Terrorists are not bad people

[kashmir]

The US and Al Queda are very similiar. I am not saying I support either one but 9/11 was nothing compared to Hiroshima and or what we did in Iraq and Vietnam. If killing is wrong then it is wrong on all ends. America does not have some special right to murder that the rest of the world doesn't have.

 

People need to look at the world more practically and subjectively instead of getting into these philosophical debates about whether terrorists are to blame or not for their deeds.

 

Here's my view:

 

Everyone is just if killing the other guy will save their own. If I could go back and detonate the bombs over Japan, I would gladly do it, because while I might kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese, I know I'd be saving many lives of young American men, MY people. If the Japanese developed the bomb, I'd expect them to do the same to us.

 

It's too idealistic to believe that we can go without war. Despite how advanced our brains have become in relation to other living things, we still maintain our underlying instinct to survive, pass on our own genes, and exert more influence over the world, even if it means fighting other humans. Japan wanted to become more powerful and ultimately control their part of the world. They interfered with us. We fought them and both their men and our men died. We then develop a weapon that will cause devastation to them with no harm to us. Of course we're going to use it. If we didn't drop the bombs, who knows how long the war would have lasted and how many of our men would have died.

 

Stop worrying about who we killed and worry about who killed our own. The world isn't going to get any nicer if we decide to stop retaliating. You gotta put your own above all else if you want to live and prosper.

 

No crap terrorists are born are raised in a society where they're taught to be hostile to the west, particular the US. Some of the reasons they're hostile are our own fault, but we can't go back and change those mistakes. The best we can do is eliminate those who intend to harm us. I'm not worried about divine justice - whether the terrorists go to heaven or hell. I don't give a crap if they get their 40 virgins. I do give a crap, though, if I have to watch 3000 Americans die again because we were being pussies.

[Trialbyfire]

Here, have some homegrown terrorists. Are you going to say that these are sane men?

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13497335/

 

MIAMI - Seven young men arrested in an alleged plot against the Sears Tower were part of a group of “homegrown terrorists” who sought to work with al-Qaida but ended up conspiring with an informant, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Friday.

 

 

Five are U.S. citizens, one is a legal immigrant from Haiti and the other is a Haitian national who was in this country illegally.

[wuggle]

Let me guess. You believe it's sane to venture into an ice cream shop to blow up 8 year olds...

 

As usual you guess wrong.

[Mahatma]

So wait, are you now granting that terrorists are bad? By making this argument, you are changing the entire basis of this thread. Are you just throwing things out to be contrarian, or do you have a belief here?

 

No, nothing changed by making this argument. Only difference is that it is Americans now.

 

The two men took more civilian life than any terrorist attack. Yet, they are viewed as "under orders."

 

Oh the hypocrisy. The terrorists killing under orders are insane and stupid, but when Americans do it, they had orders they had to follow.

[Trimmer]

No, nothing changed by making this argument. Only difference is that it is Americans now.

 

The two men took more civilian life than any terrorist attack. Yet, they are viewed as "under orders."

 

Oh the hypocrisy. The terrorists killing under orders are insane and stupid, but when Americans do it, they had orders they had to follow.

You'll note that I clearly argued against the "only following orders" justification, just as much as I argue against the "I truly believe in my God/Priest/Radical Cleric" justification.

[The Collector]

Luke Skywalker and Han Solo are terrorists.

 

Obi Wan is a bad person though, because he withheld the truth about Luke's parentage (and sister), which Luke had a right to know.

 

And he didn't tell Leia either, even when she and Luke were all kissing, the dirty old pervert.

[wuggle]

Rubbish, Obi Wan was so clever he knew that Luke didn't need to know. (Use the Fork Luke, Use the Fork.....smug bast*rd)

[The Collector]

Rubbish, Obi Wan was so clever he knew that Luke didn't need to know. (Use the Fork Luke, Use the Fork.....smug bast*rd)

 

Luke didn't need to know he might be killing his father and kissing his sister? That's the sort of non-disclosure that could turn anyone to the Dark Side.

 

The truth of course is that George Lucas himself had no idea at the time when he was writing the first Star Wars.

[wuggle]

If my sister looked like that I would want to NOT know so I didn't feel bad about kissing her !

[Mahatma]

You'll note that I clearly argued against the "only following orders" justification, just as much as I argue against the "I truly believe in my God/Priest/Radical Cleric" justification.

 

Originally in my response to your quote, I actually stated that you believed what I said and called you a hypocrite. I went back to make sure it was you who had said it, and then edited just refer to people here. I am aware of your stance.

 

Do you believe the bombers are bad men? As bad as say someone who creates a pipe bomb and randomly kills 50 people?

