What do you guys think of this article? Is it painting an accurate picture of 'Islamic society', or is it essentially asking, do you still beat your wife?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
How do you paint an accurate picture of over a billion people in less than 1,000 words?
I think they're interesting questions. It would be interesting to know how a devout Muslim would respond.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
1: Why are you so quiet?
They aren't quiet, the press just doesn't report what local religious leaders talk about. The same with Catholic priests and little boys, the same with things Pat Robertson says. Local religious leaders that speak out against the above are just not heard. The opposite is true of demonstrations, where are the other religious people demonstrating against their wrongdoings?
2) Christian Palestianians. I'm guessing they probably are not exactly asked to join the extremist groups in the first place.
3)Being nations of devout islam makes it rather tough to allow what we call freedom
4) and 5) All major monotheistic religions have done the same.
I'm not excusing any of the behavior, but I think they are asking the wrong questions.
By the way, isn't the IRA a Christian terror organization?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The IRA was a Republican (Irish Republican not US Republican) organization. Not a religious-based organization. Just as the LVF, the UVF, and the UDA are Unionist or Loyalist organizations. It isn't really about religion as such. More on class/ethnic type divisions that are historically based on religion.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I think I agree with jeniwren - it's not like you can actually get a single, coherent answer to the questions. I'm not even sure they are the right questions to ask. As for the IRA, I thought the "troubles" were at least partially over difference of religion - Protestants and Catholics, I think, but then, with my memory, my wife has to remind me of my name each morning Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Protestants and Catholics were the divisions, but it wasn't about differences of religion. It makes sense, in a way, to think of NI like the south before and during civil rights. The actual differences are of "class" and the question of whether the six counties should remain under British rule. It is more complicated than that, though. If you are interested we could start a new thread?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: How do you paint an accurate picture of over a billion people in less than 1,000 words?
quote:...prompt sincere questions that law-abiding Muslims need to answer for Islam's sake, as well as for the sake of worried non-Muslims.
Here are five* of them:
*five, not all. I think he's pretty much aware that he hasn't said everything about Muslims and that that endeavor would be impossible.
And I too am very interested in how a Muslim would answer the first question. The rest of them I think are there more to reinforce the first one, as in: why are you so quiet when there's all that happening?
edit: quite/quiet; oops
[ November 15, 2005, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Corwin ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: 1: Why are you so quiet?
They aren't quiet, the press just doesn't report what local religious leaders talk about. The same with Catholic priests and little boys, the same with things Pat Robertson says. Local religious leaders that speak out against the above are just not heard.
Some liberal Muslims are definitely given a lot of coverage by the press, so I'm not totally sure that your statement is entirely accurate.
I was going to say that I would love to see a thread where people on the 'rack posted links to Muslims speaking out against atrocities and regimes in Islam's name, however I guess that if what you're saying is true, and there is no media coverage of these people, then we might still not be getting the full picture.
quote: The opposite is true of demonstrations, where are the other religious people demonstrating against their wrongdoings?
I don't understand this statement.
I think the crux of Prager's first point is that Muslims in the west aren't, or very rarely are, speaking out against 'bad' Muslims in large numbers. I know for a fact that this point is somewhat wrong. For instance, in the aftermath of the London bombings, there were some clerics who spoke out against Islamists, violence in the name of Islam, but how many demonstrations were there. Again, I would love to see a thread like my torture thread that documents cases were such occur so we can keep a track on these things.
quote:
2) Christian Palestianians. I'm guessing they probably are not exactly asked to join the extremist groups in the first place.
I'm not sure this is really a valid point. As he says, they live under the same conditions the other Palestinians do. Can't they do their own terror bombings and the like?
quote: 3)Being nations of devout islam makes it rather tough to allow what we call freedom
Because devout Muslims are intolerant, or because the devoutly Muslim governments are, by nature, intolerant?
quote: 4) and 5) All major monotheistic religions have done the same.
Not sure this really addresses his points as things stand currently.
