Anti-War Demonstration in NYC & around the world - 2/15/03

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 6:32 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
Excellent point Waverly. Even if I have any reservations about the possibility of war, it would not be because of terroristic blackmail.

I dont think that was in question though. It is one thing to submitt (one way or another) to terrorist tactics, Its another thing to not take such actions that will give more people a reason to become terrorists.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 6:56 pm

Originally posted by Dottie
I dont think that was in question though. It is one thing to submitt (one way or another) to terrorist tactics, Its another thing to not take such actions that will give more people a reason to become terrorists.

I am aware that some here may disagree, and I will not debate this issue with anyone. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a reason to become a terrorist.

edit: I wish to clarify something, by reason I mean to say justification I think there may have been some confusion as too my meaning.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:04 pm

My hand aches to reply... are you sure dont want one?

at99 · Post by **at99** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:27 pm

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

Oh why must people always bring Hitler into everything? Hitler was an evil man but his cabinet was just as evil, you can't just blame one man, just as you can't blame just Bush for the current financial situation in the US. There is no comparison to be had between Hitler and Saddam, their situations are completelyerent. Nice use of sweeping generalisations too, I once saw another person posting on the internet with a number in his name, he was a git so I guess you are too

.

Mr Sleep, you called me a git for having another opion to yours, ISNT THIS FLAMING!

Some other peoples opinions I find rather stupid but I am not personally insulting them. It is not as if people here are the actual UN.

I dont get it when these anti-war people are painting the US/UK as bullies and Iraq as the victim.
John Howard and Tony Blair are decent people who would never want war if it was not needed. I trust these people more than bush. This anti-war moverment just seems more of the same 'do nothing' and things will get better.

I can also see that there is a political power play going on in the world now and not a moral debate (from countries opposing the US) about what should be done.

The inspection process was never about finding weapons, they are there to verify the destruction of weapons.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:28 pm

Perhaps you should read his post again?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:36 pm

Originally posted by at99
Mr Sleep, you called me a git for having another opion to yours, ISNT THIS FLAMING!

At99, this is almost comical...mr Sleep emphasise your previous generalisations by examplifying with another generalisation. You take this bait and react as if his generalisation was valid, whereas he used it demonstrate generalisations are not valid.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:37 pm

Originally posted by Dottie
My hand aches to reply... are you sure dont want one?

LOL...you can reply all you want.....*

*..I just meant I was not interested in debating my opinion

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:45 pm

@Scayde: Well, if someone else is interested in a debate I will, but without a dialogue its seems abit pointless to me.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 7:49 pm

Originally posted by at99
I dont get it when these anti-war people are painting the US/UK as bullies and Iraq as the victim.
John Howard and Tony Blair are decent people who would never want war if it was not needed. I trust these people more than bush. This anti-war moverment just seems more of the same 'do nothing' and things will get better.

I cannot speak for other anti-war people, but here on this board I have not seen a single poster claim the US/UK are bullying Iraq, who is a victim. Thus, this seems irrelevant to our discussion here at SYM.

Regardless of what we think of Howard and Blair, "being decent people" is a weak argument pro war. It is also a logical fallacy - it is possible to disagree also with decent people. Decent people are no gods who knows all the truths.

A vast majority of the European anti-war movement certaintly don't support a "do nothing" attitude. Is is another logical fallacy, knows as "false dichotomy" to believe that anti-war means pro-nothing. You must realise there are a vast variety of alternatives except for war and do nothing. The anti-war movement contains a few hardcore pacifists I'm sure, but a large part actually support a UN sanctioned war, and another large part are pro waiting until the inspections are finished before deciding anything at all. So the anti-war movement is rather heterogenous.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 9:59 pm

I don't have time to go through and grab people's quotes, but in general I'm disturbed by the overall apathy and cynicism I've encountered regarding anti-war protests. Not just here on SYM, but from people I know - saying, yeah, go ahead an protest, it won't do any good, never does, war is inevitable. As though war is an earthquake or a hurricane, not something that humans choose to do. Also, I believe that the anti-war movement truly did put an end to the Vietnam War. God knows how long that terrible would have dragged on otherwise...

