General Hawley's Words

[Guest DrTom]

"I (correctly) define Moral realtivism as defining an action by WHO committed it and/or WHY they commited it, either what inspired them or what they are trying to achieve."

 

How is that correct?  Moral relativism happens when people try to relate two disparate incidents on a moral scale.  There's no similarity at all between Al'Qaeda's attacks on us and our responses in Afghanistan, and to say there is makes someone a moral relativist.  Which leads to...

 

"Now there is no differance (accept on scale of course) between the USA bombing Serbia TV Station or a Tailban Army Barracks and the attacks on World Trade Centre and the Pentagon."

 

There is a huge difference, even when you ignore scale.  The Pentagon and WTC attacks were specifically designed to kill as many innocent civilians as possible.  There is no other reason, and no "yes, but" applies.  The planes were fully-fueled, packed with civilians, and flown directly at populated buildings.  The USA bombing a Taliban army barracks isn't even remotely similar.  We're not targeting civilians, and we're not looking to kill civilians just to make some kind of point.  It's an *army* barracks, which makes it a viable military target in times of war.  On a moral scale, what they did was totally reprehensible, and what we did was responsible.  Not even close, and trying to make a connection leads to moral relativism.

 

"Now you could say what Al'Queada did is different as their terrorists but that is defining Sept 11th by those who did it..."

 

No, it's different because they tried to kill as many innocent Americans as possible.  That's the important point here, and I really don't see why you're not grasping it.

 

"besides if you accept the idea of "state terrorism" then you can't exclude the possiblity that America is commiting terrorism."

 

They knew we were coming.  We gave them explicit demands for the release of a terrorist and war criminal, and they chose to bury their heads in the sand.  Oh well.  They deserve the thrashing we've given them so far, and I have not one ounce of pity for anyone over there.

 

"However you do support what can only be defined as Ethnic Cleasning in Israel/ Palenstine (Ethnic Cleasning being defined as forcing people to move from an area becuase of their ethnic group)"

 

I always thought ethic cleansing meant committing genocide on a particular group because of who they are.  Things must be defined differently in England.  Anyway, I support Israel evicting the Palestinians because of the Palestinians' history of frequent acts of terrorism.  Given that history, and Arafat's refusal to cooperate with any of the peace efforts, I say throw out that worthless lot and let a country that actually wants them take them in.  The fact that we can still talk about Palestinians in the present tense is a testament to the patience of Israel, whether or not you like Sharon.

 

"Now I am not saying these actions are right/wrong, nor I'm a saying the the American action and the other's actions are the same..."

 

You're not?  Look at a few of your quotes that I used above.  In fact, you're even getting into moral relativism by your own flawed definition by saying what you jkust said.

 

"Now onto those who go "Sept 11th was terrible but..." now unless they actively say that the causes or subjects they give vindcate what Al'Queada did then are not moral realtivists, indeed they are moral absoultists..."

 

It's "relativist" and "absolutist," two very important philosophical terms.  Anyway, anyone who says the line of pap you cited is indeed a moral relativist.  They're trying to absolve Al'Qaeda of their despicable actions by making some spurious claims as to America's supposed corruption in some areas, or the (totally false) peaceful nature of Islam and Muslims, etc etc.  Sound familiar?  Besides, Will, if you can say "But," then by definition, it's not an absolute.

 

I don't feel like pulling quotes out of the rest of your post, so I'll say this: We have proof positive that Usama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 attacks.  Yes, it's possible to quibble over the execution of the war on terror, but I think the President and his advisors know what they're doing moreso than a bunch of civilians trying to argue about it.

 

(Edit: fixed some late-night typos)

[Guest muzanisa]

Pim Fortuyn was an oppurtunist politician using fear of the other to gain support.

 

Chirac is still a force in France, a member of G8 and as much as he denies it a facist.

 

In the last year I've read in Domestic newspapers about the rise of the far right. I've also read about it in Time and Newsweek quite big articles I recycle but I could always go to the library and track down the specific issues.

I get my information from History books,text books, newspapers and magazines. I listen to BBC news and check statistics and polls as part of a part time job. But of course I'm uninformed because they are all tools of the liberal elite.

 

My friend who had the BMW, dresses exactly how he is, a sucessful businessman, nice suits and shirts polished shoes, short hair and inconspicious jewellery. He drives very well doesn't speed and castigated me when I had one Guiness when I was driving.

