Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
I have very little knowledge of what went on in South Africa but I know enought to say that it can't be summed up with a cliche.
Why do you keep bringing al-qaeda up? That is obviously a different issue and totally incomparable to what we are talking about.
|
It wasn't summed up in a cliche, i explained my opinion above that sentance.
I'm brining in Al Quada as an example to contrast the situation?
Most can agree the Iraq war is a total farce, as most can agree the segregation of races was too. But reguardless of popular belief or what you believe is morally right/wrong, you are to be held accountable. Whether that be operatives killing civilians on a daily basis in the name of Allah, full blame on America and the end of the occupation, or if your blowing up white / nationalist targets in the name of ending segregation and for the goals of their beliefs (far left wing)
The point i'm trying to make is both the Iraq war and segregation are wrong, both where/seem to be more and more un-popular as time goes on. So no matter how wrong the United States may be in going to war, it doesn't excuse the acts of violence there when it comes to the opposition. Just as it should also apply to the former situation in South Africa.
I am using Iraq was an example to contrast the two. I could just as easily use the Panestinian issue and the Palestinian resistance. I could use the fact most Muslim nations treat women "inhumane" compared to modern-day standards or I could use the slave issue that took place in the United States. All are precieved as wrong, all are/where precieved as extreme and in the latter examples all would be precieved as such if violence was used to solve the problem. Nevertheless you are to be held accountable for your actions, not simply been let off the hook due to public or popular belief.
The issue is a little more complex -- as you have just mentioned -- than a group of individuals simply wanting to be free from segregation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rube
Would you say the same thing in regards to collateral damage sustained in the removal of Saddam Hussein?
|
Well that depends, you can't stamp a generalization on things and especially not war.
In some cases, if negligence is the issue, then yes I believe so. This is also evident in several trials / punishments due to negligence or out-right brutality. But if it's the matter of a building or a civilian death getting caught up in a strike where no wrong doing was intended, the no. War isn't suppose to be pretty and things like this will happen.