 

How do you judge someone like that?

 

I do not agree with the "just following orders" idea. However, I do think that many people would do the same things if they had been in that guys shoes.

 

Let me shape it this way:

 

I am completely against slavery and racism. However, had I been born in a different time, and my parents owned slaves. I would probably view it as normal. I also believe many of you would too. Only those select people who had their eyes opened to reality were able to see the wrongs and that is why times change.

 

This is also why many wife beaters had fathers that were wife beaters.

[Taramere]

No, nothing changed by making this argument. Only difference is that it is Americans now.

 

The two men took more civilian life than any terrorist attack. Yet, they are viewed as "under orders."

 

Oh the hypocrisy. The terrorists killing under orders are insane and stupid, but when Americans do it, they had orders they had to follow.

 

I described suicide bombers as stupid. That's partly a strongly emotional response, I admit. I hate suicide bombers because, to me, they are a very tangible form of that Islamic fundamentalism that is a double threat to me (as a Westerner and a woman).

 

The sense of "stupid" is one I extend to anyone who resorts to violence without first attempting to employ diplomacy. I thought the same thing about George Bush when he made his "bring it on!!" speech. That posturing rejection of the "wishy washiness" of using diplomacy as part of your strategy. It was a transparent attempt at being a good ol' boy appealing to the frothy mouthed mob..

 

I can have a dialogue with someone who expresses their Islamic beliefs moderately - or at least in the spirit of being prepared to listen as well as talk. I'll attempt to consider things from their perspective. I don't believe conflict can ever be resolved without at least one side being prepared to do that. It doesn't mean being weak, and it doesn't entail becoming an apologist for the other side. It's absolutely essential in effective diplomacy.

 

Despite the gung ho approach often demonstrated in the more popular forms of our Western media, our governments and our intelligence services are advised by some of the highest calibre thinkers academia has to offer to assist them in diplomacy as well as warfare. The mob doesn't want to listen to those people.....but politicians know they must. As politicians they have to juggle listening to and understanding those advisers with feeding the mob what it wants to hear.

 

There are many Islamic intellectuals out there, but the ones we hear from tend to express their views in moderate terms and distance themselves from al qaeda. Fundamentalists deride them as "bad Muslims", and are advised philosophically by hard-line preachers rather than advisers who use reason, logic and objectivity. I don't tend to see the moderates and the fundamentalists as being on the same side really....though if forced to take a side, it's probably a different story. Which is why Western governments and intelligence services have to court moderates.

 

Despite middle east regions having the Islamic faith in common, those regions are constantly in conflict. We don't have that level of conflict in the West. Republicans may deride liberal intellectualism, but I don't believe they generally reject it in the manner that fundamentalist Islam rejects moderate Muslims. People in the West have less tendency to be rabid (though we have our rabble-rousers too). There isn't that "devoted to the cause to the extent that I'll bomb myself in the process" mentality here. Which is kind of a weakness in warfare. It's pretty hard to fight someone who's determined to kill and doesn't care about dying themselves (a mindset which would, I think, satisfy the standard of insanity a psychologist might set). On the other hand, our diplomacy assists us tactically.

 

That, for me, is the main difference. Our Western governments are advised by thinkers rather than preachers. In warfare, the West might well behave every bit as ruthlessly as any fundamentalist blowing himself up in a shop. We have to. Diplomacy only works when it's backed up with muscle and a willingness to face conflict head on (and every bit as ruthlessly/cruelly as your enemy) when necessary. I have no problem with us doing that if we need to, and I don't care whether that makes us good or bad.

 

The popular notion of God suggests, to me, a primarily self-interested entity who regards it as "good" when people can refrain from sinning, but accepts that they do all sin, one way or another....and will accept them into his "mansion" provided they adore him. On that basis, if heaven exists it's probably chock full of suicide bombers and their virgins by now. Limbo sounds a lot more up my street though.

[grogster]

Brilliantly written and argued, Tara. Like you, I'd rather go to Hell than "ascend" to heaven with divinity inspired slaughterers of innocents.

 

Much Islamist violence is directed not at the West but at other Muslims--Shia, moderate Sunni, etc. The Taliban, in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, targets school girls, teachers, moderate tribal leaders, shop keepers, critical journalists.

 

That's why I prefer the imperfect West to militant Islam's utopian Caliphate. Here, we think, and compete, and produce and try to create meaningful lives for everyone regardless of, for example, gender. In the world of the Taliban and al qaeda, it's always men with guns and knives telling people how they must live--on pain of death. It's an ugly world of tyranny, brutality and terror.