I guess the question is, is there a problem currently in the world with a certain form of Islam, the kind that allows for no dissent and promulgates violence in the world when it controls the state, or a culture, or not?
quote: I'm not excusing any of the behavior, but I think they are asking the wrong questions.
I'm glad to hear you don't condone the bad behavior of Muslims (or anyone, I'm sure), but what questions would you like to see asked?
quote: I think I agree with jeniwren - it's not like you can actually get a single, coherent answer to the questions.
If his statements are true, then he just did.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
There was a really great profile of the Muslim community in Rochester, MN (where the Mayo clinic is) in one of our free newsmagazines lately, but I'm not sure if they publish to the web or not. I'll look for it. In it, they mentioned more than once the ways the religious leader of the community had been condemming terrorist attaks and Muslims who support terrorism. Minnesota is a major resettlement destination for Somali refugees, I believe the only larger Somali community in the US is in California. So while it is not a widely influential Muslim community, it is rather large. And they have some cool programs going to help ease tensions at the schools and other community places that have cropped up due to cultural differences. They are about to build a $4+ million mosque that they hope will be an educational center for the entire community as well as a place of worship.
Anyway, from the story, it sounded exactly like what we say we want to hear about. Devout Muslims calling for peace and speaking out against extermists, and talking about ways the community has to adapt to get along in a seccular nation. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think the Somali population in Minnesota is larger than that in California. The Hmong population is second to California, though. </irrelevant musing>
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
They profiled some small town in...New York? in Reader's Digest, I think, that had a pretty significant Somali population and how the cultures were mixing.
Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
quote: How is it possible that essentially none have demonstrated against evils perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam?
Because the religion is rooted very deeply in the culture and the hearts of its believers for them to ever be concerned about its image to foriegn eyes.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?
I guess he never heard of George Habash, founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine [sic].
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by the_Somalian:
quote: How is it possible that essentially none have demonstrated against evils perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam?
Because the religion is rooted very deeply in the culture and the hearts of its believers for them to ever be concerned about its image to foriegn eyes.
Which only begs the question: why are those evils only considered evil in foreign eyes? Why don't Muslims think intentionally blowing up schoolbuses is evil?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why don't Muslims think intentionally blowing up schoolbuses is evil?
Possibly for the same reason that you don't think terrorism related to the founding and defense of the Israeli state is evil.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Protestants and Catholics were the divisions, but it wasn't about differences of religion.
Right. There's an old... joke, or story, or whatever about a guy walking down the street in Ireland, when he's suddenly surrounded by a group of Irishmen.
Their leader glares at him and says, "Tell me, lad, are you Catholic or are you Protestant?"
The guy thinks to himself, "Well, if I tell him I'm a Catholic, and they're Protestants, they'll kill me. And if I tell him I'm a Protestant and they're Catholics, he'll kill me."
So he says, "I'm a Jew."
The leader of the gang thinks about this for a moment, and then asks, "Fine, but are you a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?"
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Why don't Muslims think intentionally blowing up schoolbuses is evil?
Possibly for the same reason that you don't think terrorism related to the founding and defense of the Israeli state is evil.
And yet there are many Jews who do. So I ask again, why are Muslims different? You can't turn this into an ad hominem mudsling against me, Tom, because I'm only one person. We have what, a billion Muslims out there? And somehow, coincidentally, they can't seem to get along with Russians, Serbs, Jews, Maronite Christians or the French? Probably because everyone is ganging up on a sixth of the world's population, right?
Sheesh. Quit with the red herrings. You know as well as I do that it's because their culture doesn't see as evil anything that can be labeled as advancing their cause. There are no moral limits as far as they are concerned. Jihad forgives all.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Storm, I can't believe I forgot this. . . one of the cover articles of my last Utne magazine is Taking Back Islam. Here is a link to a synopsis of the article. You have to subscribe to read the whole thing online, and I haven't read it yet. . . I read front-to-back, and it's near the back of the issue. But it certainly seems the sort of thing you're asking about.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Israel doesn't use random killings of civilians for "defense." If it did, it wouldn't have taken Jenin with ground forces; it would carpet-bombed the place (and Jericho, and Gaza, and the other Palestinian communities). Given Israel's resources -- an entire government's worth -- if it did the same sort of killing Hamas does, there wouldn't be any Palestinians in Palestine.
