Bhutto and Al Qaeda

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

You asked for a Yes or No question, but your question, in my opinion, was improperly worded. Between the two the only answer I could give you, was No. I see a clear line between an excuse and motivation. If you want to say that the US is the (or just a) motivating factor in Al Qaeda's slaughtering of innocent civilians that assigns a level of blame and guilt on the United States for those deaths. If the US is in some way guilty of contributing to those deaths, then in turn Al Qaeda must be justified in killing those people. I do subscribe to that. I believe Al Qaeda will use whatever propaganda and excuse they can to force their will upon the rest of the world. Has the foreign policy of the US been a convenient excuse for Al Qaeda to say it's a catalyst for their holy war? Absolutely. An excuse, nothing more. Just as surely as stoning a girl to death for being in the same room as a man not of her family isn't because she's done something wrong, but to exert their power and hold over her and remind those like her they are in power. Just like rape is not about sex, it's about power.

So basically it is your contention that the United States had nothing to do with it because you don't want to be true (i.e. truthiness). Instead of relying on fact, you want it to be that the United States does not motivate terrorists. The United States, after all, is a perfect nation, led by politicians who could never make a mistake, and whose policies in no way, shape, or form could ever lead to the deaths of innocent Americans. Right?

The problem I have with your opinion though is that you're saying the extremist hate us because of the way we live--not because of our actions overseas. That is, American lifestyle is more to blame than faulty foreign policy. I'd disagree.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

When have I said we need to get involved in the internal affairs of other nations as a socialist program?

You've made plenty of arguments for it. You obviously support the Iraq War--to eradicate the oppressors! to help build schools! help build roads! let them vote! bring about social reform! etcetera!: Nation building a policing the world. You've stated we should go into Sudan. You've stated that we should have helped the Rwandans in their civil war. Etcetera.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

So basically it is your contention that the United States had nothing to do with it because you don't want to be true (i.e. truthiness). Instead of relying on fact, you want it to be that the United States does not motivate terrorists. The United States, after all, is a perfect nation, led by politicians who could never make a mistake, and whose policies in no way, shape, or form could ever lead to the deaths of innocent Americans. Right?

uBeR, you support women's rights, correct? Assuming Al Qaeda's aware of your personal belief, and it's in conflict of their belief system, are you personally responsible in part for Al Qaeda?

Originally Posted by uBeR

The problem I have with your opinion though is that you're saying the extremist hate us because of the way we live--not because of our actions overseas. That is, American lifestyle is more to blame than faulty foreign policy. I'd disagree.

And that is where we differ. You're placing *blame* upon the United States, which means, whether you like it or not, you agree with the terrorists. You can't have your cake and eat it too uBeR.

Originally Posted by uBeR

You've made plenty of arguments for it. You obviously support the Iraq War--to eradicate the oppressors! to help build schools! help build roads! let them vote! bring about social reform! etcetera! You've stated we should go into Sudan. You've stated that we should have helped the Rwandans in their civil war. Etcetera.

I did not support the Iraq War to "eradicate the oppressors". I supported, based on the evidence, the removal of a pyschopath from power before he could cause more harm to us and the world. Simple as that. Should the US tried to prevent the Rwandan slaughter? Absolutely Yes. I do not believe, like you apparently, that people should be allowed to be exterminated while the world sits back and say, "Oh, so sorry, it's an internal affair and we have this thing called the Prime Directive." Give me a fucking break. Stand up for something besides the "rights of others to rape and murder their countrymen" for crying out loud.

Scuzzy

[uBeR]

How about you give me the break from your retarded fallacies. "uBeR is for rape and murder, everybody!" Nice one, Scuzzy.

Your view of government responsibility is different than mine, but it's no reason to get into absurdities. You believe in big government policing the world and entering sovereign nations to ensure civil war doesn't happen and to make sure people don't die. You believe in taxing and spending (or maybe just spending without taxing) and big borrowing to help build other nations. You believe in creating more bureaucracy and having the government hold our hands from cradle to grave. I, on the other hand, believe in individual liberty and the American government's duty to protect its citizens. I am for the Constitution of the United States. I am for the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and the ideals upon which this nation was built. If private enterprises and individual people want to help feed the world and build better places to live for people across the globe, I venerate them to the fullest. If the international community sees a problem, then it will be an international initiative. I am not for individual profiteering at the expense of the American people or preemptive wars.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

You believe in big government policing the world and entering sovereign nations to ensure civil war doesn't happen and to make sure people don't die.