I am covered in tattoos dress in combat or leather trousers, t-shirts and loud mambo shirts, have long hair and frequently a beard, have been told by several people that I look like the ultimate stoner, drive a VW camper van and have been stopped twice in five years.

 

The stopping at airports thing I can see where you're coming from as long as it's not abused. Although what is likely to happen is terrorists will use unknowing mules to carry out their attacks as they tried with that Irish Woman a few years back. I can't remember any Arab Nation or Muslim leader condoning the events of 9/11, some were downright offensive in what they said Gadaffi and Hussein spring to mind and there were the pictures of people celebrating in the Middle East but you seem to be condeming about one billion people out of a population of six billion because of  what you saw and read in the aftermath of a traumatic event.

Maybe you should take the blinkers off and try and see the bigger picture rather than accuse everyone else of being wrong.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<Pim Fortuyn was an oppurtunist politician using fear of the other to gain support.>>>

 

 

No, Pim was the rare European politician who would state that perhaps open immigration is NOT in Europe's best interests.

 

 

<<<Chirac is still a force in France, a member of G8 and as much as he denies it a facist.>>>

 

 

Until France becomes Facist, then whether or not he IS a facist is quite irrelevant. He has, thus far, shown no inclination towards facism as France seems more anxious than most to join the EU (which is a horribly flawed political body, but that's an argument for another time).

 

 

<<<In the last year I've read in Domestic newspapers about the rise of the far right. I've also read about it in Time and Newsweek quite big articles I recycle but I could always go to the library and track down the specific issues.>>>

 

 

And what do they define as far right? Pim Fortuyn was labeled as "far right" and he CLEARLY was not far right. Newt Gingrich was labeled as far right here and he was far from that as well.

 

Heck, people call Bush far right and he's not even close.

 

 

<<<I get my information from History books,text books, newspapers and magazines. I listen to BBC news and check statistics and polls as part of a part time job. But of course I'm uninformed because they are all tools of the liberal elite.>>>

 

 

No---but to ignore that the press is liberal and that agendas are pushed all over the place is naivete.

 

 

<<<My friend who had the BMW, dresses exactly how he is, a sucessful businessman, nice suits and shirts polished shoes, short hair and inconspicious jewellery. He drives very well doesn't speed and castigated me when I had one Guiness when I was driving.>>>

 

 

Then he was an unfortunate victim. Such is life.

 

 

<<<I am covered in tattoos dress in combat or leather trousers, t-shirts and loud mambo shirts, have long hair and frequently a beard, have been told by several people that I look like the ultimate stoner, drive a VW camper van and have been stopped twice in five years.>>>

 

 

Then you're lucky.

 

 

<<<The stopping at airports thing I can see where you're coming from as long as it's not abused. Although what is likely to happen is terrorists will use unknowing mules to carry out their attacks as they tried with that Irish Woman a few years back. I can't remember any Arab Nation or Muslim leader condoning the events of 9/11, some were downright offensive in what they said Gadaffi and Hussein spring to mind and there were the pictures of people celebrating in the Middle East but you seem to be condeming about one billion people out of a population of six billion because of  what you saw and read in the aftermath of a traumatic event.>>>

 

 

And I will condemn the heck out of them for what they did and what they support.

 

 

<<<Maybe you should take the blinkers off and try and see the bigger picture rather than accuse everyone else of being wrong. >>>

 

 

Maybe you should stop assuming that whites want nothing more than to oppress all people and that the Arab countries---decades of experience notwithstanding---are actually peace-loving.

                   -=Mike

[Guest Vyce]

"Or what about the Dialo case..."

 

If you're a policeman and you think someone is pulling a gun on you, are you going to do nothing until you're really sure it's a gun?  If so, you're not going to live very long.  It's very hard for civilians to criticize the police in a lot of cases, since we don't do their jobs and our day-to-day decisions rarely mean life or death for ourselves and others.

 

Sorry I missed this little tidbit.

 

I'd just like to throw out a little bit of opinion on the Diallo death - the cops were justified in their reaction.

 

What?!  I know, shocking to some of you.

 

I say this because I took some police training, as well as studied the administration of justice in college, and police officers are taught that when they shoot, they are to shoot to KILL.

 

Not wound, to KILL.