But, then, Jews have always been blamed for what they don't do but is in fact done to them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: And yet there are many Jews who do. So I ask again, why are Muslims different?
*polite cough* Is it completely necessary for me to point out the glaring, possibly flawed assumption implicit in that question?
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
Lisa, I think there's a log stuck in your eye, you might want to look to that.
1. If you don't find terrorism that advances your cause wrong, then you have no ground for condemning them
2. Please, tell me what culture exactly you are referring to. Perhaps my mother who lived in Egypt for a bit learned about a different one, which she said was generous and polite to a fault. I'm not saying they're flawless, merely that you should pay more attention to the common people in a culture before judging it by its extremists.
quote: Why don't Muslims think intentionally blowing up schoolbuses is evil? [/QB]
Why do all Muslims have to answer for the actions of a few extremists?
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote: Why don't Muslims think intentionally blowing up schoolbuses is evil?
All the Muslims I know do think that intentionally blowing up schoolbuses is evil.
Why not ask: Why don't Christians think intentionally blowing up an abortion clinic is evil? All the Christians I know do think that such an act is evil and that those who do such things are not acting in accordance with the teachings of Christianity. Muslim extremists are just that - extremists who embrace an unconventional interpretation of their religion to fit with their economic/political/social views.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Why don't Muslims think intentionally blowing up schoolbuses is evil?
Every Muslim I know do think that intentionally blowing up schoolbuses is evil.
For that matter, every Muslim I know believes that Jihad is an internal war, one in which a person fights against the natural tendencies of man or woman to become a better person. They don't believe that Jihad means they should kill anyone who disagrees with them.
Also, what ludosti says.
As for starLisa: Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Toretha: Lisa, I think there's a log stuck in your eye, you might want to look to that.
1. If you don't find terrorism that advances your cause wrong, then you have no ground for condemning them
I said nothing of the sort. We never, ever, ever targeted civilians.
quote:Originally posted by Toretha: 2. Please, tell me what culture exactly you are referring to. Perhaps my mother who lived in Egypt for a bit learned about a different one, which she said was generous and polite to a fault. I'm not saying they're flawless, merely that you should pay more attention to the common people in a culture before judging it by its extremists.
Yes, they can be the warmest, nicest people around. So what? People watch too much TV. Not everyone who commits atrocities is some sort of caricature of a villain, twirling his mustache and cackling "Muahahahaa!"
What about it? Half the population of Israel is willing to condemn the least infringment of Arab comfort. You can find me 2-3 brave hearts (though not brave enough to actually live in the areas in question and say such things) who will question the Muslim propensity for terror.
The last suicide bombing in Israel, 3,000 Muslim Arabs took to the streets in celebration. Tell me. Have you ever heard of Israelis, or Jews, celebrating an attack against Arabs? There were Jews who celebrated when arch-terrorist Yasir Arafat died, but the man just died. Innocent Arabs die when Israel takes out terrorists, and do you see people celebrating? Hell, do you even see celebrations about the terrorists who get killed in such operations?
No. Because we don't like killing. We do it when it's necessary, and we mourn the necessity. And we do our best to minimize it. Most Israelis are lame enough to risk Jewish lives in order to minimize the possibility of Arab casualities.
And then the Arabs celebrate in the streets when innocent civilians are blown up by a Muslim Arab psychopath. And the morally bankrupt think nothing of comparing us and them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I said nothing of the sort. We never, ever, ever targeted civilians.
You did, however -- and I use the "you" here only because you choose to identify yourself with the terrorists -- target non-military police.
quote: Have you ever heard of Israelis, or Jews, celebrating an attack against Arabs?
Yes, actually. Although they don't generally take to the streets to do it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: I said nothing of the sort. We never, ever, ever targeted civilians.
You did, however -- and I use the "you" here only because you choose to identify yourself with the terrorists -- target non-military police.
I would dispute the "non-military" thing. Police from another country stationed outside of their national borders are soldiers, whether you call them that or not.
