In the biggest oversight to the (misnamed) "War on Terrorism", the US Administration continues to defy logic...

The simple FACT is, one man's "Freedom Fighter" is another man's "Terrorist".
Has the Administration ever bothered to explain the difference?

As an idea; some Definitions for "Freedom Figter" & "Terrorism"
So to prove my point...
The US Administration CANNOT (and willnot) define the difference, as the "War on Terrorism" is really nothing more than a 'War on Ideologies'..

First Example....
The USA has now granted Asylum to "Russian Terrorists"...
Before the Russian's, the US was (and still is) providing protection for "Iranian Terrorists"...Yet according to a State Department in List in April, the MKO was still 'identified' as a "Terrorist Organization"..
Amazingly enough...
Palestine would 'appear' to be the only 'constant' stance. Given they US will (almost) readily "label" any Palestinian, as a "Terrorist", while providing protection for "Israeli Terrorists"...
and Yes - these ARE Israeli Terrorists.
As defined by the 4th Geneva Convention, after the Nuremberg Trials...
I suppose the biggest question of all is...
What happened to 'Human Rights'?
Or are these 'irrelevant' in the face of 'ideological terrorism' ?

Just kill them all and be done with it.

I'd like to take an unabridged Websters, and shove it sideways up your ass.

The "inconsistancy" that you see has to do with your view of the world. Just for once, try to think of yourself as an American, part of the collective "we". I know it will be hard for you, but it's the only way you can understand. "We" support terror that is in "our" national interest, as determined by our elected representatives. We oppose terror that is directed against us. It's that simple. You are trying to understand this by thinking about it in an objective way. People aren't like that. We form groups, and fight with our group. It's like that everywhere, and it will never change.

Terrorists fighting an invading army, navy, or air force, are freedom fighters. In all other cases terrorists are terrorist. There is no in-between. No maybe. You either are or you aren't. However I agree with Corporate pig about Israel, if about nothing else.

Nationalism can be more blinding than racism or even having no eyes.

Nationalism is a) lame and b) responsible for a large part of all the misery and death of the 20th century.


Corporate Pig - I didn't read your whole post. I got as far as the part where you quoted the article as saying that the US government had appealed against the decision to grant asylum and then accused it of harbouring the terrorists. The government cannot interfere with the decision of the court. I believe that would be unconstitutional. So anyway, there is no hypocrisy on that point.

Also, as has been pointed out, there is a difference between fighting against military targets and targeting civilians. That is not to say that many who have done only the former haven't been labelled as terrorists, nor that some who have done the latter haven't been labelled as freedom fighters, but the distinction between the two acts is very important. Anyone who makes civilians their primary target in any given act is a terrorist in my book. People who never have are not (though that doesn't necessarily make them moral or legitimate, of course).

Nationalism isn't necessarily a bad thing. A little national pride might have gone a long way in stopping the outsourcing of jobs to other nations by American companies in the name of ever higher profit margins.

A spirit of nationalism would quash all the yammerings of people that want US dollars to go for health and social services for illegal aliens.

Religion is also responsible for a large part of all the misery and death of the 20th century. Perhaps we should abolish that as well?

Outsourcing is good for your economy, and most politicians know it. Protectionist rabble-rousing is just shameless populism. Don't fall for it.

This is primarily the problem that I have with nationalism - it uses something illogical but powerful to remove the need for proper reasoning. Things have their own intrinsic value, and that shouldn't be obscured by nationalism, which claims that your own nation and its products/ideas etc have value because of where they are from rather than what they are.

It's good for the economy because it's good for big business. It's not good for the American people, like several of my friends, who have joined the ranks of the unemployed because big companies are laying off their American workforces in favor of outsourcing the jobs to places like India, where they can pay a pittance for the work. I'm not falling for anything, I'm basing my opinion upon actual, direct impact of corporate outsourcing.

My reasoning is quite sound, thank you. We are a nation. We have borders, language, and culture, as does any nation. It's not where we are, it's who we are. National pride is not a bad thing. It's better than the waves of apathy rippling across this country causing low voter turnout year after year. It's better than constant partisan squabbling and fraternizing which hinders the political process.

Outsourcing isn't bad.
Why?
Because, according to the Department of Labor, about 80% of the jobs people end up being employed with are via small-time businesses, and those businesses can't outsource.
Something like 8% were for major companies(Outsourcing ones).

As for this debate about freedom fighter/terrorist I believe they're the same thing. People will look at a freedom fighter, disagree with their thoughts and therein believe they're a terrorist.

But you're still wrong. If everyone had total job security against any kind of competition labour you would end up with an inefficient and stagnant economy, which doesn't help anyone, least of all the less well off. If companies don't outsource then they become uncompetitive and have to shed jobs anyway. If you had national laws preventing outsourcing then the economy would suffer in relation to other economies and your country would become relatively poorer, your exports would suffer and you would again therefore see job losses. Artificially trying to preserve jobs by protecting them from the natural forces of the free market always weakens the economy. Total exposure to those forces is undesirable - if employers could hire and fire as they pleased it would be incredibly cruel on those who suffered - but as long as people are fired in the right way (given notice and severance packages) then it is something that has to be accepted. If people don't accept that then everyone, including and even especially workers as a whole will lose out in the long run.


