Originally Posted by Alan Ryan

However, this complacent outlook would be shattered if our primary assurance of security was cancelled. We don't bother to think it through, but none of the freedoms which we claim for ourselves and on behalf of others could be actuated without security.

There is no liberty without security.

I think you have it exactly backwards. Without our morals, we would have no security. Our security, our freedoms, are based on the idea of right and wrong, on the notion that human life has inherent value. The long struggle through the ages wasn't just fighting the bad people, it was turning ourselves into good people. If we aren't a society based on morals, then we become those bad people our ancestors were fighting against, and our security goes out the window. If we forget what we've learned, and start deciding that we can ignore our morals "when we need to", then we will find ourselves "needing to" more and more often, and with less and less provocation. We'll reach the point where we must distrust our neighbors and fear our government. Our security will be a memory then. If you think this sounds far fetched just recall Soviet Russia, or Hitler's Germany. The state did what it "had to" in the name of security, with the result being that their people weren't safe.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

There's nothing cowardly about abandoning misguided morals.

No, just in deciding that they've become misguided once they get in your way. That's cowardly and self-delusional.

Originally Posted by Kronus

I think you have it exactly backwards. Without our morals, we would have no security. Our security, our freedoms, are based on the idea of right and wrong, on the notion that human life has inherent value. The long struggle through the ages wasn't just fighting the bad people, it was turning ourselves into good people. If we aren't a society based on morals, then we become those bad people our ancestors were fighting against, and our security goes out the window. If we forget what we've learned, and start deciding that we can ignore our morals "when we need to", then we will find ourselves "needing to" more and more often, and with less and less provocation. We'll reach the point where we must distrust our neighbors and fear our government. Our security will be a memory then. If you think this sounds far fetched just recall Soviet Russia, or Hitler's Germany. The state did what it "had to" in the name of security, with the result being that their people weren't safe.

I haven't given any reason for you to suppose that I don't value the moral order you speak about. What I'm drawing attention to is the historical context in which our moral consensus has been achieved.

The cultivation of a moral sensibility implies the leisure in which to do so. A society fighting for survival does not have such leisure - which is why security comes first. None of our 'civilised attitudes' would be viable unless we can count on our primary security needs being taken care of.

Originally Posted by Diogenes99

I guess you haven't heard that the war is against terrorists and anyone who supports them. Try to keep up.

oh really?? so why arent we at war against egypt, jordan, saudi arabia, oman and uae, for starters? they are not only supporters of terrorism, their citizens were the ones hijacking the planes on 9/11

Originally Posted by diogenes

Not for those of us who saw the towers fall on 9/11, and noted carefully who was dancing in the streets to celebrate.

you notes must have been too jumbled due to your blindness. it was palestinians dancing in the streets, not iraqis. did you carefully note that? plus a scandal surrounding that footage showed that the celebrations was from another event before 9/11 occured, and was put on the news to arouse public rage against them. yet we never sent a single soldier into pallestine in reference to this. please note carefully

Originally Posted by Kronus

I don't suppose you'ld care to tell me how you arrived at that bizarre interpretation of my position? Or explain how abandoning your morals requires "moral fiber"? Following your morals in the face of difficulty requires fiber; abandoning them when they're inconvienient is more akin to cowardice.

changing your battle tactics to adapt to the type of warfare you are in is a wise and recommended move. we no longer have formation advancement where a row of soldiers fire on command, then reload while the next row fires on cue. our idea ofmilitary strategy is based on outdated methodology.

if pretending to be the enemy's friend to bait them into a trap is what is needed, then its what we should do. if using the enemy's family to draw out the enemy is what is needed, then its what we should do. if supplying a terrorist camp with poisoned coca-cola is the only way to kill them or at least thin out their numbers, then thats what we should do

by evolving to meet the demands of this new type of warfare, we are not sacrificing our morals. we are meeting the enemy on their level to give ourselves at least a fighting chance. fairness can only apply if you are highly advantaged. we are disadvantaged in this war employing our conventional war methods. us being "fair" is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

oh really?? so why arent we at war against egypt, jordan, saudi arabia, oman and uae, for starters? they are not only supporters of terrorism, their citizens were the ones hijacking the planes on 9/11

I would say that we ARE at war against terrorism in those places, it's just being fought in different ways. There are other ways to fight terrorism than a head-on military conflict--clandestine operations, diplomacy, etc. The way to approach each situation in each place calls has to be handled on that sitaution's own merits.

