, it is amazing what people do with words, especially misusing them, which was the prompt for my 1st comment. Also, in what way (specifically) is the moral equivalence argument crap? (Overall, are you saying deliberate targeting of civilians - suicide bombing in the middle of a crowd is the same as accidental killing of civilians?) Overall, on average, what "we" have done is clearly different from what "they" have done.
Also, to both of you, where did I say the west should benefit from "exceptionalism"? I'm not saying you can't argue against the war (though I think it's a little bit pointless now - especially given most Iraqis are pretty optimistic about their future: BBC poll). I take exception to the misappropriation of words. We have two different words, war and terrorism, for a good reason, to describe two different things.
My wife is telling me to get off the computer, so I bid you good- day... (I be back tonight I'm sure).
I'm flattered that the best a critic can do is distort my face. Brilliant. You should work for the Bush administration, with your skills of distortion.
As for Western 'accidents', not targeting civilians etc. This is not something many around the world are unclear about, only those in the West who are happy to support US militarism.
Talk to the victims of US-backed and funded death squads in Latin America, or perhaps you'd prefer providing deadly weapons to Israel, or better yet, look at Iraq.
Talk to people outside your little circle, ie. not in the West, and it's clear.
Accepting that the West endorses, funds and conducts terrorism is far too confronting for many.
I'm back. Was going to play tennis but it's raining
Addamo and AL - the photoshopped picture is my version of a caricature - a legitimate form of political satire - I just can't draw, and it's good fun, and yep you should be flattered, the last one I did was of Ronaldo, so you're in pretty high company!). There's a photo of me there too - go for it if you like.
Addamo - ignoring you re-hashing of old ground vis-a-vis ignoring moral equivalence, I agree with you completely that the term "collateral damage" is dehumanising. This, again, is exactly what prompted my initial comment. (Also, I guess I'll have to take your word on those examples of US intentional killings - references please?)
I have posted previously on Weasel Words such as "collateral damage". Accidental killings of civilians should be called "civilian deaths", or "casualties" when referring to injuries as well. Collateral implies something used as security (for a loan or something), ie, generally something non-living such as a building. The (mis)use of language tends to be a big part of arguments such as this.
One final point to all of you (as it's stopped raining so I'm off...). I am neither right nor left wing (I give Tim Blair sh*t too), a trait that seems to be assigned to either or against "the war", or "the environment" etc. But I am against deliberate shoddy thinking in order to "win" an argument. Misappropriation of language is one of the main paths to shoddy thinking.
Neo:
"Nuke 'em till they glow I say. Imagine Mecca ablaze!? Just fabulous."
Yep, no racism or bigotry or ugliness there, just good ol' Western fun.
Neo,
I'll ask you simply once. Do not continue commenting here. If you do, I will make sure your IP is banned.
Nobody calls for the anniliation of another race/people/religion and has a say here.
Clear? Good.
Neo,
You clearly can't read. Do not comment here anymore.
End of story.
Go spread your bile elsewhere...
I feel very comfortable claiming the US is a terrorist state. The evidence is clearly on the public record. I have written about it here, in my forthcoming books and a host of other places.
Not good enough for you? Too bad.
Once again, the inability to see Western nations as terrorists astounds. Of course, Kissinger's record is exemplary, and the bombing of Cambodia, to name just one more example, wasn't terrorism at all. It was liberation by another name.
This won't satify many, but then, I wish I cared...
poor eddie, reduced to relaying second hand threats to silence his betters.
The thousands of deliberate civilian deaths caused by the organized illegal iraqi militia is not terrorism?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mr Tan - The Family of Nick Berg holds the Government directly responsible for the death of their son. I also had the honor of marching with Mr. Berg in a demonstration against the American-Iraq War. I've heard him speak in person and not just short clips on TV.
Anyone who advocates violence sows the seeds of their own destruction.
Peace
But there were no deliberate civillian deaths caused by US forces. The US did not target civilians.
And the Illegal Iraqi militia did.
Now you can lie about it all you'd like but the facts are well proven.
Addamo - "And I suppose you would have also advocated having Al Capone doing his own tax return." A classic. Can I use it?
When oh when will there be a contra view presented from the far right that has any wothwhile argument? All they do is repeat the same lies Bush spews.