Yeah, those guys like Hitler who kill jews in Germany wholesale, or Saddam who gassed the Kurds, I'm not on their side, you're right. You're welcome to defend their right to do that (which a position of non-interference is). Edmund Burke said it best, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Originally Posted by uBeR

You believe in taxing and spending (or maybe just spending without taxing) and big borrowing to help build other nations.

I believe in being responsible and learning from the mistakes of the past. If you dispose a leader then you rebuild the country so that it can stand on it's own, not abandon it so that slaughter and murder sort everything out. Help create a more stable environment so that history does not repeat itself.

Originally Posted by uBeR

You believe in creating more bureaucracy and having the government hold our hands from cradle to grave.

Wow, you don't have a clue about my views on that, you're completely wrong.

Originally Posted by uBeR

I, on the other hand, believe in individual liberty and the American government's duty to protect its citizens. I am for the Constitution of the United States. I am for the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and the ideals upon which this nation was built. If private enterprises and individual people want to help feed the world and build better places to live for people across the globe, I venerate them to the fullest. If the international community sees a problem, then it will be an international initiative. I am not for individual profiteering at the expense of the American people or preemptive wars.

You believe that free enterprise should be the only way to solve world hunger and housing. Well, why not allow free enterprise to handle the environment, stopping disease like Aids, providing health care? The government should get out of these issues as well, should they not?

Scuzzy

[Everything]

uBeR VS Scuzzy

FIGHT!

[uBeR]

Edmund Burke, who was a true conservative, vehemently believed that the federal government does not have the right to create extraordinary debts such that Bush and his war has created. Burke was opposed, unlike yourself, to unjust and oppressive taxing of the people to create puppet governments across the globe. Burke was absolutely right, if good people choose to sit idly by, evil will prevail. Burke, however, was not talking about governments fighting other nations' civil wars. Burke was not talking about expanding government. Burke was not talking about preemptive wars. Burke was not talking about nation building. Burke was not talking about maintaining imperialism.

I would be much more accepting if our government chose to help iraddicate diseases than fight other people's wars.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

You asked for a Yes or No question, but your question, in my opinion, was improperly worded. Between the two the only answer I could give you, was No. I see a clear line between an excuse and motivation. If you want to say that the US is the (or just a) motivating factor in Al Qaeda's slaughtering of innocent civilians that assigns a level of blame and guilt on the United States for those deaths. If the US is in some way guilty of contributing to those deaths, then in turn Al Qaeda must be justified in killing those people. I do [not] subscribe to that. I believe Al Qaeda will use whatever propaganda and excuse they can to force their will upon the rest of the world.

Uh, it's pretty clear that you're totally unable to draw a line between excuse(justification) and motivation. If you were able to then you wouldn't have answered a question about motivation with an answer about justification.

I asked whether US interventionism motivates Al Qaeda attacks on US interests.
You answered whether US interventionism justifies Al Qaeda attacks on US interests.
These are different questions. They can have different answers.

If you are unable to seperate those two questions in your mind then you are not capable of discussing these issues rationally. You just want an opportunity to rail against the hated liberals for their terrorist sympathies. The problem is you're arguing against a fantasy. Attempting to understand why terrorists act the way they do is NOT endorsing them or their methods. Analysing motivation is a completely distinct issue from justification.

Two examples to show how farcical your notion that motivation=justification is.

A broke man robs a rich man. If we say that he was motivated by the rich man having money in his wallet then, according to you, we are blaming the rich man for having money and justifying the robber. This is absurd.

Al Qaeda attacks US interests. If you want to say that US culture is a motivating factor for that then, according to you, that assigns a level of blame and guilt on the US for those deaths. Al Qaeda must be justified in killing those people. This is utterly, utterly absurd. What is more absurd is that you agree with this logic when applied to US foreign policy but not when applied to US culture.

