This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Now do people see the difference between terrorism and say the war in Iraq?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

Lawz-

ArthurOliver

When are you going to do that miss stroppy trousers?

In the first post.

Is that a Mr Men book?

Reply 21

Person

If you find any unbiased reports then let me know

How are they biased? Would you like to send Ann Coulter and the Hitchen brothers there to wirte something?

Reply 22

ArthurOliver

Lawz-

In the first post.

I've looked again, and I'll ask again that you explain the circumstances of civilian 'deaths' and why those who brought about those 'deaths' are even in Iraq.

Reply 23

Lawz-

Northumbrian

They shot indiscriminately.

a) You dont know that at all
b) Thats not the point - indiscriminate is different to DELIBERATELY killing civilians because that is what you desire.

Northumbrian

You can capture any male Iraqi and call him a suspected militant

So your answer on the evidence is no?

Northumbrian

LMAO I was making the point that your shock was odd because I'm not the only one. It's true because if you look at a map the American sphere of influence is most concentrated in areas of oil and gas wealth. Taleban were invited to Washington pre 911 to discuss an oil pipeline. The US/UK have a history fo economic exploitation in the area, most recently with the Caspian pipeline.

That doesnt prove anything. Anythign at all - the US has oil interests in the ME? Sure. The US invaded a country for oil when they could have gotten it far more easily and cheaply (keep in mind the billions being spent on this war)? Id like some evidence.

Am I to take it that once again you have none?

Northumbrian

Certainly not and this wasn't my intention. I meant I doubt it was the work of a terrorist cell or organisation as such.

Fair enough - you think its Iran why?

Northumbrian

No, I'm trying to say they are the biggest killers on the planet

That simply not true. Try the Congo for one.

Northumbrian

and they do so for their own gain.

Do I have to ask for evidence AGAIN?

Northumbrian

If they don't have to kill people they won't, but if it meant 2 million dead Iraqis to destabalise an enemy and get a puppet regime in, then they're quite happy to do this.

Puppet? Nthmbrn - we have BEEN through this - you have claimed that ISOLATED discrepencies in the voting means that the entire Iraqi government is somehow a US puppet - yet again - no evidence...

But you concede my point - they dont try to kill innocent people - terrorists do.

Reply 24

Lawz-

Northumbrian

How are they biased? Would you like to send Ann Coulter and the Hitchen brothers there to wirte something?

I hate Anne Coulter - you need to stop confusing me with a far right neo-con.

The Socialist worker has idealogical objections to the war and campaigned against it from the start - they have a political agenda over and above being a news source. I dont trust them for balanced journalism. Call me crazy.

Reply 25

Lawz-

ArthurOliver

I've looked again, and I'll ask again that you explain the circumstances of civilian 'deaths' and why those who brought about those 'deaths' are even in Iraq.

Well - why dont you give me an instance of when the US government has consistently tried to kill as many civilians as possible?

Reply 26

technik

Lawz-

I think this should serve to highlight the points some have made in ther debates we have had on the meaning of terrorism.

Clearly these people had the purpose of killing as many innocent people and as indiscriminently as possible - they TRIED to kill innocents. The contrast with civilian deaths in Iraq couldnt be more stark.

generally, and probably always, the aim of the military is NOT to target civilians and often its avoided by all means necessary.

then we have fanatics planting bombs on buses and trains that only target civilians, and indiscriminately, and we see the real face.

Reply 27

Lawz-

technik

A distinction seemingly lost on some on this board

Reply 28

ArthurOliver

Lawz-

Well - why dont you give me an instance of when the US government has consistently tried to kill as many civilians as possible?

It's for you to explain how the civilian 'deaths' you talk about came about, for you to explain why these (25,000) civilian 'deaths' are more acceptable morally, than the (50) killed today.

When we know how the civilian 'deaths' you talk about came about, we can begin to make judgements. Clue keywords: bombs civilians terror shock awe

Reply 29

zeek

Lawz-

Intuitively most people believe that wanting to kill civilians is more immoral than killing them as a consequence of pursuing some other objective. Indeed some may say the objective in Iraq morally justifies the death of civilians.

However it is interesting that our law on murder has developed in such a way as not to make this distinction. (Nedrick/Woolin). The fact that this has happened leads me to believe that the difference is not as stark as you suggest.

Ultimately the difference doesn't lie so much in the intent but more in the justification.

In my opinion the indiscriminate killing of civilians can never be justified just as torture cannot be. The consequential loss of civilian life may be justified depending on the purpose of the millitary action (state or terrorist) and proportionality.

As for Iraq I don't believe the millitary action was justified but then that's just my opinion.

President Bush in his interview with Trevor McDonald said 'I'd rather we fought the terrorists in Iraq than the US'. This implies that in his opinion there is a hierarchy of value of human life. US civilians are more important than Iraqi ones.

Although I don't agree with equating the terrorist acts today with millitary action in Iraq, Western countries have a history of undervaluing life in non-western countries. That is cause for concern.