Once more - Every death from the Illegal Immoral American-Iraq War lays at the feet of those that started it and supported the CHOICE to do so.
Peace
Mr Tan-Go here for proof of innocent - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11283.htm
Peace
My bio:
Antony Loewenstein is a freelance journalist and author. He has written for the Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney's Sun-Herald, The Bulletin, Znet, Counterpunch and many others. Antony contributed a major chapter to 2004's best-seller, Not Happy, John! on the Hanan Ashrawi affair and is currently writing a book on the Israel/Palestine conflict for Melbourne University Publishing, due July 2006. Random House will publish his next book, on the Australian media, in 2007.
He writes a fortnightly column for online magazine New Matilda and is a board member of Macquarie University's Centre for Middle East and North African Studies. He appears regularly on radio discussing current affairs and politics.
Yep, no qualifications or ideas about anything at all.
As for the US being a terrorist state, read my previous work, read more widely and just read.
Every evidence is dismissed as untrue in your hilarious world, so keep living your delusions, brave truth teller. After all, your favourite little terrorist state needs all the support it can get these days.
Regardless of all previous comments, as believers in Democracy and the right of all people to choose their destiny through representation, I'm sure we can all congratulate Iraq and all Iraqis on the successful election on Friday. Especially important, in terms of the future of this fledgling democracy, was the high turnout by the Sunnis, even in areas of high insurgency. I look forward to your post on this momentous event for the Middle East Antony! (Or is that going too far?)
I know I'm re-joining the fray (perhaps a poor choice of word) a little late (perhaps too late - though then I'll get the last word!), but as they say, "Better late than never".
Addamo - continually you fail to address specific questions, but rather "move the goal posts" and change the topic of debate.
Marcian Sonnenkinder gave a very specific and clear challenge (to AL):
Simply provide me with some evidence of a systematic, authorised action against civilians in Iraq, by the military of the United States. That is, after all, precisely what the terrorists are doing every single day, killing dozens of Iraqi citizens at a time, and claiming responsibility immediately afterward.
Yet you ignore it...? On top of this (though I say this with some hesitation, as if you finally comprehend my prose, which I admit, though sometimes prolix, it is hardly discombobulating, I might be held responsible for your subsequent episode of cognitive dissonance*), you seem to find fault with the US, et al. for killing civilians (the majority as an unfortunate consequence of war - please note my deliberate use of the word "majority"). Yet somehow insurgents are immune from this criticism? Indeed, you give implied support (by your noble description) for their killings:
That’s what the terrorists are doing. Insurgents are not terrorists. They are indigenous people’s [sic] combating an illegal occupation.
I am somewhat bemused by this stance. Especially given the majority of insurgent attacks, on average (the mean, median and mode), are deliberately aimed at unarmed groups of civilians and a burgeoning police force attempting to uphold the rule of law. A response requires no research (and no insults), just a clear, well reasoned line of thought that explains to me why the US military ought to be vilified and the insurgency to "illegal occupation" (though given the current Iraqi government want the US et al. to remain in Iraq it's hardly illegal) admired.
If you choose to respond, please do not ''move the goal posts", but rather, address my specific points. (Eg, earlier you just said moral equivalence is crap - and didn't explain why you found my analogy regarding the pedestrian faulty - or do you just think a dead guy, is a dead guy, is a dead guy? Which, incidentally, would invalidate all our laws which take intentions into account.)
Though my comments are directed at addamo all others are more than welcome to jump to addamo's defence (AL?). Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps it's just a paucity of cognitive ability on my part, and if your response is monosyllabic I'll finally "see the light" (after all, how could a mere Physics teacher hope to come terms with such complex geopolitics). Okay, that last bit was somewhat disingenuous, I'm clearly the smartest person here (FIGJAM).
Edward: Let me get this right? You believe it's worse to accidentally kill than to deliberately kill? You're right, your thinking is perverse. Also, most of the civilian deaths have occurred during occupation, not invasion. Therefore, if there was no insurgency, there would be far less civilian deaths and US et al. forces would already be out of the country. Ergo, the majority of civilian deaths lie at the feet of the insurgents. (QED.)
Ps: Marcian Sonnenkinder - I trust you'll have no objection to my posting (part of) your comment (as an example of clear thinking) on my blog?