Asking what motivates terrorism is NOT the same thing as asking for justification of terrorism.

You NEED to understand that people who ask why terrorists act the way they do are NOT terrorist sympathisers. This sick "You're with us or you're with them" mentality is odious and damaging. Yes, Al Qaeda are an evil collection of human beings. Their values and methods are abhorent to me. This DOES NOT mean that I cannot look, rationally, at why they do what they do. What motivates them. What greivances they have. And whether any of those grievances are, in fact, justified. Just because what they do is evil, doesn't mean that everything they hold dear is automatically wrong and that anyone who considers otherwise is "on their side".

You may have heard of the IRA? An odious collection of murdering cunts. Utterly despicable. I don't think, for one minute, that any of their attacks were justified. And yet it was VITALLY important to understand what their greivances were, why they were upset, and to understand that these same greviances were legitimate concerns for many ordinary, moral, Irish citizens. If anyone who considered any of their aims as understandable and worked towards them was denounced as "being on their side" then the NI peace process would never have worked. We'd still be where we were back in the early 80s. The IRA were bastards. Nothing they did was justified. This doesn't mean I cannot think rationally about what motivated them.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Has the foreign policy of the US been a convenient excuse for Al Qaeda to say it's a catalyst for their holy war? Absolutely. An excuse, nothing more.

So you know that Al Qaeda really mean it when they say they hate non-Islamic societies, but you also know that they're lying when they say they hate outside intervention in the Middle East. How do you know that? Doesn't it make sense that extremist Islam hates outside intervention in the Middle East? Doesn't it make sense that most peoples feel threatened and upset when an outside force intervenes in thier affairs?

Again, UNDERSTANDING is different from JUSTIFICATION.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Edmund Burke, who was a true conservative, vehemently believed that the federal government does not have the right to create extraordinary debts such that Bush and his war has created. Burke was opposed, unlike yourself, to unjust and oppressive taxing of the people to create puppet governments across the globe. Burke was absolutely right, if good people choose to sit idly by, evil will prevail. Burke, however, was not talking about governments fighting other nations' civil wars. Burke was not talking about expanding government. Burke was not talking about preemptive wars. Burke was not talking about nation building. Burke was not talking about maintaining imperialism.

I would be much more accepting if our government chose to help iraddicate diseases than fight other people's wars.

Just so I'm clear, you believe that Hitler's extermination of the German Jews, Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, and Rawanda are not the world's problem right?

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

A broke man robs a rich man. If we say that he was motivated by the rich man having money in his wallet then, according to you, we are blaming the rich man for having money and justifying the robber. This is absurd.

And this is where you're logic is flawed ekiM. The poor man isn't motivated because the rich man made the money, or because the rich man worked hard for the money. The poor man is motivated because it's the the easiest route to get what he wants. That's the difference between motivation and justification. The rich man doesn't justify the poor man. The rich man doesn't motivate the poor man. The greed and selfishness of the poor man is his motivation.

Originally Posted by ekiM

You NEED to understand that people who ask why terrorists act the way they do are NOT terrorist sympathisers. This sick "You're with us or you're with them" mentality is odious and damaging. Yes, Al Qaeda are an evil collection of human beings. Their values and methods are abhorent to me. This DOES NOT mean that I cannot look, rationally, at why they do what they do. What motivates them. What greivances they have. And whether any of those grievances are, in fact, justified. Just because what they do is evil, doesn't mean that everything they hold dear is automatically wrong and that anyone who considers otherwise is "on their side".

Alright Mike, let's walk down this path for a moment. You and I are standing together, Al Qaeda is standing across the table from us. Al Qadea has told us, as you've said, outright, exactly what you've said, that US interventionism is their motivation. We now understand them. We understand their motivation. We completely understand what they have said. They completely understand that we are not going anywhere. They say, "We will kill you wherever you are, including your own country." They have done so, and made it clear they will continue to do so. What's the next move? <---- This is ultimately the path of discussion I think you should I should continue with.