Reply 30

material breach

Terrorists while using totally dispicable means to target innocents are only able to kill small numbers in any one go intermitantly.

Nation states acting in Iraq while not targetting innocents have managed to kill large number of innocents repeatedly.

Yes there is a clear difference, what was your point?

Reply 31

Lawz-

ArthurOliver

It's for you to explain how the 'civilian deaths' you talk about came about, for you to explain why these (25,000) civilian 'deaths' are more acceptable morally, than the (50) killed today.

When we know how the civilian 'deaths' you talk about came about, we can begin to make judgements. Clue keywords: bombs civilians terror shock awe

Not at all... I dont have to do any such thing. There is no evidence to think that the US wants to kill as many civilians as possible...

How do we know that? Because there arent tens of millions of them dead. If it was US government policy to try and kill as many civilians as they could, the holocaust would look pretty paltry.

its for YOU to show that they do so... I dont think you understand the concept of evidentiary burden.

Reply 32

Vienna

material breach

That there is a clear difference.

Out of interest, are we in any way responsible for the attacks today?

Reply 33

Person

b) Thats not the point - indiscriminate is different to DELIBERATELY killing civilians because that is what you desire.

You are saying I wish the USA to deliberately kill civilians so I can berate them about it?

So your answer on the evidence is no?

As I said the whole male population of Iraq can be called suspected militants. Again, it's not really the point if you deplore torture wherever it happens.

You really think that after demonising Saddam, imposing no fly zones and killing 500 000 Iraqi children it would have been feasible for the US to start negotiating with him? The whole point of the aggressive policy towards Iraq was because he started making anti-Israeli threats. They would be back to square one if they started trading with him.

Fair enough - you think its Iran why?

Iran is on the top of the agenda at Gleneagles tomorrow. Ahmadinejad has recently won the election meaning the hardcore Khomeinis have total power. They want to say to the Britain, that Iran is no Iraq and if you side with the US in a war on Iran we will bring the war to your country. This is just a taster of our capability. I don't believe a small terrorist cell could have committed more than one bomb in London. There is also a opposition demonstration in Edinburgh tomorrow and Iran has a record of exporitng terrorism.

That simply not true. Try the Congo for one.

US Capitalism kills more than anyone.

you have claimed that ISOLATED discrepencies in the voting means that the entire Iraqi government is somehow a US puppet - yet again - no evidence...

52% is the turnout figure. 58% in Iraq and 30% outside. I find this very strange to start with. Also all the other discepencies in the election I've mentioned, but not just that. The majority of the deputies were elected on an anti-occupation ticket. Yet they do nothing to end it. Also this from Iraqi exile Sami Ramadani in the Guardian recently

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1521384,00.html

But you concede my point - they dont try to kill innocent people - terrorists do.

I've never argued agains this. I've argued against this fact being used to say Islamic terrorism is worse than bush/blair terrorism.

I hate Anne Coulter.

She is a total bitch isn't she?

dont trust them for balanced journalism. Call me crazy.

Ok, don;t trust them. This article could have appeared anywhere. This is from an IRAQI doctor.

Reply 34

material breach

Vienna

That there is a clear difference.

Out of interest, are we in any way responsible for the attacks today?

Well since we dont actually know who carried them out yet for sure it seems abit early to say.

Reply 35

Person

We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording.

IraqBodyCount

Reply 36

Lawz-

zeek

Indeed - some might claim more lives will be saved in the long run - but it is a question of means... I make no judgement on the ends sought.

zeek

However it is interesting that our law on murder has developed in such a way as not to make this distinction. (Nedrick/Woolin). The fact that this has happened leads me to believe that the difference is not as stark as you suggest.

Lol - yes - 1st year criminal law. As you will find out in jurisprudence - the law and morality are not the same thing. Additionally - those that allow degrees of murder (as the UK may) will make the distinction between desire and objective intent.

zeek

Ultimately the difference doesn't lie so much in the intent but more in the justification.

No it lies in the purpose for the acts. Ie to kill civilians or not.

zeek

In my opinion the indiscriminate killing of civilians can never be justified just as torture cannot be.

I disagree - though I think in the long run it isnt the best approach. However the notion that such acts are absolutely wrong looks odd when you think up certain hypotheticals.

zeek

The consequential loss of civilian life may be justified depending on the purpose of the millitary action (state or terrorist) and proportionality.

As said - I am distinguishing on means not ends.

zeek

President Bush in his interview with Trevor McDonald said 'I'd rather we fought the terrorists in Iraq than the US'. This implies that in his opinion there is a hierarchy of value of human life. US civilians are more important than Iraqi ones.

I dont think thats what he meant - but I take the point. Im not a Bush fan though.

zeek

Although I don't agree with equating the terrorist acts today with millitary action in Iraq, Western countries have a history of undervaluing life in non-western countries. That is cause for concern.

It is indeed, but I think it is largely becoming historic - not entirely -but we certainly take more notice of deaths in other countries than most ME countries do...

Who does most of the peacekeeping worldwide?