*Cognitive Dissonance: A mental state achieved as the unpleasant result of holding two or more incompatible views. Most humans tend to avoid this state by wilfully ignoring this incompatibility.
What a bullshit question.
Prove to us they won't.
Thanks ibrahamav, but I got it.
Orang. QED is a Latin term (quod erat demonstrandum) which is used to mark the conclusion of a formal proof. Hence my argument is proved, as my reasoning is flawless. Given my clear and pointed prose, this should self-evident to even the sharpest of intellects (maybe you should re-read it, this time slowly). However, perhaps I'm mistaken. Perhaps in my tiredness (due to a hard day's cricket watching) I have erred. I'll take a look at your response.
I'm pretty sure "..another stinking t*rd" isn't an actual refutation of my logic. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Note, my main argument (as I clearly stated) was that if there were no insurgents then the civilian death toll would be far less than half of what it now is (given most of the deaths have occurred during occupation). Also, do you have a problem with this analysis? (Which you conveniently ignore - I sure hope you're not attempting to "move the goal posts", because people ignoring my main argument tends to leave me thinking I must be right.)
As requested, here is my formal proof of my main argument in the form of a syllogism:
Premise 1: Troops are only required in Iraq to fight insurgents (otherwise no democracy etc.)
Premise 2: Insurgents stop fighting
Conclusion: No more fighting.
Following on from this comes the "no more deaths" bit.
Further to this, it is not unreasonable to assume that if this had happened a year or two ago (given the declining support for having troops in Iraq by most Poms, Aussies and Yanks), there would only be minimal troop numbers in Iraq (and again - given no fighting anyway - the number of troops would not affect the "no fighting" and "lack of deaths").
If you choose to respond, perhaps you could explain why my argument is a "stinking t*rd" rather than merely stating it is? Given it's in the most basic form of logic, surely a maestro of reasoning, such as yourself, will have little trouble refuting it?
I yield.
Bravo-Addamo. They won't click on the links though. Facts that don't jive with their preconceptions are just ignored.
The aim of the Facsists is to create as much death and destruction as they can. It is the same profit-power scheme they have been running for years.
They are not the least interested in Peace. Without fear and hate they are powerless.
Peace.
Addamo: I know most of the conversations have moved on from AL's initial post (war and terrorism are the same thing), but my main critique has been continually ignored (or at most, insufficiently rebutted). My first question was - which is worse: being killed as a pedestrian when the person behind the wheel of the car suffers a stroke (of which they had no way of knowing that they were at risk of having), or being deliberately run into by a nutter who is just pissed at the world? Though the analogy is not exact, it illustrates my point. Civilian casualties caused by the US, for the majority, are like the stoke guy. (As all the examples you claim are deliberate hardly add up to 30000 - not that all 30000 are by the US of course, a distinction often lacking from certain commentators.) And those deaths caused by the insurgents are the pissed at the world guy.
Your answer please, again, which is worse?
I agree you've answered parts of what I and others have said - though I don't necessarily find your answers convincing - but you fail to engage my main points. Eg, you claim my premises are laughable and this is your explanation: "Had things gone according to plan, we would be subject to similar plans for forays into Syria and Iran." I didn't realise you could see the (alternative) future. BTW, this (again) is "goalpost moving". When did the discussion move on to Syria and Iran? Thankyou for yet another example.
As for your Hindi saying, quite sanctimonious of you, very shortly I'll be the former (as my wife just got up and was nil-impressed seeing me at the computer at this hour), but at the moment I'm attempting to be the bloke who is doing the waking (of you).
I'll answer one of your questions (see the need to go to bed bit) - cause that's what I do - though I believe I already had:
You said: As I have pointed out many times, civilian casualties are a certainty in any war. One cannot claim therefore that such casualties are unintended when they are assured beforehand. This war was 100% optional. The risk of civilian casualties was 100%. Explain to me how that distinguishes itself from murder? It was not a defensive war in any way, shape or form.
One, we are not discussing whether the war (initially) was justified (more goalpost moving). We are discussing whether the way the fighting occurs is morally equivalent (or as you seem to think - the US is worse). As such this comes down to moral equivalence (you have never explained why terrorism and war are morally equivalent - the original point of AL's post). Which side, and again, I deliberately use the words, on average, for the majority, goes out of its way to avoid killing civilians?