 

Most times, cops don't even have to draw weapons, but if they do, they are trained to use them to deal out lethal force.  Furthermore, cops are trained to shoot a suspect "center mass", in the chest, to ensure that their target is incapacitated (i.e. mortally wounded) so as not to injure the officer or a civilian.

 

Now, with the Diallo case, there were other factors to consider (there always are), but really, the cops unloading into Diallo until he looked like swiss cheese.....it wasn't racism.  It was responding to a very real threat - even if after the fact it turned out to be a wallet instead of a firearm - with the training they were given.

[Guest Ripper]

It would help if they didn't ask for Id and then shoot him when he went for it.  I'm not sure it was racism...but if one cop shoots, the others will start shooting and you end up with holey man.  

 

I still can't see how people can say the cops were justified when a innocent man was shot over 40 times for getting his wallet.  They overreacted.

[Guest Ripper]

in defense of the cops in the rodney king beating, dude had got shocked with a taser twice, peppersprayed by 4 people, and was still standing up coming at them.  Cops know the signs of "super-addict" and kept beating him until he went down and let them cuff him.  I am happy that something brought police brutality to the limelight(around that time, cops were beating blacks like it was a new sport) but I really wish it had been one of the thousands of other blacks around the country that were innocent getting brutilized that would have gotten the limelight, not a hopped up drug addict driving 120 in a residential area.  

 

And Mike, am I to understand that Black people should have to where suits and ties everywhere they go or they deserve to be treated as a criminal. I'm sure thats not what you mean, but it certainly reads that way.  You know how you have to right to wear what you want, be confortable and all...then why shouldn't black people have that right. I am still wondering what this "thug" look is you keep refering too.  And don't go the easy route and say, you're blind if you don't see it, I really want to know, what are you talking about.  

 

As for the racial profiling thing.  Look at it like this.  A group of 5 white men who have been taking flight lessons without learning to land and have only one way tickets and no luggage would be able to get on a plane easier than a young arab american family man.  How can you not see this as a dangerous practice.  There are signs that someone might be planning to do harm...If a person has done anything to warrent the suspision of it, the watch them like a hawk, rather they be a arab, old nun, or a group of freakin boy scouts.  But when the "suspisious" behaviour consist of..oh...I don't know...having arab parents...then maybe it is getting a little out of hand.  

 

I am also getting tired of people saying that people like me are "Worried about offending the terroist"..  That is a ignorant bunch of shit.  I am worried about offending the millions of Arab ameicans that aren't terrorist.. I am worried about how quickly racial profiling is being justified when blacks and hispanics have been trying for so long to overcome it...now its starting to look like people are calling for racial profiling to be implimented legally.

[Guest DrTom]

"A group of 5 white men who have been taking flight lessons without learning to land and have only one way tickets and no luggage would be able to get on a plane easier than a young arab american family man."

 

There's a flaw in your reasoning there.  When you're going thru airport security, the fact that you may have taken flight lessons sans landings isn't taken into account.  There's no way for their airport security folks to know that.  A one-way ticket and no luggage should send up a flag, but if it's a short flight, a clever person could explain it away.  

 

Anyone who takes flight lessons without learning to take off and land should immediately be investigated.  That's not something that can be done from the airport, though.  Maybe the new Homeland Security Office can be useful here, instead of being the dog and pony show I think it will be.

[Guest]

A group of 5 white men who have been taking flight lessons without learning to land and have only one way tickets and no luggage would be able to get on a plane easier than a young arab american family man.

 

C'mon, man...  Are you freakin' serious?  If someone had that information you seriously think they'd let those guys get on a plane.  I think there are a lot of morons in this country, but I think they'd be smart enough to notice something that obvious.  

 

 

An aside: Tom, I was wondering if you had a link to the General Hawley speech.  I'd like to refer some friends to it.

[Guest Ripper]

Your missing what I am saying.  Mike and Tom seem(and I could be wrong here, correct me if I am) that since teenagers, whites, blacks or whoever aren't the ones that attacked us recently, they shouldn't be scruinized as much as young arab men.  In my example, the group of white men are obviously appear to be alot more threatning in the arab american, yet using alot of you guys logic, the white men don't fit the "arab men 27-49" description therefore should have to be put through the extra search while the arab family man should.  My point is that using this type of logic is dangerous, and in my opinion ignorant.  Evil resides in every race, not one more than another.  If extra scrutiny is what you want, fine, but limiting it to one race just is very very dumb.  

