Nov 28 2005, 6:28 am
|
|
Acebloke
 |
What gives the US the right to dictate who and who isnt a terrorist in a country that isnt theirs, about people who will most likely never perform a terrorist act on american soil, and probably no where else either ?
|
So... the deliberate wholesale slaughter of innocents is fine and dandy, so long as you're only killing your own countrymen and -women and you're doing it on your own soil. But let's not have anyone calling them names for doing such things, because that would be wrong.
| |
Leftley, the number of times the US has broken several international treaties that they have signed is huge. The Geneva Convention is a favourite one to break, though the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is also fun.
With that in mind, if the UN tried to get George Bush on trial for war crimes, what would the American people thing of George being called a 'War Criminal'? | |
And this is relevant to the question of the moral legitimacy of attacking civilians... how, exactly? It doesn't matter if George Dubya Bush eats fried babies for breakfast and personally pleasures Satan three times a night, that doesn't justify anyone deliberately targetting civilians. It is, after all, one of the popular arguments for war supporters nowadays that "Well, OK maybe we do some bad stuff but look at what the other guys are doing, so we're still doing good." That argument doesn't cut it for them, and now you're bringing it up here with the positions reversed and it doesn't cut it for you, either. Integrity means being accountable for one's actions as they stand on their own merits. Is the U.S. showing a lot of integrity on the issue? Not particularly, no--and precisely because so often those at the top use the sort of moral relativist arguments you're trying to apply right now.
Bush sez: "Look at what Saddam's doing! That makes him a Bad Guy, so it's OK for us to do stuff that bends the rules a little." You say: "Look at what Bush's doing! That makes him a Bad Guy, so it's OK for the insurgents to do stuff that bends the rules a little." Does it not disturb you when your logic starts following along the same lines as Dubya's? | |
Actually, yes Leftley. It sure as hell disturbs me.
But you've managed to distort the issue a little. We're arguing here about Al Jazeera, which isn't a group of terrorists. I recognise that there are terrorists proper in Iraq, and there are guerillas in Iraq. Rockin doesn't appear to. | |