I love this comment(LOL): Did anyone care to consult the Iraqi’s if they wanted to spare 30,000 lives, along with the loss of sewage, fresh water, electrical, and health services in exchange for removing their dictator?…
How do you reckon we'd do that? An online poll perhaps?
And this: "What gives us the divine right to decide how the peoples of the rest of the world should act, and to tutor them in the ways of righteousness and democratic practice? People like you Theo, proudly hold the most unattractive smug self-satisfaction – encouraged by our leaders, our schools, and most of our media, of course – that our society is something close to the perfect social yard stick."
I'm glad that not only can you predict the future, you have such deep psychological insight and can explain my own motives to me. Or perhaps I just think Churchill got it right: "…It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Hey, I'm sure you'll be vindicated when the Iraqis, in agreeing with you, vote for a brutal dictatorship.
Yet more: "…we could waltz into Iraq, for example, spend a few moments straightening them out, and fix them up so they could be just like us."
You're dead right again. Those dang towel heads are incapable of self-governance. I hope you see that kind of statement for what it is - simple racism - and I assume (being generous in spirit - and going on the general trend of your comments) that you made it unthinkingly. They (Iraqis) seem to be doing a pretty good job at voting and stuff? They seem to be much less apathetic than most Australians (with their crying for joy and risking their lives at voting).
I believe all humans are capable of participation in democracy, and democracy is as good as it gets (certainly in terms of historical evidence). That's not to say there can’t be improvements to democracy, WRT the specifics, but as an overarching political philosophy, what works better?
Two final points. In general your comments are quite presumptuous. Eg, you apparently know where I get my news from and so on? Also, who wants the best for Iraq, me or you? If you turn out to be right, sure you can feel satisfied with yourself, but what does that mean for Iraq?
Now that Sir, unless you answer me by sticking to the (more than reasonable) parameters to my questions, is (to use AL's words) Game, Set and Match. (And I usually win at tennis too, as with "debating", I always select a weaker opponent.) :)
Just for Marcian- from AP.
"SAN DIEGO - The Copley News Service announced it was suspending syndicated columnist Doug Bandow while investigating his acceptance of payments from Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff to write positive stories about Abramoff's clients.
"We are suspending Doug Bandow's column immediately," Glenda Winders, vice president and editor of CNS, said in a statement Friday. "We want to make sure we have all the facts before we take final action, but it has never been our policy to distribute work paid for by third parties whose role is not disclosed by the columnist."
On Thursday, Bandow resigned from the Cato Institute after confirming a report by BusinessWeek Online that said Abramoff paid him for writing between a dozen and 24 articles over nearly a decade. The Washington think-tank's Web site Friday referred to Bandow as a "former senior fellow."
BusinessWeek Online said Bandow admitted accepting payments from Abramoff, quoting him saying, "It was a lapse of judgment on my part, and I take full responsibility for it."
Bandow did not return a call or e-mail for comment early Saturday.
Abramoff, a top Republican fundraiser and lobbyist, was indicted in August by a federal grand jury in Florida on charges of fraud and conspiracy stemming from his role in the 2000 purchase of a fleet of gambling boats.
He is also being investigated on suspicion of defrauding Indian tribe clients of millions of dollars and using improper influence on members of Congress.
Bandow's case was only the latest involving members of the news media taking money for stories without disclosing it to readers.
Earlier this year, congressional auditors concluded that the Education Department engaged in illegal "covert propaganda" by hiring columnist Armstrong Williams to endorse the No Child Left Behind Act without requiring him to disclose he was paid.
Congress' Government Accountability Office is looking into the Heath and Human Services Department's contract with columnist Maggie Gallagher to help promote a marriage initiative.
Last month, the Los Angeles Times reported that the Pentagon paid a consulting firm and Iraqi newspapers to plant favorable stories about the Iraq war and rebuilding effort."
Still beleive we have a Free Press?
Peace
Your #2 premise is merely an opinion generated by what has been accomplished by your immediate family.
I agree. You should stop procreating as it has been an ungodly mess that we will be forced to clean up.
(I agree theo, this is like shooting fish in a barrel)
Addamo-“Also, who wants the best for Iraq, me or you? If you turn out to be right, sure you can feel satisfied with yourself, but what does that mean for Iraq?”
