[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

*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?

The EU Court Of Human Rights, obviously. I was going to say so explicitly, but I thought it was obvious so I toned it down a bit.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

None of course, but a country must do everything in its power to defend it's own citizens. People complain about illegal proactive defencing policies (Destroying a plane full of bombers before reaching NY, say), but that's sometimes one of the only ways to protect the right life of your own citizens.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

You don't think he might of been saying that to take the moral high ground? He's hardly gonna say (If he was alive and in power in this day and age): "Any known terrorist caught inside our borders might be tortured for information", would he? Because of the morality issue, this is dealt with in secret.

Originally Posted by Graham

*WHY* does it "fall outside common sense", though??

Because if you can kill 2 suicide bombers in a safe area, rather than let them blow up 500 people, then that makes common sense (sacrificing 2 lives for 500), but doesn't make moral sense.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

I haven't seen it, but I said they take history for justification. But you can't hold people who are alive today responsible for what happened many decades, or hundreds of years ago. By that logic, i'm personally responsibile for the British imperialism during the Empire, am I?

Originally Posted by Graham

Cites?

Well, if I was president of a country, I would for one. I'd be risking bringing a lot of violence on my own country and people by doing X or Y, and is it worth the hassle it would cause? I really doubt that didn't cross all government's minds at some point.

Originally Posted by Graham

Because the implication is that since *I* won't follow "Western Fundamentalism", I am, somehow, an "Appeaser".



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.

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...

That's exactly what he didn't say. I said, you have to do something, not necessarily bombing them, but something, including dialogue, freezing assets, contributing intelligence, arresting suspects, or whatever plan would help suppress/defeat terrorism. Even Dubya said that, as you quoted above. All nations must do SOMETHING. You may care, but if you don't do anything about it, what's the point? You might as well be apathetic. When I said phsyically, I meant some kind of visible action, not necessarily violent (I even cited Libya as an example of dialogue instead of warfare. Time will tell if it worked or not).

Originally Posted by Graham

You've asked a hypothetical question. You answer it.

No, I asked you. You seem to be very good sitting on your armchair telling everyone else what they are doing is wrong (It's also very easy), so I merely asked what would you do if you were in that position. (Which isn't so easy). It is a reasonable enough question. In fact I've already answered it twice on your behalf, and got it wrong.

Originally Posted by BBKing

Who's said this? Names, times, places please. Mind you, what's wrong with understanding the motivation of the people attacking you?

I meant from my own experience of talking with heavy left-wingers, although during the Peace protests, support for Palestine was huge, even among non-muslims. (See www.brain-terminal.com and check the videos). There's nothing wrong understanding the motivation, but what i'm saying is it wont make a blind bit of difference what any American (Especially non-muslim) thinks, or says, the terrorirst want to kill them anyway.

Originally Posted by BBKing

Anyway, Graham's said (as usual) practically everything I wanted to say. Let me just find the other chap who said 'You are either against us or with us'. Oh, it was Stalin.

Quote:
One-party dictatorships define their enemies in terms of those who politically "expressly oppose them"

You are all taking this "With us or against us" a bit too seriously. Bush has already said he doesn't mind if you don't contribute troops, but so long as you do something, anything, be it violent or non violent. If you don't do something, then you are aiding them, by allowing them to flourish when they are under your control. The Taliban wern't ever going to attack the US, but by sheltering Al Qaeda. Terrorist organisations won't grow anywhere near as fast, if there are no countries to let them. Incidently, theres a difference between not doing something, and expressly opposing a country.