I don't think that dead people are all that reassured that their deaths by military might weren't intentional. They were inevtibable, therefore we are accountable. And your rational doesn't matter, because the poll showed that those here who supported it did so based on false beliefs. Your point is a seperate aregument. Remember that those who support terrorist attacks re: Israel believe that they, too, are trying to get out from under murderous dictatorial overlords. The basis fo the point was that people support irrational violence here too, when we aren't even living in the same circumstances that the Palestinains are, so to sit back and smuggly judge them as such : is quote selective use of what does and what does not constitute reasonable violence. Our reasons, according to our acknowledged beliefs at the time, were not reasonable.
I wasn't so much drawing a linear comparison as contradicting the idea that WE are always so reasonable in our support of violence, and reasons for same. I could just as easily have pointed out that more people in the United States believe they have personally been visited by aliens than voted for Bush in the last election, but the War aspect seemed a trifle more appropriate.
That's two big ones. 1)We don't target civilians. 2) Our goal was to destroy an illegitimate ruler, not a sovereign country.
Sigh... I was referring to the poll which revealed that over 2/3rds...(almost 75%, I believe) thought at least one of the 3 counterfactual statements I pointed out were true.
1.[adj] contrary to or forbidden by law; "an illegitimate seizure of power"; "illicit trade"; "an outlaw strike"; "unlawful measures" 2.[adj] of political bodies; "an autonomous judiciary"; "a sovereign state" But you can take out those adjectives and my points are the same. The US wanted to destroy a horrific ruler and the Palestinians want to destroy a whole state.
LOL! Do you see the subjectivity at play here? Q1: Was Saddam illegitimate when we supported him? When we helped him beat down those who rose against him? When did he become illegitimate, exactly? In 68 the Ba'ath party regained political authority in the most common manner on the planet, with military overthrow. Legitimate or not? If not, please look at other systems of government which also took power that way...in fact, please look for those who didn't, you'll find it easier. 11 years later he succeeded Ahmed Hassan Bakr in the manner deemed legal by his nation. Where was his power gained by means 'contrary to or forbidden by law'? Contrary to morality, perhaps, law? And the Palestinians want self-rule. You feel that that does not constitute a legitimate aim, many would disagree.
Did I say that the Palestinian aim of self-rule was illegimiate? As far as Saddam being illegitimate- are you saying he WAS legitimate? I don't think so. Even if he is, we are targeting only the ruler, not the whole state as are the Palestinians. I am simply pointing out the differences between the Iraq war and the Palestinian resistance. It should not be so difficult.
WOW. Okay. If you were as hard on Iraq as you were on the USA you would probably be knocked out unconscious by your outrage.
I think I dealt with this point. I never said: These two things are dirtect parallels in every respect. I'm pretty sure I clarified what comparison I was drawing. I'll avoid the whole premise of who we were and weren't targetting ( ie, all tens of thousandss of Ba'ath Party memebers also removed from any power and restricted from any civil service, etc.) and the distinction between your beliefs and fact, and simply let the argument rest on the point I was originally making, which wasn't about the nature of thse conflicts, but the idea that we are so superior to others when it comes to supporting actions for irrational reasons.