 

Yeah Tom, I know that they wouldn't be able to tell a diffence there, and I agree that if anyone exhibits any of those things, they should be looked into...not only if they are arab, which it appears far too many people seem to be all for.  All profiling is not racial profiling.  All those thing fit the profile of someone up to no good, check them out.  I am against profiling due to RACE only...and basically, that is what a lot of people on this thread seem to be supporting.

[Guest]

The problem is most of it isn't racial profiling.  It's just "regular" profiling in which the people who fit the profiles for terrorists just happen to all be Arab.  Now I know you're not going to believe that but that's honestly the way it is.  

 

Here's a hypothetical analogy for this...  

 

Let's say there's a town of one hundred people.  12 of them are black, 3 of them are Mexican, and the remaining 85 are white.  Let's say every single person speeds in their cars.  That means that 85 percent of people who speed are white.  Since you argue that we shouldn't just pull them over because their white (even though I think we should) the police will have to find other reasons to pull them over.  I am sure the police would be able to do this... but 85 percent of the people pulled over will STILL be white.  Someone like you would come along and say, "Well there's no way that 85 percent of a population can break the law so there must be racism."

[Guest DrTom]

"Tom, I was wondering if you had a link to the General Hawley speech."

 

Sorry, it was sent to me in email, so I don't have a link.  Google could probably uncover one for you, though.  I'm sure someone has put it on a website by now.

[Guest DrTom]

"Mike and Tom seem(and I could be wrong here, correct me if I am) that since teenagers, whites, blacks or whoever aren't the ones that attacked us recently, they shouldn't be scruinized as much as young arab men."

 

That's precisely what I'm saying.  Focus on the people you know are more likely to be threats.  Terrorists fit a profile, which happens to be the racial profile of Arab males from about 18-45.  If terrorists fit the non-racial profile of people who wore top hats, wife-beater shirts, and clown shoes, then I'd be in favor of focusing on people who fit that description.  It's a reasonable safety precaution.

 

"In my example, the group of white men are obviously appear to be alot more threatning in the arab american, yet using alot of you guys logic, the white men don't fit the "arab men 27-49" description therefore should have to be put through the extra search while the arab family man should."

 

Your example is flawed, as I pointed out not long ago.  There's no way for the airport security folks to have that level of knowledge about any potential passenger.  Investigating people with suspicious and dubious training in flight schools is the job of the FBI.  Some of them, in fact, wanted to look more closely at a few of the scum who were involved in 9/11, but higher-ups decided not to, so as to avoid offending anyone.

 

It positively warms my heart to know that 3000 Americans died because we didn't want to risk offending a bunch of terrorists.

[Guest Ripper]

The problem is most of it isn't racial profiling.  It's just "regular" profiling in which the people who fit the profiles for terrorists just happen to all be Arab.  Now I know you're not going to believe that but that's honestly the way it is.  

 

Here's a hypothetical analogy for this...  

 

Let's say there's a town of one hundred people.  12 of them are black, 3 of them are Mexican, and the remaining 85 are white.  Let's say every single person speeds in their cars.  That means that 85 percent of people who speed are white.  Since you argue that we shouldn't just pull them over because their white (even though I think we should) the police will have to find other reasons to pull them over.  I am sure the police would be able to do this... but 85 percent of the people pulled over will STILL be white.  Someone like you would come along and say, "Well there's no way that 85 percent of a population can break the law so there must be racism."

The only problem is, in all likelihood the 12 blacks and 3 Mexicans would be pulled over more than the 85 whites.  oh...its scary because its true....

 

I can't lie and say that I don't see where you all are coming from, but how can I be all for racial profiling of arab men and then turn around and say "Hey, you can't use racial profiling on ME!!"  I find it very hypocritical and I believe that if most of you guys were regularly subjected to it, you would feel the same way.

[Guest]

You can believe what you want, but I wouldn't be upset about it.  First of all, I'd have nothing to hide so there wouldn't be anything to be afraid of.  I also would see it as part of my civic duty (which all of us Americans have, btw) in helping the country to weed out terrorists.

[Guest]

"Our country, right or wrong."

