Terror plot foiled

I think your putting words in my mouth here. Obviously, I do not believe people should be imprisoned for life for stealing an orange or something. I do beleive however that there should be a punishment significant enough for an individual to never commit a crime again. I wish this could be a simple repremandment, but Humans are fundamentally evil creatures and strong punishments need to be taken to deter law breakers from offending again.

Now I would not call Stalin a righteous Ruler because:

- He is a Communist which is just as bad as Nazism - Nazis want to commit Genocide and terror, so do Communists with their elimniation of the "Bourgeoise."

-Stalin murdered innocents (eg. "Kulaks") and is therefore NOT A RIGHTEOUS RULER. IF he was just dealing out harsh punishments to those who deserved it, then yes I would call him a Righteous Ruler.

 

Jeez. Sorry I couldn't remember the name of the place at that moment in time. Iraq Massacre would have souded better than "that massacre."

This is how the left are responsible:

Liberal News (eg. Washington Post, NY Times, The GUARDIAN (UK)) are ideologically driven. They over publicise Haditha, Abu Graib and Gitmo. Also, Recently Liberals have went mental over British soldiers rightly beating up Iraqi students who were throwing stones at their base. Now the Iraqis are feeling discontent as the act of stone throwing is not actually mentioned so much. Iraqis believe the students were beat up for nothing. Iraqis throw stones and hurl insults at innocent soldiers. Soldiers become discontent and take out their anger. It is just like VIETNAM! (Now if the Massacre did indeed take place, then obviously the Soldiers actions are not justifed).

 

You seem pretty uninformed on the subject, seeing that you apparantly link British soldiers "beating up" Iraqi students as some sort of proof to American soldiers killing Iraqi civilians over a roadside bomb.

Two completely different cases.

...

The Haditha massacre (allegedly) was a vengeful action by US soldiers after one of theirs was killed by a roadside bomb. Now, unless the Liberal Media planted the bomb, or ordered the American soldiers to attack the civilians, then I can not see how they are at fault. The insurgency cannot trace it roots or tap its energy from the Liberal Media either - these are hardcore Muslim militants.

"Overpublicising" an event afterwards is not the same as making the event occur. When it comes to media (of all types) overpublicising certain stories, well Zhukov hit the nail on the head in his post.

You have not presented proof to how the "Left" is responsible for the alleged Haditha massacre, all you have done is compare Iraq to Vietnam to try to make some sort of point. Was it the Left that lost Vietnam, or the faulty doctrine and the way it was waged? Either way, it was started by a Democratic president and ended by a Republican!

 

Back on topic the accused are innocent. I think everyone who has heard of the thing should be aware of, they are innocent!!!!!!

 

Innocent of what? Massacring defenseless civilians? AFAIK, that is still under debate...

 

I think this is a whole different debate in itself, and I do not agree with you that humans are fundamentally evil. Good and evil are completely human inventions; humans themselves cannot be either, because the concept does not exist beyond them. Nothing is good or evil unless we call and consider it so. The only thing you can say is that to you, what humans fundamentally are and do is evil, but it is your judgment, and it says nothing about human nature. No subjective appraisal in human terms can do so.

Besides, you are being quite contradictory. You said in your previous post that "evil people deserve to be terrified". Yet now you say all human beings are essentially evil. Should all human beings be perpetually terrified? I would not like to live in such a society, would you?

Zhukov: what I meant was that the US does not have any party representing the Left of the political spectrum, even though one party is indeed further to the left than the other.

 

OK, I can see why you do not understand. I will explain. Humans are fundamentally evil - contradicting what Marx said. Humans are animals also and it is instinct to be absorbed in the self in order to survive. This creates inefficient struggle which is in the end counter productive. Some people have evolved beyond the self seeking and incompassionate instincts which has made them good people. These individuals are willing to work together without questioning authourity. However Evil still remains and can be tempted to resurface by primitive instinct - in order to prevent this, law breakers must be made an example of. Indeed this means that all the population should be terrified to break laws. They should be terrified to commit acts of evil. Whats wrong with that? And if they dont commit acts of evil on account of being afraid to do so, what is there to be afraid of? Fear dissolves into a respect for authority and the desire to contribute to the community. The Aim is to create more morality and cooperation, by supressing devolutionaries.