Anyway, it brought to mind this famous speech (since we're all doing WWII analogies):

"In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew."

"Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist."

"They came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant."

"Then they came for me, and by that time, no one was left to speak up."

Rev. Martin Niemoller
(1892-1984)

It's not totally analogous, but I think it does make clear the importance of protesting.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:02 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
I am aware that some here may disagree, and I will not debate this issue with anyone. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a reason to become a terrorist.

I agree wholeheartedly, Scayde. There is never any justification for terrorism, not in the slightest.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:11 pm

Originally posted by Dottie
@Scayde: Well, if someone else is interested in a debate I will, but without a dialogue its seems abit pointless to me.

True true.

Terrorism, is really a tactic of war, it basically makes the government more willing to bend and all that stuff....its really a vile and evil way to go about war, if war could be more vile, but its true.

While there is no justification for terrorism, there is reason behind it.

at99 · Post by **at99** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:16 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
At99, this is almost comical...mr Sleep emphasise your previous generalisations by examplifying with another generalisation. You take this bait and react as if his generalisation was valid, whereas he used it demonstrate generalisations are not valid.

I dont understand you sorry.

If this sleep guy personally insults by calling me a git then that is flaming.

It is not the job of the inspectors to find WMD but to verify Iraq has destryed them. The UN acknowledges he has WMD. sadam keeps ducking the issue, 12 years and 17 resolution later we are still here.

This scenario is looking like the 'league of nations' for the UN. If they could do a good job it would not be in this mess. Maybe its time to scrap the UN and start again and dont give china,France and russia the majority vote. A weak UN is a weak world.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:19 pm

Originally posted by Tybaltus
True true.

Terrorism, is really a tactic of war, it basically makes the government more willing to bend and all that stuff....its really a vile and evil way to go about war, if war could be more vile, but its true.

While there is no justification for terrorism, there is reason behind it.

Perhaps we can expand that somewhat, to cover this idea: the reason is warped and twisted, and terrorism is normally targeted at the civilian populace for the express purpose of just that: instilling terror.

Guerilla tactics are aimed at military targets, which is another matter entirely. Using lightly armed and covert units is quite different from terrorism.

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:25 pm

Originally posted by Chanak
Perhaps we can expand that somewhat, to cover this idea: the reason is warped and twisted, and terrorism is normally targeted at the civilian populace for the express purpose of just that: instilling terror.

Guerilla tactics are aimed at military targets, which is another matter entirely. Using lightly armed and covert units is quite different from terrorism.

Right. Yep...it IS warped and twisted...very evil.

They are targeting the innocents to create a panic, which acts as a distraction to the military, because not only do you have to cover your enemy, but you have to look within your own borders. So this makes a government, typically, make more desperate moves, or fold easier to the side that is committing terrorism.

Right. I certainly realize this. I was not referring to Guerrilla warfare by any means. Its not nearly as evil.

As you said, theyre targeting the actual foes, while terrorism attacks the people who the foes are fighting for. Completely different, and innocents are killed.

Theres reason, as I said, but the reason is stupid, very evil. No justification.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:56 pm

As far as the distinction between guerilla war or war or terrorism in terms of who is targeted, I see little difference.

War of the 19th century usually consisted of armies marching to a battlefield and duking it out. The villages were left out.

The casualties of war during the 20th & 21st century are predominantly civilians, and even though every government that wages war denies that it targets civilians, the evidence is there, buried in the ground. Think about Hiroshima, Dresden, the population of Vietnam, and other wars (not just US-led) in Chechniya, Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:01 pm

Originally posted by Chanak
There is never any justification for terrorism, not in the slightest.