Originally Posted by ekiM

So you know that Al Qaeda really mean it when they say they hate non-Islamic societies, but you also know that they're lying when they say they hate outside intervention in the Middle East. How do you know that? Doesn't it make sense that extremist Islam hates outside intervention in the Middle East? Doesn't it make sense that most peoples feel threatened and upset when an outside force intervenes in thier affairs?

I didn't say they were lying ekiM, I said it was an excuse and I outlined that position already.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Alright Mike, let's walk down this path for a moment. You and I are standing together, Al Qaeda is standing across the table from us. Al Qadea has told us, as you've said, outright, exactly what you've said, that US interventionism is their motivation. We now understand them. We understand their motivation. We completely understand what they have said. They completely understand that we are not going anywhere. They say, "We will kill you wherever you are, including your own country." They have done so, and made it clear they will continue to do so. What's the next move? <---- This is ultimately the path of discussion I think you should I should continue with.

What the hell? How many times do I have to say that I do not think it is possible to negotiate with Al Qaeda?

What we should do to defend ourselves from extremism is a different question from the question of what motivates extremism. All that I am asking you to do here is to stop fantasising and acknowledge that Al Qaeda are motivated to act against US interests by US interventionism. If you cannot acknowledge that then you are not thinking rationally. If you're not thinking rationally then there is no point discussing anything with you.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I didn't say they were lying ekiM, I said it was an excuse and I outlined that position already.

Al Qaeda say they are motivated by US interventionism. You've just said that they're not lying when they say this. This directly contradicts your claim that they are not motivated by interventionism. Which is it?

Clarify what you mean by "it was an excuse".

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

What the hell? How many times do I have to say that I do not think it is possible to negotiate with Al Qaeda?

What we should do to defend ourselves from extremism is a different question from the question of what motivates extremism. All that I am asking you to do here is to stop fantasising and acknowledge that Al Qaeda are motivated to act against US interests by US interventionism. If you cannot acknowledge that then you are not thinking rationally. If you're not thinking rationally then there is no point discussing anything with you.

You misunderstand, I wasn't saying you were saying there is a point in negotiating with Al Qaeda, so you can calm down. I'm actually really looking forward to this discussion, because it's a natural progression of our discussion and ultimately the entire point.

What should the US do in the situation they are in? Should they wait inside the US borders while Al Qaeda prepares to attack us again? Should they leave the US and try to find Al Qaeda and stop them before they attack? Should they prevent Al Qaeda from getting weapons? Should they remove threats that intelligence points to them likely to give Al Qaeda weapons? Let's talk about this, let's finally get down to what SHOULD be done, in the situation I outlined prior.

Originally Posted by ekiM

Al Qaeda say they are motivated by US interventionism. You've just said that they're not lying when they say this. This directly contradicts your claim that they are not motivated by interventionism. Which is it?
Clarify what you mean by "it was an excuse".

Just what I mean, it's an excuse. To use your example. One rich man, one poor man. The rich man makes money. The poor man says he robs the rich man because the rich man makes money and is evil. What is the poor man's motivation? The REAL motivation is the greed of the poor man, the envy, the desire to have what the rich man has. "The rich man makes money and is evil" is an excuse.

Scuzzy

[ekiM]

Saying "using is it an excuse means it's an excuse" doesn't clarify anything. As far as I can make out, what you mean is "They are not motivated by US interventionism but claim that they are". That sounds like lying to me...

It's incredibly hard to untangle what you're trying to say. Here's what I have so far. Is this what you think? :

1. US interventionism does not motivate, in any way, Al Qaeda's attacks on US interests.
2. The REAL motivation for Al Qaeda's attacks on US interests is their hatred of US culture.
3. Al Qaeda claim that they are motivated by US interventionism.
4. They are not lying when they claim this.
5. However, they are not telling the truth - they are using US interventionism "as an excuse" for their actions. This means they are not REALLY motivated by US interventionism, but they claim that they are.

How's that? I'm having trouble reconciling 4 with 5.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Saying "using is it an excuse means it's an excuse" doesn't clarify anything. As far as I can make out, what you mean is "They are not motivated by US interventionism but claim that they are". That sounds like lying to me...