Your - "That can be answered with the question, who was against this war in the first place? Me or you?" was priceless. Yep. We were right and the out of touch can't handle it.
Ever in your corner, your fellow Human
Peace
Thaks Addamo-Never had a Chardonay fine or otherwise, but I'll try just about anything once. Now I have 2 drinks to collect if I ever make to Down Under:)
BTW- the word verification for this comment is "hotma". Which reminds me, my wife is due home anytime. Slater folks.
Peace
Addamo- your comment on my comment: “Also, who wants the best for Iraq, me or you? If you turn out to be right, sure you can feel satisfied with yourself, but what does that mean for Iraq?” "That can be answered with the question, who was against this war in the first place? Me or you?" was priceless.
One, you haven't actually answered the question (yet again), and two (to answer your question) you, again, make presumptions (as you do with your dire predictions for the future of Iraq, I guess I'm just an optimist). Did I ever state that I was for the war in the first place? No. But my indignation to AL's initial post stems from the equal status he (and you) assign to deliberate acts of terror as opposed to unintentional civilian deaths.
The question I ask specifically says, given your lack of condemnation for terrorist actions (you seem to actual imply a tacit support for them in many of your comments), if we followed your opposition to US forces in Iraq, the country would now implode.
Orang, your responses are so juvenile they are not worth bothering with. This will be the last time I refer to you (ibrahamav - LOL).
dirtbikeoption - yes, I imagine I'd be more upset about the deliberate murder of one of my loved ones than an accidental killing, you wouldn't? Note: I suggest you do some reading of the most basic ethics and you'll see most, if not all (besides the most strict utilitarians), moral philosophers take intentions into account when judging someone's actions. As does our entire legal system (again no one has given me the slightest echo, of a whiff, of a reason to find accidental killing worthy of the same moral status as deliberate killing).
You say: "Also, your summary of the subject of this post - "war and terrorism are the same thing" - is deliberately obtuse and thoroughly incorrect. I suggest you take the time to read Sydney Harris.
The subject of the post is: "'Terrorism' is what we call violence of the weak, and we condemn it; 'war' is what we call violence of the strong, and we glorify it."
Given this statement implies that we should consider no difference between war and terrorism, I am incorrect how? (BTW - in the context you use it, obtuse means difficult to understand or discern. So I'll dumb it down a bit for you to make it clearer. A. L's post says war = terrorism. If there is more to the Sydney Harris quote, to put it in a proper context, then let's have it?)
I honestly fail to see you can hold the "West" in contempt (in general, rational, secular and whose stated aims are to allow all people the choice to choose their own destiny through representation - and I know it's not perfect, I know you'll probably come back with examples of western hypocrisy) yet not hold a worse opinion of (for example) the al-Qaeda in Iraq group, who denounced the election as the work of Satan and threatened attacks. Yep- these people are as bad as we are, so rational.
Ps. Which side actually at-least attempts to do something about their fighters when they do wrong? Which side has rules of engagement?
By "we" uphillsprinter, I mean that's how everyone decides on whether someone is moral or not. I didn't get into how we decide whether an action, or omission to act is worth of praise or blame. This is different for all people and in all societies. However, that is not to say all people's values are equally valid. I think that very convincing arguments for the abolition of the death penalty can be mounted and as such, I would argue it is immoral (for example). Assuming someone is bound to reason, they could be persuaded of that. If they are irrational (eg: al-Qaeda in Iraq - I assume all would agree proclaiming democracy is the "work of the devil" is irrational - then they can only be met with force.)
(Further to this, I am a Consquentialist and argue that the consequences of one's actions are the "morality meter", and whether or not one was in "the position to know" the consequences of one's actions - this takes into account intentions.)
Okay, I'm out - the Cricket's on.
Orang, as you are now not resorting to vitriol, time for Ethics 101:
This is the shortest and most simplistic view I can give of what can be a fairly complex moral system. To judge an action as moral or not, one must look at the consequences of one's actions. Good consequences = moral. Poor consequences = immoral. However, one is not always in the "position to know" the consequences of one's actions. Therefore, if a consequence of your action is negative (eg, someone dies), but you had no way of knowing (not in the position to know), you would not be considered at fault, i.e, you wouldn't be blamed.