And even in that case, it wasn't a matter of a drive-by or a bombing. It was a matter of trying to prevent the Brits from killing our people. And not in a general sense, either. There was a specific execution planned, and the soldiers who were taken hostage would have been released had the Brits simply not killed our boys. Had they kept them prisoner, the soldiers would have been released. This was purely about preventing the execution of our own people by a force from another country.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Have you ever heard of Israelis, or Jews, celebrating an attack against Arabs?
Yes, actually. Although they don't generally take to the streets to do it.
Well, that's kind of funny, because I'm a right wing extremist and I know a lot of other right wing extremists. And I've never heard of such a thing. Unless you're talking about someone hearing that Abu Qatala, or whatever, was killed, and saying, "Good." Not exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. And I suspect you knew that.
Posted by Phytakai (Member # 8744) on :
I once saw an picture that was in I think "Time" magazine during WWII. It was a picture of a beautiful girl staring at a human skull with a far off look on her face. The text underneath said something along the lines of "An American Marine mails his special girl back home a Japanese skull as a gift."
I'm sorry if these seems far off topic, but I think this can be related if thought about. Then again, I love the random abstract references.
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote:I once saw an picture that was in I think "Time" magazine during WWII. It was a picture of a beautiful girl staring at a human skull with a far off look on her face. The text underneath said something along the lines of "An American Marine mails his special girl back home a Japanese skull as a gift."
That's incredibly morbid. I wonder if she was still interested in the guy after that? You'd think it would make her wonder just exactly what kind of man she was waiting for.
It doesn't surprise me that this was done, human nature being what it is, but it *does* surprise me that the magazine ran it. What context was it in? Were they essentially cheering him on for having "killed another dirty Jap" or was it showing just what sort of twisted things war can do to the human psyche?
Because without context it's impossible to determine the meaning of the picture; you need the text of the accompanying article and the *exact* text of the caption. Nothing has much meaning without context.
You could, for example, take a picture of one of the towers collapsing in 9/11 and label it, "Acme Construction clears an old building to make new for their new masterpiece of architecture." Same picture, same surface meaning-building collapsing due to explosives-but totally different message.
Take, also, the infamous Vietnam-era picture of the man being executed point-blank by a South Vietnamese officer. It seems brutal, inhuman, barbaric, no? What they almost never tell you is that the man was a Vietcong officer caught in plain clothes in enemy territory, and as such was subject to summary execution by the Geneva Convention, which he immediately received. (This applies also to nearly all the "insurgents" captured in Iraq-they are combatants out of uniform using the civilian population as cover-but the United States has generally not elected to take this option in the current conflict.) He had also just set off a bomb that killed the adopted family of the officer performing the execution. Also factor in the fact that a photo records only *one moment* in time. Look at a picture of yourself you don't like. Chances are it's a "bad picture" because it caught you in a bad moment. What makes the picture so visceral isn't necessarily the *fact* that someone's getting killed; it has nothing to do with fact or logic. Lots of people were getting killed. It's an *emotional* response to the expressions on the faces of the two men in the picture. I guarantee that any decent filmmaker could tell the story from the executioner's point of view in such a way that the vast majority of the audience would identify with him almost completely. It's all about emotional manipulation and selective presentation of context.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope.
Being out of uniform doesn't necessarily mean much. Many of those we captured when still taking over Iraq and Afghanistan would fall under the exemption for mustering to resist, and anyone who could make any case for being under any one of the headings has a right for their status to be judged by an appropriately mustered tribunal.
Not allowed to be taken out and summarily shot, as you imply, especially as "summary execution" is not a part of the Geneva Conventions, as noted in my previous post.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Why are you so quiet?
Why isn't the western press reporting what is said by Muslims that support non-violence?
On Sept. 12, 2001 nearly every Islamic country in the world offered its sincere condolences to the US and decried the actions of the terrorists. The question isn't why are they so quiet, but why aren't we listening?
Posted by Yank (Member # 2514) on :
quote:It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly.