 

1. Who did they massacre name 1 person, oh wait they didnt kill anyone
2. In Canada you are innocent until proven guilty, therefore they are still innocent and so are the guys at Guantanimo.


I agree with Roel there is no good or evil. I could consider you evil for saving someones life, but how is that evil? Well it dosent exhist.

 

Gunter, are you talking about Guantanamo or Haditha? I was referring to the latter. If you have properly read what I have written, I have used the word "allegedly" in the context of that incident.

Picture of dead people at Haditha [GRAPHIC]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Secti ... andard.jpg

 

I don't think he said it did not exist, I think he was saying that the definition of evil is subjective... but then, I could be wrong.

 

Exactly. Good and evil do exist, but only as human interpretations of reality. Therefore humans can judge each other as being good or evil but they cannot be good or evil in nature.

El Pablo: the world you describe is a world of mindless conformity. I do agree that there should be respect for authority but it should not be through fear but through trust.

 

I would prefer a trustful society also, but there will always be an individual to take advantage of trust. As Longinus said, humans are slaves to avarice.

 

Yes, sorry Panzerman I beleive we were talking about two different things. I was keeping with original content of the topic, thought you were too.

 

You are generalizing. Your conception of leftism is not necessarily the "correct" one. if you wish to give example of what constititutes leftist principles( in it's generally accepted definition) and then point out differences bewteen those principles and what the American left espouses please do so.
I would maintain that there are not significant differences philosophically between European leftists and American leftists.

Belief in the desirabilty of a strong welfare state; relatively high taxation and a progressive income tax. Belief in a strong central government with control over mucgh of the economy. The redistribution of wealth and income by the government. The erosion of individual liberty in favor of a responsibilty to the collective.
The list goes on and on but I don't think that there are significant, fundamental differences in the way that leftists view these principles be they European or American. They are equally naive and misguided IMO.

 

I think his point is that though they are "compassionate" about the lives lost (for the afore mentioned reasons) they are neutral about assigning blame to the people who did this. I agree with him on this point.

 

There is no difference in media, they pretty much all show the same story except with the same spin. Take example last week when they arrested those guys in Miami. Qoute "muslim extremists", yes religious extrmists but they regualarly read the bible sounds exactly like something a muslin would do.

 

Actually muslims do not reject the Bible. Many passages in the Qu'ran are nearly identical to passages in the Bible and to Muslims" the Qur'an is the last but not the only holy book revealed by Allah to mankind through His messengers.":this quote taken from an Islamic website writing about the Bible.

I agree that there is little difference in the mainstream media, at least in the US. That is because the people making the decisions, who decide what stories are aired are overwhelmingly politically liberal. Poll after poll wherin the political beliefs of reporters and editors are queried have shown that the majority identify with the political left.

 

That's strange... FOX news leads the cable market in the US, ahead of CNN and MSNBC, and they ARE conservative like no other, with idiots such as Bill O'Reilly (No Spin Zone? :roll and the dogmatic bimbo Ann Coulter. I get sick of neocons crying over the neutrality of media in the US while their very own propoganda-machine is destroying that concept at the very moment.

 

My concept of leftism is simply what defines the moderate political left: social democracy. If we compare the Democratic party with, for example, a Dutch party that can be considered truly Leftist such as the Socialist Party, then considerable differences can be found. I agree that the multitude of these differences are gradual instead of principal, but they remain differences that define the Democrats as Progressive Liberal and not as Social Democratic. So does the emphasis of the Democrats on their own Liberal heritage, which is to say their aim for economic liberties and opportunities.

 

Grieg where did I make the mention of Muslims rejecting the Bible? Ow wait i didnt. Plus I talk to Muslims before school since we share the parking lot with the city Mosque.