Subject:
|
Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 Mar 2004 03:39:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
341 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote:
> > > Liberation from Evil = Evil from Liberation.
> >
> > I don't get this, sorry.
>
> If I am being evilly oppressed, and I use evil to liberate myself, I am
> mimicing my oppressor and therefore loosing any moral justification for
> freeing myself.
No wonder I didn't get it. I would never have thought that I needed a moral
justification for freeing myself from 'evil oppression'. I'll think on this
some more.
(snip)
> "terrorism" is defined as the {targeting} of innocents with the goal of
> breaking a society or group's resolve
I am not sure that there is a useful difference between the concept of
'targeting civilians' and recklessly disregarding civilians in 'targeting
combatants'. It comes down to a question of intent with each side making its
own unsupported or unsupportable assertions.
In my first post on this I talked about targeting combatants and non-combatants
alike, as in drawing no distinction, as in ignoring one's different status, in
contrast to targeting John's "women, pregnant women, the elderly along with
children" for the sake of it.
As a side note, its disquieting that John would call all women 'innocents' in
this regard. Many women I know would find this insulting and the mark of a
closet misogynist.
> This is why terrorism is so disgusting, because it is so {cowardly}. If you want
> to oppose a government, [then rise up against the government!], not against
> its citizens! But the cowards might think, "We are not powerful enough to
> oppose the government, let us strike out at it by killing its citizens
> instead".
This cowardly thingie never ceases to amaze me. Let us contrast taking over an
aircraft armed only with a knife and then flying that aircraft to my certain
death, with say, flying over a battlefield at 35,000 feet, safe in the knowledge
that the enemy has no weapons that can reach me, and carpet bombing it. There
are a bunch of derogatory terms that might be applied to terrorists, but
cowardly does not stand out as a useful one. And where it is advanced as key,
one can only wonder at how thin is the understanding.
> Let's be clear what we are talking about here. Are you saying that you would
> kill an innocent person to alleviate some "greater hurt"?
I hope so. I hope that if I was given the decision as to whether to use nuclear
weapons on Japan in 1945, I would have chosen the same way. This was
sacrificing innocents but saving combatants.
(snip)
> So, you are acknowledging that if you tried and tried and tried to liberate
> yourself and couldn't, you could then justify murdering babies (innocents).
> I need to know if you believe that if someone is desperate enough, they are
> justified in killing innocents.
This enthusiasm for rushing to extremes is part of the problem. There is no
scope for gradations of behaviour, so while we are focussing on the worst
possible scenario to fuel our hatred and support our brutality, we miss all the
opportunities in between.
No John, I can't think of a justification for murdering babies.
I do think that if someone is desperate enough they will murder innocent people,
particularly under the widest definition of innocent that you give (all women!).
And I am not sure that I need to say its justifiable. Perhaps it is enough to
point out that its likely, its to be expected, that complaining about its
inherent evilness is a counter-productive waste of time, and if you want it to
stop, you need to address the circumstances that give rise to it.
> Show me the economic oppression being suffered by al-qaeda. Their leader is
> a multi-millionaire. What are their demands? What do they want? Why don't
> we know these things?
I think that there's actually quite a bit known about what they want. But
that's actually less interesting than the fact that you're thrilled to bits to
go stomping off all over the world trying to kill these people, with less than
no idea!
> "Wahabism" is a particularly violent anti-Western form of Islam. Why? Who
> knows; who cares. There is no rational or moral justification for it.
Of course there is. It might not be one with which you agree...
> What if I am correct? That Islamo-extremists want the West to fall in order
> to set up an Islamic Theocracy. There is no negotiating with that-- you
> either convert or die.
I imagine that there ARE Islamo-extremists want the West to fall in order to set
up an Islamic Theocracy. In the same way that there are some in the American
administration who would like to see the East fall in order to set up an
American Bureaucracy. But neither can succeed unless they can take their people
along with them. There used to be a bunch of Communist extremists who wanted
the West to fall so that they could set up a Communist Autocracy, but they
failed to keep their people convinced. The key is to show that there is another
way, a better way, and one that is open to all.
Sap their popular strength and their plan withers and dies.
(snip)
> Why are you so reticent to characterize such atrocities as "evil"?
Because calling it evil is simply entirely counter-productive. Calling it evil
does nothing but push it further from our understanding it. Calling it evil
says I don't need to understand it, indeed, I should try NOT to understand it
(lest it overpower me and make me evil too). Calling it evil means I should
simply try to kill it.
And that path is doomed to failure.
So I won't call it evil.
EVEN, if it IS evil.
As you might have deduced, I'm not a big believer in evil generally. Look at
what the Inquisition did with it :-)
(snip)
> There is one difference, and it makes [all] the difference. The innocents
> who lost their lives in the liberation of Iraq were not [targets]. Their
> deaths were unintentional, and great lengths were taken to keep civilian
> casualties to a minimum. Contrast that with strapping on bomb belt filled
> with rusty nails dipped in rat poison and boarding a public bus or entering a
> restaurant and detonating it.
Sophistry. Both are doing what they think will best advance their cause, with
the tools at their disposal, with a disregard for your 'innocents', or at the
very least an openness to the deaths of 'innocents' which you find so heinous.
(snip)
> all I understand now is that if I don't stop them, they won't stop.
This I see. Beyond this is a recognition that you are failing to stop them.
You may want to consider changing strategy to one that can succeed.
Richard
Still baldly going...
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
| (...) I fear you still don't get it. I am talking about killing an innocent (unrelated to your oppression) in order to free you from your oppressor. I am saying that that action is morally unjustified. (...) WRT to Iraq, the US took great care to (...) (20 years ago, 14-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
| (...) (snippage) (...) First, I think we all can agree that no nation is perfect, including the US. That said, I am reticent about commenting on Guantanamo because I don't believe that enough facts are about the interned are readily available. I (...) (20 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
