Sunflower,

Advocacy and activism exhibit two key characteristics, languaging and adopted values.

The suspension of normal language and substitution with key words is always evident.

In your case we can point to the substitution of “American Soldiers” with “armed squad”, the use of “killing” changed to “assassination”, that they “believe are guilty of past atrocities’ to both raise a question mark over BL’s culpability and to try to pretend that such atrocities are not longer occurring, that it is a question of “moral philosophy” and that it was our western values that “caused” AQ to attack us, you then to suggest only “military targets” were attacked and that this only happened “ten years ago”. Really?

This stuff is “languaging” straight out of the terrorist propaganda manual, were BL still alive he would say to you, Sunflower, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

These are the best examples of “adopted values”. Your opinion is not actually your own, it is “adopted” from the links to which you subscribe and the similar opinions you seek as ideological reinforcement.

Do I “think we in the West these days should value the rule of law and fair trial above retribution?” Firstly, you can cut out the “we”, I don’t think for others and have no interest in imposing my values on group western thinking. I’ll leave that to the progressive HR advocates.

Were I to adopt Christian values I might say “vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord”. Were I Judaic I might say “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”. Since I’m neither I’ll make my own judgments but I most definitely do not share your intellectualized and adopted interpretations.

The most powerful weapon international terrorism has is propaganda. Their greatest joy and delight comes from western “progressives” mouthing the stuff they feed you. It is just “languaging” and it identifies you with those who challenge our values.

Words like justice, murder or retribution are only semantically relevant to those whose trade is “languaging”, HR Activists.

No one else gives a “rats”, another mass murderer dead, get over it.

Hi Spindoc, thanks. Okay, let me ask it this way: Do you really believe it is okay for any armed force to enter another country and summarily kill without a fair trial groups or individuals they want to kill for whatever reason?
Regarding your philosophy 'I don’t think for others and have no interest in imposing my values on group western thinking' would you accept that finding common ground on issues to do with human rights is a desirable goal?

Sunflower,

Do I “really believe it is okay for any armed force to enter another country and summarily kill without a fair trial groups or individuals they want to kill for whatever reason?”

Yep! Terrorists do it all the time.

Do I “accept that finding common ground on issues to do with human rights is a desirable goal?”

Nope!

Firstly, Human Rights is an issue for Foreign Affairs and Heads of State.

Secondly, ignorant, misguided and emotively driven HR advocates have consistently made things worse for those oppressed by despotic dictators. (What it is you seek to avoid, you create.)

Thirdly, having already stated that “I most definitely do not share your intellectualized and adopted interpretations”, why would I seek compromise with what I already believe to be flawed and irrelevant thinking.

Fourthly, why would achieving a common “desirable goal” on issues to do with human rights be relevant to absolutely anything or anyone except HR activists?

Fifthly, If you have to ask the same question of me again with slightly varied wording, when I have already given an answer and my reasoning, then you are doing precisely what I said you were, “languaging”. (Which by the way, is a well documented “cult” technique)

Other possibilities include that you did not comprehend my answer; you did not like it, you responded only to the “key emotive” words, you avoided all my assertions or did not read it at all.

I’m being gentle because you said thanks. Likewise thank you for what I believe to be genuine interest. My intention is to engage you to substantiate YOUR position so that we can enjoy a meaningful debate by avoiding link wars and rented opinion.

You can do this by challenging the assertions in my last post, and please do.

P.S You can be rude to me if it helps.

Okay, Spindoc. I will challenge some of your assertions. But first, can you please clarify:

(1) Who you mean by ‘those really oppressed and largely ignored by human rights activists’?

(2)To whom are you referring with ‘the most dangerous amongst us are those who, under the cover of human rights, support those who threaten our societies from within’?

(3)‘Your opinion is not actually your own, it is “adopted” from the links to which you subscribe and the similar opinions you seek as ideological reinforcement.’ Is this true of you and me both, Spindoc, or just me?

(4)‘Do I “really believe it is okay for any armed force to enter another country and summarily kill without a fair trial groups or individuals they want to kill for whatever reason?” Yep! Terrorists do it all the time.’ So are you saying that killings by Al Qaeda and the US administration are morally acceptable to you?

And finally, (5)‘Human Rights is an issue for Foreign Affairs and Heads of State.’ Do you accept that in a democracy, governments, including heads of state, represent and should be responsive to the will of the populace?

Sunflower, sure can and thanks for asking.

1. I refer to the victims of the despotic dictators in Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Zimbabwe, much of Africa and South America, just to mention a few.

2. Western Human Rights activists (some academics,some media, NGO’s and some politicians) that proselytize propaganda generated by terrorist organisations and are contrary to the interests and security of their home nation.

3. If you have researched a topic and reached a conclusion on your own you will easily be able to defend and substantiate your position. If you depend on information links and supportive opinion of others, you will not be able to debate your position, because it is an adopted position generated by someone else.

4. This is the third time you have put this question and in three different ways. I do not have a moral post status quo position on this, therefore I have no requirement to impose it upon either you, the USA or AQ. If you ask an indirect, pre-loaded question containing “assumption closes” it is not possible to give any answer, let alone yes or no.

(Can I help you sir? yes/no.(closed question) What can we help you with today sir? well actually I was looking for a …….(open question). Don’t try to get cute Sunflower.

5. Only if they have a parliamentary majority (mandate). Rule for the people by the people excludes creaking gate minorities. Sorry but I didn’t invent Parliamentary Democracy. Your expression “responsive to the will of the populace” is a great example of meaningless languaging, you are suspending normal language, the word you are looking for is “mandate”, stop writing uni-babble.

Now can we have some challenges please or is your plan to run me past my post limit?

Spindoc. Some challenges.

'This was just good old retribution and I don’t have a problem with that.'
Problem is that might-is-right creates a cycle of violence where closure is virtually impossible. Rule of law, as defended in the original article, while sometimes inconvenient, often finds closure, and sometimes even justice.

'When an angry son of a wealthy Saudi family goes feral and stirs up hatred and inspires atrocities against all creeds, and all nations ...
This does not characterise Osama bin Laden from what we know so far.

'to both raise a question mark over BL’s culpability and try to pretend that such atrocities are not longer occurring ... and that it was our western values that “caused” AQ to attack us ...'
Certainly, atrocities are still committed by terrorist groups. But the human carnage is far less than that wreaked by the US and its allies.
It is not western values that inspire hatred of the US and its allies, but the West spurning them.

'Human Rights is an issue for Foreign Affairs and Heads of State.'
No, striving for a better world for the disadvantaged is for everyone.

'Secondly, ignorant, misguided and emotively driven HR advocates have consistently made things worse for those oppressed by despotic dictators.'
No, I think the opposite is generally the case, though there are exceptions.

'why would achieving a common “desirable goal” on issues to do with human rights be relevant to absolutely anything or anyone except
HR activists?'
Because those goals include safety, shelter, sustenance and freedom which are desirable for everyone everywhere.

'having already stated that “I most definitely do not share your intellectualized and adopted interpretations”, why would I seek compromise with what I already believe to be flawed and irrelevant thinking.
Opinions adopted, which most are on any topic, are not automatically flawed or irrelevant.

‘Do I “really believe it is okay for any armed force to enter another country and summarily kill without a fair trial ...'
It is both morally wrong and tactically stupid to do this. Applies to the USA, AQ and others.