Those engaging in combat without wearing a uniform fall outside the Geneva convention as well.
From the Geneva Convention itself:
quote: Article 46.-Spies
1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Conventions or of this Protocol, any member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who falls into the power of an adverse Party while engaging in espionage shall not have the right to the status of prisoner of war and may be treated as a spy.
2. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who, on behalf of that Party and in territory controlled by an adverse Party, gathers or attempts to gather information shall not be considered as engaging in espionage if, while so acting, he is in the uniform of his armed forces.
3. A member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict who is a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who, on behalf of the Party on which he depends, gathers or attempts to gather information of military value within that territory shall not be considered as engaging in espionage unless he does so through an act of false pretences or deliberately in a clandestine manner. Moreover, such a resident shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured while engaging in espionage.
4. A member of the armed forces of a Patty to the conflict who is not a resident of territory occupied by an adverse Party and who has engaged in espionage in that territory shall not lose his right to the status of prisoner of war and may not be treated as a spy unless he is captured before he has rejoined the armed forces to which he belongs.
Article 47.-Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
quote: Article 50.-Definition of civilians and civilian population
1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
The "insurgents" of Iraq fall under both the Mercenary and Spy category, and are categorically not considered "civilians"; they are therefore not protected by the Geneva Convention. That said, just because they're not protected by the Geneva Convention doesn't mean we shouldn't have our own, humane rules about how they should be dealt with.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Your contention was
quote:What they almost never tell you is that the man was a Vietcong officer caught in plain clothes in enemy territory, and as such was subject to summary execution by the Geneva Convention, which he immediately received. (This applies also to nearly all the "insurgents" captured in Iraq-they are combatants out of uniform using the civilian population as cover-but the United States has generally not elected to take this option in the current conflict.)
Not being protected by the Geneva Conventions is substantially different from being "subject to summary excecution by the Geneva Convention".
Also, you're misreading your quotation. The insurgents captured are not members of the armed forces of any country, and thus cannot be a spy by those definitions.
And in order to be mercenaries, they need to be out for "private gain". As far as I can tell, the insurgents fighting are for the most part not being paid, plus, almost all of them (all but 4 to 10%, according to our own military) are residents of a territory controlled by one of the parties to the conflict, which completely excludes them from being mercenaries.
Not to mention that the section defining civilians doesn't say mercenaries or spies aren't civilians, it references different sections entirely (though the definition of spy definitely prevents such people from being civilians).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?
Not true. Historically the PLO included both Christians, Muslims and non-religious Palestinians. Over the years it has become increasingly dominated by Muslims because the Christians have been more like to immigrate to other countries and have a lower birth rate.
quote:Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?
First, there are 53 Muslim countries and second the author needs to define free. Of the 53 majority Muslim countries, 50 have had some form of election in the past decade.
Of the roughly 235 countries in the world, only 36 have stable democracies. Most if not all of these countries are either European or former British colonies. Prior to the end of world war two, most western European countries did not have stable democracies.
If we are going to ask why most Muslim countries aren't "free", then we need to ask why most Buddhist and Catholic countries in the world aren't free.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?
The US armed forces in Iraq have killed many times more civilians than have been killed by the insurgency. The Israeli army has killed far more people than the terrorists. Why have so many atrocities been commited and threatened by US/NATO/Israel in the name of Peace and democracy?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?
Why were Mormons driven from their homes in Ohio, Missouri and Illinois? Why were Navahos, Hopis, Crow, Blackfoot and dozens of other native American tribes forbidden to practice their religions and speak their native languages? Why were Jews driven from their homes in Russia and slaughtered in concentration camps in Europe? Why were anabaptist burned at the stake? Why were Catholics attacked by the KKK? Why were Jews and Muslims expelled from Spain during the Inquistion?
Religious persecution is hardly unique to Islam. You don't need to go back more the 50 years to see egregious examples of religious persecution in Western Europe and the US.
To be completely fair, it is not only Muslims who need to answer these questions. It is all of us. Why both now and in the past have so many atrocities been committed and justified based on the religions and philosophies we hold dear?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
We're all beautiful and unique snowflakes. Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Sadly, we're all leaves floating in the wind.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
lol.....you stole that from HHGttG, right? Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sopwith: Sadly, we're all leaves floating in the wind.