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

by evolving to meet the demands of this new type of warfare, we are not sacrificing our morals. we are meeting the enemy on their level to give ourselves at least a fighting chance. fairness can only apply if you are highly advantaged. we are disadvantaged in this war employing our conventional war methods. us being "fair" is irrelevant.

I would agree as long as there is one condition--that these sort of tactics ONLY be used against the terrorists and not uninvolved civilians.

Originally Posted by Alan Ryan

I haven't given any reason for you to suppose that I don't value the moral order you speak about. What I'm drawing attention to is the historical context in which our moral consensus has been achieved.

The cultivation of a moral sensibility implies the leisure in which to do so. A society fighting for survival does not have such leisure - which is why security comes first. None of our 'civilised attitudes' would be viable unless we can count on our primary security needs being taken care of.

That's my point. If we give up our civilizied attitudes in an attempt to gain security, then we've already lost it. Without our morals guiding us we will fall prey to the strong and ruthless. And I'm not refering to an external enemy there, I'm talking about collpase from within. Our strongest source of security isn't guns or information, it's our civilization itself, it's the fact that we can count on people, for the most part, acting in a moral manner. If we throw that out than we can't be secure. We don't have morals because civilization gave us the leisure to develop them. We have a civilization because we developed a morality which let us build one.

Originally Posted by Kronus

Our strongest source of security isn't guns or information, it's our civilization itself, it's the fact that we can count on people, for the most part, acting in a moral manner. If we throw that out than we can't be secure. We don't have morals because civilization gave us the leisure to develop them. We have a civilization because we developed a morality which let us build one.

'Western civilisation' is no more than the term we invoke when discussing all the attributes of our way of life which we are happy with - Degas, Dostoyevsky, Debussy. It is a fragile veneer that has been created imperceptibly as our worries about security were vanquished.

I'm not sure this thread is the place to discuss it further, but our disagreement is probably based on fundamentally opposed theories concerning the evolution of law and social stability.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

I would say that we ARE at war against terrorism in those places, it's just being fought in different ways. There are other ways to fight terrorism than a head-on military conflict--clandestine operations, diplomacy, etc. The way to approach each situation in each place calls has to be handled on that sitaution's own merits.

for your sake and the sake of the country, i do hope that i am wrong and you are right about this. so far, all indications are that we are buddying up with saudi arabia, egypt and jordan, and ONLY afghanistan and iraq have seen the invasive intervention as an effort to round up terrorists. the other countries that have been mentioned as future targets are sudan, lebanon and iran, from what i know. these cuontries all have stronger ties to al qaeda than iraq, but not nearly as much as the other arabian countries.

the most disturbing fact about these presumed "clandestine operations" is that the majority of americans are not demanding action against these countries. i mean the facts are there. the bin ladens are saudi nationals and close friends to the bush administatrion. 14 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were saudi nationals, and most of osama's terrorist funding came from his saudi-based businesses and assets. the public has been presented with this info, in the commission report, on the web, and in lesser instances in the media.

i would love to see a greater pressure put on the administration to account for anti-terrorist action against saudi arabia, egypt and jordan especially. these are by far the largest supporters of islamic terrorism in the world. why isnt this happening? thats why i continue to maintain that this war on terror is nothing but a deceptive sham

Originally Posted by jyoshu

I would agree as long as there is one condition--that these sort of tactics ONLY be used against the terrorists and not uninvolved civilians.

definitely.

bear in mind though, that very often "civillians" are sleeper terrorists, and are very hard to distinguish, if not impossible, from innocent civillians. the hotel bombing 2 months ago is a perfect example. a "civillian" couple walked into the hotel lobby with bombs strapped to their bodies. a terrorist without a exploding belt is basically a civillian, but hes really a terrorist

the only way we can determine who the terrorists are among the civillians is through serious intelligence, including unauthorized and invasive spying on personal communications and activities in those countries. we're doing hat here in america now. if this is about terror, then employ these tactics where the terroists actaully are

Originally Posted by Alan Ryan

We can affect a disproportionate indignation when we think any of our freedoms are threatened; we can almost forgive the terrorist who plans our destruction because we can empathize with his motives.

I'm certainly not advocating 'forgiving' terrorists. I just don't agree with the methods used to combat them in Iraq.

-Wez

Originally Posted by Wez

You've got to prove how Saddam was linked to terrorists for Saddam more than any other country to justify an invasion.

