Good guys and bad guys

“Moral Nihilism” by Andrew Sullivan


‘Moral nihilism’, eh?

I read the article and didn’t see anywhere where the Guardian excused or condoned the murderers who massacred the 200 people in Madrid.

As a fellow traveler with the Guardian, let me clear up that misconception: the people that perpetrated that terrorist atrocity are evil bastards of the lowest ilk who deserve the death penalty.

Now I’ll show you the face of true moral nihilism: what do you think of the people who were responsible for this massacre of nine-hundred men, women and children?

Nihilism: A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.

I’d say that’s moral nihilism.

Actually I appreciate that he does realize that the terrorists are a minority, not necessarily representatives of Islam or any country. Unfortunately many people fail to make this distinction.
I fully support that action will be taken against those, including what could be called ‘war’, but not by means of a fully-fledged (military) war like in Iraq that inevitably will kill innocents .

Would you be opposed to any war that will inevitably kill innocents? Because every war ever fought has.

That, in a nutshell, is pretty much going to be Saddam Hussein’s defense at his war crimes trial.

I don’t expect it to work any better for him than it most likely will for Slobodan Milosevic or did for the defendants at Nuremburg.

Unfortunately, it’s going to take a few more terrorist acts in Europe for the moral nihilists to wake up and smell the roses.

No, I do not oppose any war, hence I said “like in Iraq”. I do oppose any (military) war that is not purely defensive (read: self-defense during an actual or immediate threat) in nature.

No, I do not oppose any war, hence I said “like in Iraq”. I do oppose any (military) war that is not purely defensive (read: self-defense during an actual or immediate threat) in nature.[/quote]So a war that is purely defensive is erm… defendable ?

But to be purely defensive doesn’t there have to be another side in the same war that is offensive ? :idunno:

Damn who let Rascal back in?!

I totally agree that most of Europe is in the throes of yet another ideological morass. First, it was imperialism then it was fascism, then it was communism, then it was anything goes and now it is moral relativism. Honestly, my contempt grows by the day.

But… nevermind. We after all have most of Europe on our side. And really when we discuss France, we are really talking about Paris. The rest of the country is still mostly sensible. But what do you do with a nation that wants to “understand the root causes” when attacked so blatantly as Spain does? If that’s how they want to deal with the problem, then let them continue to get bitch slapped until they wake up. For all of its machiavellianism, France would never tolerate this. If it gets bombed, it will react. But, again, it is not our problem if Europe gets bombed.

Perhaps now we can finally adopt the same sanctimonious faux concern following the terrorist attacks on 911 on the United States to press Europe to try to understand how its policies and actions around the world are to blame for the attacks. I would love it if someone could satirize the European we are with you but it’s your own fault articles that followed 911 to hit back at the European condescension at that time. I for one would be most amused.

Your point being? If there wouldn’t be an offensive side there wouldn’t be a war in the first place and we don’t need to discuss which wars are acceptable and which aren’t … :s

But I think my statement was understood as that I support the war from the point of view of the side that is defending itself from an e.g. agressor. A good example is the first Gulf war, Iraq started an agressive / offensive attack against Kuwait and I support that a defensive war was fought back against Iraq (with the help of foreign assistance).

So, according to Rascal’s principles, the U.S. should never have meddled in European affairs during the mid-20th century. I mean, Germany was never a direct, immediate threat to North America, now was it? And millions upon millions of innocent Germans died as a direct result of American bombs. So clearly the war was unjust because a lot of people died as a result of the process.

Are you joining Tigerman’s club of ridiculous conclusions and interpretations?

Immediate and direct refered to self-defense, which is (IMO) a justifiable basis of ‘getting involved in war’ and I further pointed out by mentioning the foreign troops during Gulf War I to show that I do not limit fighting back to the nation under attack only but that others may indeed be allowed to assist fighting against an agressor, i.e. by participating in a war which does not directly threaten their territory or otherwise pose an imminent threat to them.
So if that help comes to assist someone in a self-defense situation who doesn’t have sufficient resources / is not capable then I have no objection, in particular not if it happens under UN mandate.


Have you been reading the benefit list of the oil for food program. The UN is now investigating. Let’s see how deep they dig.

Do you find it interesting that the most vociferously anti-American-led invasion of Iraq parties were also those benefiting to the tune of billions from the oil for food program? What do you think of your precious UN now? I realize that corruption, moral equivalence and spineless appeasement are nothing new to Europeans in general but surely as a German you would find it worthy of outrage? :wink:

I am outraged, fred, I am. :eu:

Germany declared war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941.

So? Technically Germany was also at war with Brazil, as well. We could have just politely ignored them.

I’d say having Hitler and Nazi Germany formally declare war on your country qualifies as a direct, immediate threat, but that’s just me and I seem to be in a distinct minority on a lot of similar issues these days.

Formally declaring war isn’t the same as actually being at war. Formally this island is still at war with the mainland, yes?

Well, you got me there. I concede on the grounds that that hair can’t possibly be split any finer.

My sword, sir. Name your terms.