Thread: Why Terrorism Exists

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I don't agree--one thing; oil.

What makes you so sure it is that and nothing else? Do you deny that the Hussein regime violated our ceasefire for 12 years? Do you deny that they were a terrorist government? Do you deny that they had used WMD's in a terrorist attack? Do you deny that they had a history of WMD programs? Do you deny that six governments and the United Nations gave us intelligence that the Hussein regime had stockpiles of WMD's (Consider that in light of everything else I said.)? NONE of that had anything to do with the decision to overthrow the regime? What makes you so sure?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

You believe that? That's like saying I'll protect my house from burning down by setting a fire in the woods.

Why? The roach motel is killing them like roaches, and the fact that they are engaging in terrorism proves that they had it in them in the first place. The more of them we kill, the better. People with that tendency have dangerous potential. We are killing them in Iraq as they make road side bombs and shoot rockets instead of waiting on them to come up with whatever excuse to be part of a major terrorist attack with WMD's or passenger airplanes or something later. I think it is a brilliant idea.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

They have rule about where people can live, where they can work, and who they can marry based on religion. Is that not a theocracy?

No, but it is some steps in that direction. They have a democratic system with some silly religious rules. The U.S. has some of those too, just not to as much of an extent.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Oh, how about a little not trading with them? If all of the free world did it together, they would feel it. How about radio and TV broadcasts, letting them see how free people live? How about the internet, and not letting companies like Yahoo turn in the names of dissidents to their governments, like in China?

Let's put it in the context of Sudan since they are the epitome of a country that could presently benefit by being liberated. We can liberate Sudan and stop the genocide taking place there by not trading with them, broadcasting television and radio shows there and showing them how free people live, using the internet (To do what?), and not letting Yahoo and others turn in the names of dissidents? That will do the trick? I don't get it.

I think that plan would do absolutely nothing but hurt the people economically even more and rub it in their faces that they are not free. How would we set up television and radio broadcasts there without invading? Who would stop the government from stopping the transmissions of the broadcasts? What would the people do with knowledge of how free people live, if they don't have that knowledge already? Why do you think that would get the job done?

Originally Posted by R.D.735

Here is a case where preventing death takes precedence over promoting freedom. I'm guessing the entire disagreement lies in the degree to which innocent lives can be sacrificed for the greater good.

My position on this matter is that the only life we have the right to sacrifice is our own. We have no right to decide that it is just to kill one group of innocents to save another, because we cannot judge the value of an innocent life. Those who initiate wars make the choice of sacrificing innocents to serve others, and are in the wrong.

Remember that we are talking about the unintentional killing of civilians in the crossfires. Under your position, war is never ever justifiable because civilians always get killed in the crossfire in wars. The citizen uprising you promoted involves it too.

How do you propose the Nazis should have been handled once they took over all of the countries of Europe they ended up ruling?