As a matter of fact, I don't. The judgment call was made by people with more information than is generally made public, and they will pay a political price if history proves them to be wrong. It is certainly not necessary to prove anything to you individually.

Originally Posted by Wez

If a terrorist was living next door to you and you didn't notice you wouldn't mind your house being bombed? Or your family's if they had terrorists as neighbours and didn't know? Or does it only apply to Arabs?

Life demands a certain awareness of the conditions around you. You ignore this requirement at your own peril.

Originally Posted by Wez

It's their country. By the same logic, if Americans don't want terrorist attacks they should leave America.

Or control the terrorists themselves.

Originally Posted by Wez

I didn't say anything justifies terrorism. Mad dogs can be combated easily. Terrorists can't.

Yes they can, and by the same methods.

Originally Posted by Alan Ryan

Reading through this thread, I notice again how often attitudes are struck as some contributors scramble for the moral high ground in a discussion about terrorism.

...

There is no liberty without security.

That is a very well reasoned and written post.

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

oh really?? so why arent we at war against egypt, jordan, saudi arabia, oman and uae, for starters? they are not only supporters of terrorism, their citizens were the ones hijacking the planes on 9/11

We are not at war with the governments of those nations because those governments do not openly support terrorism and do not pose the threat of providing dangerous weapons to the terrorists as Saddam did.

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

by evolving to meet the demands of this new type of warfare, we are not sacrificing our morals. we are meeting the enemy on their level to give ourselves at least a fighting chance. fairness can only apply if you are highly advantaged. we are disadvantaged in this war employing our conventional war methods. us being "fair" is irrelevant.

On this point we agree completely. This is indeed a new kind of warfare.

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

the most disturbing fact about these presumed "clandestine operations" is that the majority of americans are not demanding action against these countries. i mean the facts are there. the bin ladens are saudi nationals and close friends to the bush administatrion. 14 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were saudi nationals, and most of osama's terrorist funding came from his saudi-based businesses and assets. the public has been presented with this info, in the commission report, on the web, and in lesser instances in the media.

i would love to see a greater pressure put on the administration to account for anti-terrorist action against saudi arabia, egypt and jordan especially.

Short of an invasion, which Bush isn't going to do, the only options he has LEFT are diplomacy and clandestine operations. And since the public isn't privvy to the clandestine operations (translation: not part of media spoonfeeding), then we have to assume it's going on. And I see no reason to think it's not.

Originally Posted by unkerpaulie

bear in mind though, that very often "civillians" are sleeper terrorists, and are very hard to distinguish, if not impossible, from innocent civillians.

This is true, and I would say in the case of Iraq, are often "sleeper insurgents." That's why the oft-given anti-war talking point of 'many-civilians-killed-in-Iraq' isn't so cut and dry in reality. When bullets are coming out of every nook and cranie from the civilian population of Fallujah, the practical line between "civilian" and "insurgent" gets awfully thin and blurred.

Originally Posted by Diogenes99

As a matter of fact, I don't. The judgment call was made by people with more information than is generally made public, and they will pay a political price if history proves them to be wrong. It is certainly not necessary to prove anything to you individually.

This is a ridiculous line of arguing. The intelligence services have made enough XXXX-ups (WMDs anyone?) to merit us questioning their every move. No-one should blindly trust them. You cannot claim Saddam supported terrorists and expect anyone to take your claims seriously if you then don't back up your claims with, well, anything.

Life demands a certain awareness of the conditions around you. You ignore this requirement at your own peril.

How would you know if your neighbours were terrorists?

Or control the terrorists themselves.

How? If they brandish weapons, the Americans will shoot them. What do you expect them to do other than leave the country (which is a ridiculous claim demand as it's their country)?

Yes they can, and by the same methods.

You'd use the same tactics against highly intelligent people and mad dogs? This looks like a recipe for disaster to me.

-Wez

Originally Posted by Diogenes99

We are not at war with the governments of those nations because those governments do not openly support terrorism and do not pose the threat of providing dangerous weapons to the terrorists as Saddam did.

dude this is a lie, straight up. saddam didnt have weapons to supply anybody in the first place. saddam didnt even have weapons for himself. and the jordanian government both openly and covertly support the numerous terrorist factions in the country. pallestine has the most notorious system of government supported terrorists in the middle east. saddam wasnt openly supporting terrorists. the chump change he was paying out to a few pallestinian suicide bomber families was only exposed because very deep investigation was done. we wouldnt have to dig half as deep to find links between the egyptian and jordanian government to al qaeda