Sure there is. One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter." The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, yet we consider it a defining moment in the American Revolution (Rebellion to others). The mujihadeen, many of whom are holed up in caves in Afghanistan right now, spent a decade terrorising the Soviets, yet we funded them, trained them, gave them guns, sent them off to die for us and we called them freedom fighters.

What's the difference between George Washington and Jefferson Davis? One man won his war and the other lost. There is a fine line between being a rebel and a revolutionary, and that line is often mired in the gray area of morality and public relations.

I do not understand what would make someone strap a bomb to their body and detonate it in a crowded marketplace or fly a plane into a building full of people. However, I do understand that there are some causes and ideals that make people do things that seem crazy (to me at least), but at the same time, makes them feel heroic.

There are countries in Europe who pride themselves on the accomplishments of their sons and daughters who fought the Nazis as partisans, yet to put a different spin on their actions, they were terrorists. Were they fighting an occupying army? Yes, but oppression wears many faces, and many people in the world believe that the US is that face today.

I have no qualms about using the military to look after the national interests of the United States. I have no qualms about invading another country pre-emptively to eliminate an imminent threat. However, I do not believe that a war in Iraq is in our best interests. I do not believe that the 1990 Gulf War was about anything other than oil. I think if Dubya sends a quarter of a million American soldiers to the middle east, he will send a quarter of a million Muslims into fringe organisations like Al-Qaeda , Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiah.

I think that Dubya's war will turn into a recruiting coup for men like Osama bin Laden and give a generation of disenfranchised Muslims a reason to become freedom fighters . . . er, terrorists.

Audace · Post by **Audace** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:10 pm

Originally posted by Chanak
I agree wholeheartedly, Scayde. There is never any justification for terrorism, not in the slightest.

I don't think you guys would wan't to discuss this, but I really think you shouldn't generalize like this. Freedom fighters have been called terrorist in many occasions. By the Dutch government included. For instance when an 18 year old Palestinian guy blows himself up while there are hundreds of young men and women willing to do the same there is something seriously wrong...And it is to easy to put the label of terrorism on it and discard it as a horrible atrocity that they r commiting. Anyways, it's late I'm drunk, I'll be more eloquent tomorrow so goodnight all!

Audace · Post by **Audace** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:12 pm

sorry HD...missed your reply

Oh...and the ten before that one...

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:56 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Sure there is. One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter." The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, yet we consider it a defining moment in the American Revolution (Rebellion to others). The mujihadeen, many of whom are holed up in caves in Afghanistan right now, spent a decade terrorising the Soviets, yet we funded them, trained them, gave them guns, sent them off to die for us and we called them freedom fighters.

What's the difference between George Washington and Jefferson Davis? One man won his war and the other lost. There is a fine line between being a rebel and a revolutionary, and that line is often mired in the gray area of morality and public relations.

I do not understand what would make someone strap a bomb to their body and detonate it in a crowded marketplace or fly a plane into a building full of people. However, I do understand that there are some causes and ideals that make people do things that seem crazy (to me at least), but at the same time, makes them feel heroic.

There are countries in Europe who pride themselves on the accomplishments of their sons and daughters who fought the Nazis as partisans, yet to put a different spin on their actions, they were terrorists. Were they fighting an occupying army? Yes, but oppression wears many faces, and many people in the world believe that the US is that face today.

I have no qualms about using the military to look after the national interests of the United States. I have no qualms about invading another country pre-emptively to eliminate an imminent threat. However, I do not believe that a war in Iraq is in our best interests. I do not believe that the 1990 Gulf War was about anything other than oil. I think if Dubya sends a quarter of a million American soldiers to the middle east, he will send a quarter of a million Muslims into fringe organisations like Al-Qaeda , Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiah.

I think that Dubya's war will turn into a recruiting coup for men like Osama bin Laden and give a generation of disenfranchised Muslims a reason to become freedom fighters . . . er, terrorists.

A brilliant post, @HLD

Your knowledge and understanding of history, society and the human mind reminds us all of the importance of not only view events from our own tiny points in time and space.