For example, Einstein discovered the relationship between mass and energy (E = mc^2) in 1905 with his paper on Special Relativity, which led directly to the invention of Nuclear power and weapons. But there is no conceivable way he could have known E = mc^2 would or could lead to this (the idea of realistically producing nukes only came about in the late 1930s). Given this, he is not to be held morally responsible for the resultant "consequence" of nuclear power and weapons, good and bad.
Again, this is quite simplistic as I have not discussed who we should consider worthy of moral consideration. My belief is that all sentient beings are worthy of moral consideration and would be placed in a sphere of morality. (Though humans would be given a higher status than dogs (say) as we have greater awareness and as such a greater capacity for suffering etc.) However, al Quada in Iraq, for example, probably only consider themselves and other extremist Muslims to be in their moral sphere, and would place women in a lesser sphere and so on. They have a different moral code.
I submit that my moral code is more reasonable than theirs given I place no special importance upon myself. Moral decisions (and this is a position taken by all ethicists) should be looked at from a "universal standpoint", that is, the view of an unbiased observer - ethics takes a universal point of view. In accepting this view of ethics we must become an unbiased arbitrator when we make an ethical decision and recognise that our own interests are not of inherently greater importance than anything else's. Ie., one needs to put oneself (as much as it is possible) in the position of an unbiased observer who places no more importance on any individual (in the moral sphere) than any other individual. Unless one is an out and out egoist, I can't see how this position WRT morality is deniable.
Another point to add is how is one to decide if consequences are positive or negative. Peter Singer (an Australian philosopher - currently at Princeton in the US) says that we should look at all the "interests" of those affected by the consequences. (Interests are, after consideration of all the facts and circumstances, what a person would prefer.) That is, if the consequences of actions further the interests of someone, the actions are moral. If they hinder interests, the action is immoral.
Obviously much of the time people's interests can conflict, so a simple algorithm can be used to decide which is the appropriate course of action. Starting with a closed system of things worthy of moral consideration:
Where a system consists of things effected by actions –
(i) is the total amount of interest in that system.
The correct moral outcome occurs when (i) is as large as possible.
Therefore we should always attempt to maximise (i)
Generally this means our actions should serve to further the interests of the majority, even at the expense of the minority. Note, this is not black and white, not always easily accomplished and often people make the wrong choice even though they intended otherwise (hence the "position to know" caveat).
In general, which political system does this? Democracy. Treating Iraq as a closed system - overall - do I believe that the invasion of Iraq, on balance, serves the interests of the majority? Absolutely. If the insurgents packed up and went home, would that "maximise (i)"? Absolutely. If the US now packed up and went home would that "maximise (i)"? Absolutely not. Treating the Middle East as a closed system - overall - do I believe that the invasion of Iraq, on balance, serves the interests of the majority? Most likely (given democracy has the potential to flourish - and please remember we are speaking of long-term interest). And the same again if we treat the world as a closed system. Could the US do more to "maximise (i)" for the entire world with everything they do? Absolutely. Which would "maximise (i)" for the world to the greatest extent - the destruction of Islamic fundamentalism or the destruction of the US? I'll leave that one for you to answer. (If your answer is incorrect, then I'll know you are irrational and not to be bothered with. Eg, when Addamo states, "By what measure do you assert that Al Qaeda in Iraq is worse than the “West”?" After I'd pointed out they said the election was the work of the devil, I realised he sympathises with such irrational people and is not to be bothered with.)
The great British philosopher Bertrand Russell argues that to be correct a philosophy has to be credible and self-consistent. This is yet to be achieved. However, this version of Consequentialism is as close as it gets (for a moral philosophy). To be credible, all conclusions reached following it should be fruitful and make the world a better place. Further to this, if it is not self-consistent it cannot be wholly true. Following the "maximize (i)" algorithm I have no doubt one can ensure it is self-consistent. But in saying this, I'm sure there will be occasions where self-consistency would need to be sacrificed for credibility. But overall, like democracy, it works
Now, I can on occasion, get a little frustrated with responses to my comments. I have laid down a very clear moral code and from that reasoned out a clear and precise position. I have a 1st Class Honours in Philosophy of Science (to blow my own trumpet). If you decide to have a go at my moral code and ethical reasoning, please think about it, read it a few times, for a day or two - to be sure you understand - before you respond. I've spent years reading, writing and teaching philosophy and critical thinking (at Uni and as a secondary high school teacher), so I won't bother with a trivial response.