It's incredibly hard to untangle what you're trying to say. Here's what I have so far. Is this what you think? :

1. US interventionism does not motivate, in any way, Al Qaeda's attacks on US interests.
2. The REAL motivation for Al Qaeda's attacks on US interests is their hatred of US culture.
3. Al Qaeda claim that they are motivated by US interventionism.
4. They are not lying when they claim this.
5. However, they are not telling the truth - they are using US interventionism "as an excuse" for their actions. This means they are not REALLY motivated by US interventionism, but they claim that they are.

How's that? I'm having trouble reconciling 4 with 5.

I think we're heading in circles in the above, I've tried to make that point clear to you, even using your own examples, and I'm unable to. I apologize and I think we'll have to leave that one alone. You don't get the point I'm making, and I think it's a moot point considering the larger discussion at hand. Let's move on to the next logical phase of this conversation ekiM. I think you'll have some good insights and we'll have a great deal more to talk about with the following:

What should the US do in the situation they are in? Should they wait inside the US borders while Al Qaeda prepares to attack us again? Should they leave the US and try to find Al Qaeda and stop them before they attack? Should they prevent Al Qaeda from getting weapons? Should they remove threats that intelligence points to them likely to give Al Qaeda weapons? Let's talk about this, let's finally get down to what SHOULD be done, in the situation I outlined prior.

Scuzzy

[uBeR]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Just so I'm clear, you believe that Hitler's extermination of the German Jews, Saddam's gassing of the Kurds, and Rawanda are not the world's problem right?

Scuzzy

Haha, of course not. I've already explained why your fallacies are complete bullshit. Try again.

Originally Posted by ekiM

Saying "using is it an excuse means it's an excuse" doesn't clarify anything. As far as I can make out, what you mean is "They are not motivated by US interventionism but claim that they are". That sounds like lying to me...

Honestly, nevermind him. He's already made it clear his arguments are based solely on truthiness. There's absolutely no fact or evidence to what he is saying, other than of course what his gut is telling him.

[Backstaber]

And now for something actually about Bhutto. :P

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...0-7583,00.html

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Haha, of course not. I've already explained why your fallacies are complete bullshit. Try again.

I'm not sure I follow you then uBeR. Are you willing to invade other countries to stop a civil wars of ethnic cleansing (like Jews and Christians in Germany in WWII) or are helping people in need like that not US's responsibility? If so, which Civil Wars should the US not get involved in?

Scuzzy

[uBeR]

You are under the impression Christians were being "ethnically cleansed" in Nazi Germany?

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

You are under the impression Christians were being "ethnically cleansed" in Nazi Germany?

No, Hitler called himself a Christian and decided to use Jews as a scapegoat to justify mass murder. Now... where were we... Oh yeah...

Are you willing to invade other countries to stop a civil wars of ethnic cleansing (like WWII) or are helping people in need like that not US's responsibility? If so, which Civil Wars should the US not get involved in?

I'm getting the feeling that you're avoiding the above questions, using other questions to try and deflect addressing your belief. I hope I'm wrong in that, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt so far.

Thanks,
Scuzzy

[uBeR]

Well, the problem is that I've already answered your questions--you just keep asking them again.

"If private enterprises and individual people want to help feed the world and build better places to live for people across the globe, I venerate them to the fullest. If the international community sees a problem, then it will be an international initiative. I am not for individual profiteering at the expense of the American people or preemptive wars."

Now please, turn this into another one of your sick and fallacious "so you do support rape!" arguments. It's interesting how you keep doing that.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Well, the problem is that I've already answered your questions--you just keep asking them again.

"If private enterprises and individual people want to help feed the world and build better places to live for people across the globe, I venerate them to the fullest. If the international community sees a problem, then it will be an international initiative. I am not for individual profiteering at the expense of the American people or preemptive wars."

Now please, turn this into another one of your sick and fallacious "so you do support rape!" arguments. It's interesting how you keep doing that.

Since you won't give me a straight yes or no answer, let me make sure I understand your point. You're saying that the only time that the US should be involved in other countries as a problem are those situations that are international initiatives. How many countries have to support action against a country to make it a justifiable international initiative?

Scuzzy