Subject:
|
Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Apr 2002 17:13:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
634 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> If, however, your culture, from the moment you are born, teaches you to
> hate, teaches you that the ultimate sacrifice you can do for your country is
> to die in service of it, teaches you that if you die gloriously that you
> will get '7 virgins and a mansion' (whatever) in the afterlife, do you
> really think that these suicide bombers think what they're doing is a last
> ditch effort, a worst case scenario?
What exactly are these warriors promised from the afterlife? How is their
belief about the ultimate sacrifice different than our own? Many Americans
have made suicidal attacks "in the line of honor." How and why is it
different?
I think that animals have a built in drive for self preservation and only deep
emotional situations can overcome it. People are only willing to die for
causes that they feel are very right.
> Quote
> > When these folks feel like they have an
> > option, they will choose another path. No one wants to die.
>
> I don't want to die. I *will* pick up a gun and defend my country, my
> beliefs, though. I will not knowingly kill 'innocents' (don't get into
> semantics about who's innocent and who isn't). These bombers are walking
> into restaurants and blowing up women, kids, houses and villages all in the
> name of their god, their teachings and their hatred for their enemy (and
> getting the women in the afterlife). It has nothing to do with having their
> collective backs against the wall.
As long as can continue to fool ourselves into demonizing others, we won't have
the empathy to build a peace.
You tell me not to discuss innocence, but that may be at the crux of this
issue. The innocent do not fund terrorist regimes to keep their neighbors in
poverty. Many of us would do the same if faced with equally bleak prospects.
Who would we not kill to reach freedom?
> They have options and the leaders *know* it. Why do you think you never
> hear about the rulers of these factions/countries/whatever strapping bombs
> to themselves and walking into buildings? Why do you never hear the leaders
> really denouncing these acts as terrorist attacks and trying to stop them?
They who, and which leaders? There are no Palestinian leaders. Why don't we
hear Israeli or western leaders calling the acts of both sides wicked? The
"leaders" don't denounce it because they understand it's the right way to wage
their campaign (though, I think this statement implies more organization than
exists).
> That's why I mentioned earlier that someone, at sometime, just has to say
> 'this ends here in this generation' It'll take a strong resolve to do it
> but it *can* be done. Yes things happened in the far past and the
> not-so-far past that could be deemed acts that require a response. But it
> can stop. 'We're not going to kill, today (forgive the quote and get over
> where it came from)'. It's a different path, a better solution and it
> requires less killing.
>
> The leaders don't *want* to do it. That's the rub.
The people don't want to do it. Everyone could get together and live in peace.
I agree. But Saying so and leaving at that is kind of silly. That's not what
is going to happen. As long as groups (or individuals) wrong one another there
will be retribution. People want what it right for themselves.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) In our culture, we are mostly brought up to believe that life is precious and that suicide isn't a viable option. We are shocked and dismayed when people kill (...) (23 years ago, 8-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