Okay, I've got a book review to complete. This is the last one from me unless I am given something worthy to respond to.
The Sunni Iraqis are not resisting occupation, they are resisting the control of Iraq by the majority Shi'ite muslims.
The only thing that will allow Shi'ite majority control with out US assistance is civil war, and that is what the Sunnis want because they believe they will win it.
Orang, you said in referring to my comment WRT "maximising (i)": the destruction of Islamic fundamentalism or the destruction of the US?"
You apparently think this is the choice we are confronted with? Therefore when lefties say, "Well, the West is shooting up Iraqis, so they have a legitimate right to protect themselves.." (it's everyone's right to protect themselves)- you see this as evidence that lefties choose Islamic Fundamentalism over the US.??
I don't think that's the choice we are faced with, and I never said it is the choice we are faced with. It's called a "thought experiment". Hey, what do you know? Another simple question I pose is left unanswered! I guess it's not as simple as I thought, or is it that you don't like the answer? But essentially you do have to choose which side you are on. These people's stated objective is the destruction of the west… do we let them?
That is not to say you can't be critical about the West's approach, but most of you seem to want us to fight with one arm tied behind our back. It is a war, and people will die in wars. Unfortunately innocent bystanders are killed in wars too. But the difference, you seem to be wilfully ignoring with consistent simple-minded certitude - eg your statement about "protecting themselves", is that by far, civilian deaths caused by the coalition are accidental. (And then they are investigated - yes benefit of the doubt is given to soldiers - but at least they have rules of engagement etc. They have an onus placed upon them to be as circumspect as possible in the heat of battle - remember they are walking around with big targets on their chests. Easy for you to sit at the safety of your computer telling them how they should fight!)
Whereas attacks by insurgents are now consistently aimed at unarmed Iraqis, lining up for elections, worshipping in Mosques, shopping at market etc. Is this defending oneself? I think it's fairly reasonable to suggest this is "inappropriate" and lacking even the semblance of a justification - oh unless you still claim this is self-defence or a repelling of invaders (assuming you count Iraqis as collaborating with "the enemy" - in which case you give credence to Islamo-fascism and possibly suffer from damage to your temporal lobes (in particular point 5 - and probably 8 as well - I just hope you don't have a seizure).
I'll leave you with yet another citation of the irrationality with which we are faced from Yesterday's Australian:
BALI bombings commander Mukhlas has written a fanatical call-to-arms from his death-row prison cell, exhorting Muslims to kill Westerners… Published on a website on the orders of notorious terror chief Noordin Mohammed Top, the polemic demonstrates the undiminished fervour of Mukhlas…
"You who still have a shred of faith in your hearts, have you forgotten that to kill infidels and the enemies of Islam is a deed that has a reward above no other," says the 60-page polemic written in Indonesian by "Sheikh Mukhlas", posted on the anshar.net website, which has since been shut down by Indonesian police.
"Aren't you aware that the model for us all, the Prophet Mohammed and the four rightful caliphs, undertook to murder infidels as one of their primary activities, and that the Prophet waged jihad operations 77 times in the first 10 years as head of the Muslim community in Medina?" ...Before the website was shut down, it carried instructions on how to kill Westerners in Jakarta by using sniper tactics with guns and grenades.
BTW addamo - thanks, I am an intellectual - OED - noun: a person possessing a highly developed intellect.
Too high for some I guess...
Addamo- consistently you ignore my main point, which from the start has been what the coalition do it not terrorism, what the insurgents do is.
This is not to say that one cannot find incidences from both sides which resemble one or the other (but you seem to only focus on the coalition - a bit of observational selection).
My point is that overall, on average, the coalition fought and is fighting a war, attacking armed people who are doing their best to kill them and destroy a fledgling democracy.
Whether you think the war was just in the first place is irrelevant to the war = terrorism debate - it only bemires the issue.
Overall, on average, the insurgents attack and kill unarmed civilians, without warning. That is terrorism.
Further to this, if the insurgents gave up and left, the situation is Iraq would improve, literally, overnight. If the coalition left, almost certainly, the opposite would happen.
