Why is it acceptable for the West to have double standards when it comes to civilian death, and civil liberties? 9/11 started the War on Terror, with the death of many American civilians. The US invaded Iraq to depose the "dangerous" tyrant Sadam Hussein, who supposedly had a hand in it, and used "shock and awe" tactics, namely dropping many hundreds of tons of explosives on Baghdad, causing the death of many hundreds (thousands?) of civilians, and hardship for countless others. Why is this acceptable, and 9/11 wasn't?
Also, why is it acceptable for Bliar (apologies, i don't know about america) to remove the right to trial by jury, to be arrested with charge, peaceful protest outside parliament, among many other rights removed in recent years, yet to criticise Iran, Syria etc. for not having the same "democracy" as the West, if we systematicly destroy hundreds of years of democracy and freedoms in a few months?
2006-07-21
11:22:48
·
7 answers
·
asked by
Mordent
7
in
Politics & Government
➔ Government
Sadam Hussein is not the issue, what's done is done, however wrong or right it was. He's gone, whether that is a good thing or not is irelevant.
2006-07-21
11:27:56 ·
update #1
1) It is the West, because Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, Japan etc all do not condemn the US for their bombing.
2) America implemented shock and awe tactics, knowing full well that many civilians would perish. This suggests either complacency in the extreme, or a willingness to kill civilians to frighten (or terrorise)
3) Any state that says it can do what it wants because it can is fascist.
4) I am not a terrorist, nor do I condone what terrorists do, killing people is wrong full stop. Nor am I Muslim.
2006-07-21
11:33:08 ·
update #2