Ouch.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?
The US armed forces in Iraq have killed many times more civilians than have been killed by the insurgency. The Israeli army has killed far more people than the terrorists. Why have so many atrocities been commited and threatened by US/NATO/Israel in the name of Peace and democracy?
That's utterly appalling. If someone tries to kill me and I kill them first, I've killed infinitely more people than my attacker. That kind of math is dumb. Context actually matters.
The Israeli army has killed more people than the terrorists, yes. But the aim of the Israeli army is not to kill anyone. It is to stop the killers from killing again. The aim of the terrorists is to kill as many as possible and in the most horrible ways.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The aim of the terrorists is to kill as many as possible and in the most horrible ways.
I doubt it. I suspect they consider this a means to an end.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: The aim of the terrorists is to kill as many as possible and in the most horrible ways.
I doubt it. I suspect they consider this a means to an end.
So what? Suppose that's their long range goal. Ends do not ever justify means. Context can, but ends never do.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: The aim of the terrorists is to kill as many as possible and in the most horrible ways.
I doubt it. I suspect they consider this a means to an end.
So what? Suppose that's their long range goal. Ends do not ever justify means. Context can, but ends never do.
[previous starLisa post]:The Israeli army has killed more people than the terrorists, yes. But the aim of the Israeli army is not to kill anyone. It is to stop the killers from killing again. The aim of the terrorists is to kill as many as possible and in the most horrible ways.
By your own logic, it seems that, to you, the Israeli Army's ends justifies their means, which contradicts your statement that ends never justify means.
I think they do, sometimes, depending on the situation, or context.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: The aim of the terrorists is to kill as many as possible and in the most horrible ways.
I doubt it. I suspect they consider this a means to an end.
So what? Suppose that's their long range goal. Ends do not ever justify means. Context can, but ends never do.
[previous starLisa post]:The Israeli army has killed more people than the terrorists, yes. But the aim of the Israeli army is not to kill anyone. It is to stop the killers from killing again. The aim of the terrorists is to kill as many as possible and in the most horrible ways.
By your own logic, it seems that, to you, the Israeli Army's ends justifies their means, which contradicts your statement that ends never justify means.
I think they do, sometimes, depending on the situation, or context.
That's why I noted that context can justify means. Killing is immoral if I take a rifle up into a tower and start blowing random people away. If I use that same rifle to kill someone who is coming to kill me, it's moral. The means are the same, and the end is even the same. The context differs.
If an Arab runs a terror cell which has perpetrated the murders of large numbers of innocent civilians (as a matter of intent and policy, mind you), what do we do? Well, here are some ideas:
We can give the terrorists whatever they want and say, "Please, Mr. Terrorist, have whatever you want. Just don't hurt us any more."
We can ask the Palestinian Authority to arrest him and either hand him over or try him themselves.
We can grit our teeth and just accept that our people are going to get murdered over and over and that there's nothing we can do about it.
We can send our police in to arrest him and then hold a public funeral for said police after the Arabs finish mutilating their bodies, assuming that they return the bodies.
We can roll in with tanks and capture the terrorist leader, and take casualties on our side in the process, not to mention the collateral damage among the Arabs, which then gets added into the lame score card that Rabbit likes.
We can fire a rocket at the terrorist's home, limiting the casualties on the Arab side to only those Arabs who chose to welcome a terrorist monster as a neighbor.
What's interesting is the whole idea of "collateral damage". That refers to property damage or casualties that were caused as a side-result of actions intentionally taken. The idea that anyone could ever compare such a thing with the intentional and cold blooded massacre of innocents simply demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the person doing so.
See, the Arabs have no such concept of "collateral damage". Because what we call unfortunate and unnecessary casualties, they call a victory for Allah.
As far as my options list above is concerned, every one of them has been tried at one time or another. Every one that includes action on Israel's part to protect Israelis has been roundly condemned by the entire world.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)