Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
Since when are Human Rights *ALIEN* to our culture???
Quote:
|
She probably means when they are dictated by an Authority outside our own country.
|
|
*What* "authority" is that? The UN? The EU? The Americans? Al Qaeda???
And if that's what she *meant*, why didn't she say it?
Quote:
|
Unfortunately, the security world doesn't work that way, which is one reason it is shrouded in secrecy. I'm sure if you could find the location of a bomb saving 500 lives, or even 2, by interrogating someone outside of international law, then you wouldn't let your principals become clouded on the issue, but myself and i'm sure others, would.
|
And what guarantees are there that, by breaking our own legal codes, those "500 or even 2" lives would be saved? Answer, none, of course. But every time we take a step down that path *EVERYONE'S* rights are that weakened that little bit more.
Quote:
|
I doesn't get any better i'm afriad. I know it is from a movie, but the saying is an old one, and one i'm sure that a lot of governments swear by: "To protect a nation, and it's freedoms, whatever the cost". It is part of self-preservation, to protect yourself, your family, your city, your country, however you can.
|
And this quote (which I'm sure I've mentioned before!) is not from a movie:
"Those would give up essential liberties for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security" - Benjamin Franklin.
Quote:
|
Of course, this leads to the morality issue, which falls outside of common sense.
|
*WHY* does it "fall outside common sense", though??
Quote:
|
They started this. Way past 9/11 western countries have felt the wrath of islamic fundamentalism. I don't see the US asking to run a miltary base in Saudi Arabia, and getting the permission from the Saudis as declaring war on Islam. I don't see the United Nations partioning Israel in 1948, as a declaration of war on the US' behalf against Islam. They twisted events in history to enhance their view that everyone in the west are persecuting them.
|
I can only presume you didn't watch programmes like Rory Bremner's "Between Iraq and a Hard Place" where it was rather comprehensively pointed out that Islamic hatred of the West has a *long* history, because the West has had a *long history* of strolling into Middle East countries and acting in a high and heavy handed manner.
Quote:
|
Some countries do believe that giving in to terrorists will mean they won't have to face their wrath.
|
Cites?
Quote:
|
While it will lower the priority of attacks against them, I don't think it will absolve them from all blame entirely. So, I think the phrase is an apt description. Why is it offensive? You even said you dont believe in following appeasement.
|
Because the implication is that since *I* won't follow "Western Fundamentalism", I am, somehow, an "Appeaser".
Quote:
|
I don't remember hearing anyone say there was only one way. "You're either with us, or with them", means fighting terrorists metaphorically, not necessarily literally.
|
Read George W Bush's own words on the subject:
"President Bush said Tuesday that there was no room for neutrality in the war against terrorism."
""A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy, a coalition partner must perform," Bush said. "That means different things for different nations. Some nations don't want to contribute troops and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing. ... But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something."
"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/
The clear implication there is not just that they "must do something" but that, to be *part* of the coalition, they must do what the Americans want.
Quote:
|
'Fighting terrorism' means with rockets and guns (Afghanistan), or using political dialogue (Libya). Many don't agree with fighting fire with fire, but they agree something physically as to be done. Not necessarily appeasement, but more like apathy (Which i'm guessing is what you'd do?
|
Oh whoopee! Now I'm not an Appeaser, I'm *Apathetic*! Obviously because I don't agree with "doing something physically" I couldn't give a toss about the people who died...
Quote:
|
Out of curiousity, if you are the US president, how would you of responded after 9/11 against terrorists?
|
You've asked a hypothetical question. You answer it.