Overall, one side (US) has the stated aim of forming a stable democracy in the Middle East, and the other proclaims democracy to be evil. You can impugn the motives of the West if you like, but a stable democracy in Iraq, undoubtably, is a good thing.
Of course the thought experiment is not realistic - that's the point of it - to try to make matters a little clearer in order to nail your actual position down. Yet again it is ignored.
A part of the problem with debating is a lack of clarity and deliberate or unintentional obfuscation. Claiming that terrorism and war are one and the same destroys the usefulness of these terms. My whole reason for posting and continuing to post in the first place. To make matters clearer by using undisputed acts of terror - the attacks on NY, Wash, London, Madrid and Bali - the modus operandi of Islamo-fascism - are terrorism, pure and simple. For the sake of argument, if I grant all your examples the status of "terrorist acts", overall the modus operandi of the US in Iraq is still war. Hence they are not equivalent.
Absolutely one can, and should, question how the war is fought, and that I have no problem with. I have a problem with saying overall, one side is as bad as the other. They can both be bad if you like, but I think you need to be practical about these things. I think you fail to take into account the evil that is Islamo-fascism - unless you believe it does indeed have a place in this world.
Like other academics I have encountered, you display an impressive grasp of theoretical concepts from the confines of your gated reality, while struggling with how these concepts apply to the real world…hampered by their inability to question the status quo.
Dude - I'm questioning the status quo of the Left WRT Iraq… A Left that is at complete odds with much of its history - you know, opposing brutal dictatorships. In saying this, I don't align myself to any political ideology - besides democracy. Which is why I take issue with Howard rushing legislation through the Senate without the debate it is due (even if it is merely perfunctory) for example. I'm also a Union Rep and an environmentalist - pretty left wing… When I vote I vote for my local member and what they have to say - cause that's, technically, what we're doing. I take each issue as it comes.
And also - Yes, I do intend to do a PhD (maybe I'll so it in Political Science thanks to these entertaining conversations - I'll dedicate it to you!) at some stage. But at the moment I'm a teacher at a secondary school, and also do some sessional lecturing. I've lived in a couple of different countries (The UK and the Seychelles) so have a reasonable experience of different cultures (the UK's not really that different except they can't throw or catch, or speak or write English very well - lol). Whilst going through Uni I worked on the Loading Dock of a Myer store (5 Years), moving boxes off trucks - about a blue collar as you can get. (Not to mention the couple of days I spent drilling holes in rubber at a factory that makes conveyer belt parts - to earn extra cash). Hardly a "gated reality", but nice of you to presume to know me again.
Left and Right have become increasingly meaningless terms - my view on this is here.
BTW - Chomsky says some of the most offensive things going around - except perhaps with the exception of Pilger. His reputation as a scientist is in great decline as most of his work is considered, after consideration by the broader scientific community, trifling and lacking in any empirical foundation - more a product of self-promotion than a leap in science and our understanding of the development of language - almost certainly a product of genetic expression. (Some used to compare him to Einstein - clearly a joke.) His other "work" is the product of a mind that believes in (US) conspiracies - he is simply a conspiracy theorist who knows how to use big words. Given the White House couldn't cover up Clinton's blowjob and non-conventional use of cigars, I'm not really a fan of most conspiracies.
One final note - this time I'm out for good as this is taking up far too much of my time (and given all your links - lol - even more of your time). And also,touche with the R-complex put down - lol.
All the best…
One more point (to prove I ain't all academic like) and please excuse the language - Team America got right (sub My name and the Coalition for "we're", you lot for "Film Actor's Guild" and Terrorists for "Kim Jong Il":
We're d**ks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid d**ks. And the Film Actors Guild are p*$$ies. And Kim Jong Il is an a**hole. P*$$ies don't like d**ks, because p*$$ies get f**ked by d**ks. But d**ks also f**k a**holes: a**holes that just want to sh*t on everything. P*$$ies may think they can deal with a**holes their way. But the only thing that can f**k an a**hole is a d**k, with some balls. The problem with d**ks is: they f**k too much or f**k when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a p*$$y to show them that. But sometimes, p*$$ies can be so full of sh*t that they become a**holes themselves... because p*$$ies are an inch and half away from a**holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us f**k this a**hole, we're going to have our d**ks and p*$$ies all covered in sh*t!
Post a Comment
<< Home