Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Then why is every Muslim condemnation of terrorism followed by a "but, Israel is worse" or "but, we do the same in Iraq", or any other "but"?
    Thats not to say that one is less wrong than the other. 2 wrongs don't make a right. They probably say this, because there are more deaths of innocent people in them two situations than there is, when combining all the deaths caused by terrorist acts.


    (Original post by Bismarck)
    But it's only 9 PM.
    If only I was in america :sighs:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spikdboy)
    I don't see how that leads to more fighting?

    If there's a gang of teenagers that keep on graffiti-ing my store, and I take them somewhere quiet and kill them, no more graffiti. Of course, that might not be the right way to deal with it (and it is an extreme example).
    You said crime in your earlier post. It is clear if you use criminal methods to fight crime, your method is a crime in itself therefore the more you fight crime using that method the more crime there is. How can you not follow this logic.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with your idea of 'using criminal methods to fight criminals propogates more criminal activity' is only conclusive to a democratic state. For example, it is widely accepted by academics that authoritarian regimes are able to deal with terrorism far easier than democratic regimes. Using things such as torture, executions and other unsavoury tactics actually works and works well.These methods however would not be acceptable to western democratic audience.

    You said crime in your earlier post. It is clear if you use criminal methods to fight crime, your method is a crime in itself therefore the more you fight crime using that method the more crime there is. How can you not follow this logic.
    It would not be a crime if it was sanctioned by the state within its own borders, in authoritarian regimes for example.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It would not be a crime if it was sanctioned by the state within its own borders, in authoritarian regimes for example.
    Is that why Milosevic is being tried for war crimes? It remains a crime, regardless of whether or not the state sanctions it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Not neccessarily, it only becomes a crime if the west through the UN decides to pursue it. There are plenty of other dictators through the years that have gotten away with crimes almost paramount to genocide. Milosevic was just one of many that assumed the west wouldnt intervene. Considering how weak the west and the un was to respond to genocide in Rhwanda its no suprise really.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    Is that why Milosevic is being tried for war crimes? It remains a crime, regardless of whether or not the state sanctions it.
    He's being tried for war crimes because his country lost a war. I don't see Yeltsin being tried for war crimes against the Chechens.

    (Original post by Viper)
    Thats not to say that one is less wrong than the other. 2 wrongs don't make a right. They probably say this, because there are more deaths of innocent people in them two situations than there is, when combining all the deaths caused by terrorist acts.
    If the fate of Palestinians or Iraqis is more important to them than the fate of their countrymen, why don't they move to Iraq or Palestine?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    If the fate of Palestinians or Iraqis is more important to them than the fate of their countrymen, why don't they move to Iraq or Palestine?
    Since when is one life more important than another?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    Since when is one life more important than another?
    Since the beginning of time. Let me guess, the life of bin Laden is as important to you as that of your parents? The life of some stranger in Angola is as important to you as the life of your friends?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Since the beginning of time. Let me guess, the life of bin Laden is as important to you as that of your parents? The life of some stranger in Angola is as important to you as the life of your friends?
    Thats not what you were saying though is it? You were implying that the life of a Briton is more important that the life of a Palestinian..
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    Thats not what you were saying though is it? You were implying that the life of a Briton is more important that the life of a Palestinian..
    It better be to a citizen of Britain, just like the life of a Palestinian is more important to a Palestinian.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    It better be to a citizen of Britain, just like the life of a Palestinian is more important to a Palestinian.
    So you are saying that one life of an american citizen who lives miles away from you and you dont know him whatsoever is more important than the life of a palestinian who also lives miles away and you dont know him/her whatsoever...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    So you are saying that one life of an american citizen who lives miles away from you and you dont know him whatsoever is more important than the life of a palestinian who also lives miles away and you dont know him/her whatsoever...
    Yes, because we are both citizens of a country to which we are both loyal.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Alexdel are you trying to be obtuse? What he is saying is that those you feel some sort of cultural/social or ethnic bond with usually mean more to you than someone in a distant country that you have never met.

    At least i hope thats what he's saying....if not i best get my coat
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by halloweenjack)
    Alexdel are you trying to be obtuse?
    Don't worry; he's made a career out of it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Yes, because we are both citizens of a country to which we are both loyal.
    So that is how you go around the world preaching democracy? So if a decision on whose sacrifice is needed between the death of the local citizens or the fatalities of the american soldiers then the former should be sacrificed in order to achieve the goal?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by halloweenjack)
    Alexdel are you trying to be obtuse? What he is saying is that those you feel some sort of cultural/social or ethnic bond with usually mean more to you than someone in a distant country that you have never met.

    At least i hope thats what he's saying....if not i best get my coat
    So tell us then...New York is more similar to London or some place in the red states in the US?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    So that is how you go around the world preaching democracy? So if a decision on whose sacrifice is needed between the death of the local citizens or the fatalities of the american soldiers then the former should be sacrificed in order to achieve the goal?
    Who said preaching democracy requires war? And in a scenario where either American soldiers or foreign civilians had to die, I would certainly hope for the latter. If all people in a country decide to adopt your attitude of apathy towards their countrymen, how long do you think it will take before their country gets conquered?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If it suits the strategic goals of the campaign yes.....

    You have to remember that since vietnam the public of democracies are not willing to accept huge body counts anymore. So, leaders have to be mindful of that and use local troops as much as possible or for example in kosovo, use a **** load of air power. Its one of the fundamental reasons that the usa is so far ahead in air power technology.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Who said preaching democracy requires war?
    Tell that to Mr.Bush..

    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And in a scenario where either American soldiers or foreign civilians had to die, I would certainly hope for the latter. If all people in a country decide to adopt your attitude of apathy towards their countrymen, how long do you think it will take before their country gets conquered?
    So you do agree then that the Iraqis who are fighting the US forces are doing the right thing?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexdel)
    So tell us then...New York is more similar to London or some place in the red states in the US?
    Britain will not necessarily fight for my country if it was ever attacked, nor does it contribute towards my country's economic well-being. I do not get to vote in Britain's elections, and I am not able to influence its economic and political systems. If it doesn't have my loyalty, nor does it have an obligation towards me, why should I consider it as highly as my own country?
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.