                                                 -- Stephen Decatur

[Guest TheMikeSC]

in defense of the cops in the rodney king beating, dude had got shocked with a taser twice, peppersprayed by 4 people, and was still standing up coming at them.  Cops know the signs of "super-addict" and kept beating him until he went down and let them cuff him.  I am happy that something brought police brutality to the limelight(around that time, cops were beating blacks like it was a new sport) but I really wish it had been one of the thousands of other blacks around the country that were innocent getting brutilized that would have gotten the limelight, not a hopped up drug addict driving 120 in a residential area.  

 

And Mike, am I to understand that Black people should have to where suits and ties everywhere they go or they deserve to be treated as a criminal.>>>

 

 

If you wish to derive such patently asinine conclusions from my comments, feel free to do so. I don't have the desire to correct you.

 

 

<<<I'm sure thats not what you mean, but it certainly reads that way.  You know how you have to right to wear what you want, be confortable and all...then why shouldn't black people have that right. I am still wondering what this "thug" look is you keep refering too.  And don't go the easy route and say, you're blind if you don't see it, I really want to know, what are you talking about. >>>

 

 

Then you're blind and I'm not going to get into a friggin' semantics argument with you. If you have no clue what the "thug look" is, then you're being intentionally dense and nothing I say will possibly register.

 

 

<<<As for the racial profiling thing.  Look at it like this.  A group of 5 white men who have been taking flight lessons without learning to land and have only one way tickets and no luggage would be able to get on a plane easier than a young arab american family man.>>>

 

 

You assume this based on...what? You assume the CIA doesn't check on things like that?

 

 

<<<How can you not see this as a dangerous practice.  There are signs that someone might be planning to do harm...If a person has done anything to warrent the suspision of it, the watch them like a hawk, rather they be a arab, old nun, or a group of freakin boy scouts.  But when the "suspisious" behaviour consist of..oh...I don't know...having arab parents...then maybe it is getting a little out of hand.>>>

 

 

One bad apple spoils the bunch.

 

 

<<<I am also getting tired of people saying that people like me are "Worried about offending the terroist"..  That is a ignorant bunch of shit.  I am worried about offending the millions of Arab ameicans that aren't terrorist. I am worried about how quickly racial profiling is being justified when blacks and hispanics have been trying for so long to overcome it...now its starting to look like people are calling for racial profiling to be implimented legally.>>>

 

 

Yes, we are.  And I have NO qualms about saying it.

              -=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Your missing what I am saying.  Mike and Tom seem(and I could be wrong here, correct me if I am) that since teenagers, whites, blacks or whoever aren't the ones that attacked us recently, they shouldn't be scruinized as much as young arab men.>>>

 

 

Abso-frickin'-lutely. That is EXACTLY what I am saying. Verbatim.

 

 

<<<In my example, the group of white men are obviously appear to be alot more threatning in the arab american>>>

 

 

BUT, since our gov't is still beholden to PC, the odds of the Arabs being checked more closely than the whites is slim.

 

 

<<<yet using alot of you guys logic, the white men don't fit the "arab men 27-49" description therefore should have to be put through the extra search while the arab family man should.>>>

 

 

Yup. Sad fact. Again, it'd be like having a lynching in the deep South in the 1960's and not checking ALL members of the KKK because a lot of the members might well have had nothing to do with it.

 

 

<<<My point is that using this type of logic is dangerous, and in my opinion ignorant.>>>

 

 

How is having Arab maes be checked more closely dangerous?

 

 

<<<Evil resides in every race, not one more than another.  If extra scrutiny is what you want, fine, but limiting it to one race just is very very dumb.>>>

 

 

ONE RACE committed the act. White guys didn't bring down the WTC. And although one was definitely in support of it, no blacks did it, either.

 

 

<<<Yeah Tom, I know that they wouldn't be able to tell a diffence there, and I agree that if anyone exhibits any of those things, they should be looked into...not only if they are arab, which it appears far too many people seem to be all for.  All profiling is not racial profiling.>>>

 

 

And if you want tosolve a crime, you first focus on the most likely suspects. If you don't LIKE who the most likely suspects happen to be, tough. Again, when a serial killer pops up, the police don't tend to really check into women as possibly being the culprit.

 

 

<<<All those thing fit the profile of someone up to no good, check them out.  I am against profiling due to RACE only...and basically, that is what a lot of people on this thread seem to be supporting. >>>

 

 

And you seem to mistake two minutes of inconvenience for a major federal issue.

                -=Mike