You can't support your belief or disbelief in an ideology because of any effects that it might have, such as counteracting apathy. That's an obvious logical fallacy. Wouldn't we all be happier if we all believed that the world was a wonderful place full of lovely people? Yes, but that doesn't justify that belief.

There is no such thing as job security.

Sorry Arty,..
I gotta go with John Preston on this one...
Its actually 'Free Market' economics which led to the massive increase in 'off-shore' outsourcing...
Removing all foreign taxes, duties, tarrifs etc, and then allow Corporations to shift over to Totalitarian states, for the use of sweat shop labour.

So, please Arty, how does say the signing of (say) a US-Indonesian "Free Trade Agreement" - which will encourage outsourcing for CHEAPER (sweatshop) LABOUR workers (say by Nike), "help" the unemployment lines of the US?

Maybe the best bet, would be to allow Corporations to "own" their own slaves (why "pay employee's" when you can "own slaves" - it would be CHEAPER for the business)
... after all, that's what "free market economics" are leading us to.

And exactly how do companies not have the right to "hire or fire as they pleased?" I don't see anything stopping companies from laying off thousands of American employees in order to outsource those jobs to other countries in order to lower costs. That is exactly what I'm talking about. Sure, severance pay is nice, but it doesn't solve the fact that people are then unemployed. The backbone of a free market is the consumer. If a consumer doesn't have a steady source of income, then he/she isn't a consumer any longer.

How is that a logical fallacy? Nationalism by definition promotes devotion to a nation's interests. A population of citizens active in the political activities of the nation is a positive thing. That would be directly opposite of apathy, therefore counteracting it.

I agree with that too. I was speaking about a hypothetical situation where people's jobs are protected from market forces, and where the economy stagnates as a result (see the USSR in the 1970s and 1980s. productivity, which had been high when Stalin worked them to death, bombed).

Firstly, outsourcing doesn't need to involve 'sweat shop labour,' by which you presumably mean unnaturally hideous conditions, rather than just wages at the local rate (which there is nothing wrong with). Secondly, why don't you go and tell some of these people in China, India or wherever that you would like to end their 'exploitation' by taking their jobs back to the US, and see how they take it. Hint: they won't thank you for it. Even those who have to work in poor conditions would rather work there than not work at all. Otherwise they would quit.

Broadly speaking, because efficiency creates wealth. If you can make something at half the price then people, including American people, will be able to afford twice as many, or more likely in this case they will be able to have a pair of trainers and a new phone, or whatever else they might want. Americans are therefore effectively richer, because their money can buy more.

But what about the specific workers who have been laid off, I hear you cry? There are still plenty of jobs that are best done at home, and can only be done at home. America's increased wealth through this outsourcing will create a demand for more services. There is always something else that can be done. Jobs need to be turned over so that people are working in the industries that are most beneficial, and currently it is frequently not beneficial for western countries to be manufacturing goods. Better for everyone to let others do that. If American workers kept manufacturing stuff when it wasn't efficient for them to do so then America would be less prosperous, and less prosperity = fewer jobs. At least if you outsource then you get cheaper products and a consequential boost in real wealth which helps create new jobs.

Eventually this will probably result in the gradual deflation of the dollar realtive to other currencies, which will make US labour cheaper and restore manufacturing, but these processes take decades. For now it simply isn't important that the US makes stuff.

Utter, utter dribble. Market economies help the ordinary people. That's why I advocate them. I admit that the very worst off are poorer in a completely capitalist system, which is why I also support the welfare state, but free trade lies behind efficiency, and efficiency = wealth.






[quote=Shadowborn]And exactly how do companies not have the right to "hire or fire as they pleased?" I don't see anything stopping companies from laying off thousands of American employees in order to outsource those jobs to other countries in order to lower costs. That is exactly what I'm talking about. Sure, severance pay is nice, but it doesn't solve the fact that people are then unemployed. The backbone of a free market is the consumer. If a consumer doesn't have a steady source of income, then he/she isn't a consumer any longer.[quote]

You do need consumers, but by that logic you would never fire people, and your economy would stagnate, and everyone would be worse off. Consumers are a necessary part, but so is production. The argument between supply-siders and 'Keynsians' (though Keynes might not have been a Keynsian by that definition) is an old one. In my view you need both supply and demand. Protectionism hinders the efficiency of the supply far more than it helps demand, because its effect on demand is one-off and only short term whereas its effect on the supply lasts for as long as it is in place.

And you can't hire and fire as you please. You can't walk up to a member of your staff, say 'you're fired,' throw him out of the door and never have anything to do with him again.


[quote=Shadowborn]How is that a logical fallacy? Nationalism by definition promotes devotion to a nation's interests. A population of citizens active in the political activities of the nation is a positive thing. That would be directly opposite of apathy, therefore counteracting it.[quote]

The answer to that question is actually contained in my last post, but I'll try to rephrase it. Nationalism is believing that your country should be put ahead of all other simply because it is yours. But why should you put your own nation's interests first without any consideration of the circumstances? What is the prior justification for believing that that is fair? There isn't really one.

In any case, the effects of nationalism aren't generally beneficial. Its most distinctive legacies have been war, genocide, imperialism, racism and protectionism.