 

I don't care what motivates these Men of God. All I know is that I will fight them to my dying breath before I allow them to impose their violent, squalid and terrifying system on my children--especially my daughter.

 

In many respects, we're all Afghan school children.

[Mahatma]

I still agree with the idea that what goes on there is not productive, or good for humanity. However, it is not the people that are to blame. It is the idea that "I am right, you are wrong. So, you must believe me at all costs."

 

You claim we here in America do not have this issue, but we are just better at eliminating people. Look at how we took over America from the Spanish and Natives. We basically used our "law" to steal land from the Spanish and forced off the Natives. We forced them to stop their rituals and to convert to Christianity. These things were happening not too long ago and you say we are any different?

 

Of course these things do not happen here in the west. We conquered the west.

[Quinch]

I think there is little difference between the terrorists of the 21st century and the European Crusaders of the 11th/12th centuries. They were stupid, uncultured and violent men who were told by the Pope that all their sins would be absovled if they went to the Holy Land and liberated it from the heathen. Anyone who got in their way, regardless of religion, race, sex, or age, were butchered without mercy. Even babies and animals were killed because the Crusaders had been told they were doing Gods will.

 

We might think that we are more advanced now but its amazing how quickly people will give in to their bloodlust if they think they can get away with murder.

[marlena]

Terrorism comes in all sizes, shapes and form. Some terrorists wear robes while others wear suits and ties. There is overt terrorism and there is covert terrorism. Covert terrorism is the worst, the most sinister and insidious threat to mankind.

 

As for heaven or hell, whether it be virgins or the Pearly Gates, I could care less as these silly myths do not exist for me.

 

Harold Pinter in his nobel acceptance speech in 2005 said it much better than I ever could. This is a speech he would have written for Bush if he had been asked.

 

'God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam's God was bad, except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don't chop people's heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don't you forget it.'

 

 

I recommend listening to the whole speech. Brilliant.

[disgracian]

The men who dropped the bombs were under orders.

 

Christians are taught that we are to obey authority. The consequences lies at the feet of whomever authorized the act.

I guess you can't fault the Nazis either then. Or suicide bombers. Or anybody who performs reprehensible acts because some authority figure told them to.

 

This is why the herd mentality is dangerous.

 

Cheers,

D.

[calazhage]

Regardless of culture and values, deliberately killing civilians crosses the line from sanity to insanity. I doubt the Qur'an teaches Islamists that it's okay to deliberately venture into non-military zones and kill unarmed civilians AND children.

 

 

HMMM..

 

Well Israel was just dropping bombs on civilians. Obviously not by accident. Are they insane?

 

What about the allies targeting Hamburg and Dresden. Are they insane? Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

[mallsballs]

Yeah the original poster is a troll. All his posts are repetition, flat inversions of others' statements and sophistic crap like "if terrorists think it's right then who are we to disagree?"

 

If we take it that killing is bad, and that a person's overall quality is determined by their actions, how can terrorists not be bad?

[mallsballs]

I still agree with the idea that what goes on there is not productive, or good for humanity. However, it is not the people that are to blame. It is the idea that "I am right, you are wrong. So, you must believe me at all costs."

 

And who passes down these ideas?

 

That's right: People!

[Mahatma]

Yeah the original poster is a troll. All his posts are repetition, flat inversions of others' statements and sophistic crap like "if terrorists think it's right then who are we to disagree?"

 

If we take it that killing is bad, and that a person's overall quality is determined by their actions, how can terrorists not be bad?

 

No, not a troll. I love when someone makes a new account and starts making assumptions about people they do not even know yet.

 

Anyways, of course the posts are repetitive, should my opinion have changed? Look at anyone's posts here, they are all going to be "repetitive" because not many opinions are going to change.

 

Something "bad" is determined by the individual. A group of individuals make up a society. If those group of individuals agree that killing is not bad depending on who is dying, you can not fault the individual.

[mallsballs]

Sorry if I 'sumes too much. But the thread title is in the realms of classic trolling.

 

You're assuming too much about people you don't know if you think Middle-Eastern society agrees that killing is okay. There's old dogma to support such views, but there are rational people who grew up with it and rejected it.

 

And since I'm guessing you think a lot of Gandhi - with good reason - I hope you'd realise that he wouldn't agree with politically-motivated violence, even though he grew up in a time when a lot of people around the world did.

[Mahatma]

Sorry if I 'sumes too much. But the thread title is in the realms of classic trolling.

 

You're assuming too much about people you don't know if you think Middle-Eastern society agrees that killing is okay. There's old dogma to support such views, but there are rational people who grew up with it and rejected it.

 

And since I'm guessing you think a lot of Gandhi - with good reason - I hope you'd realise that he wouldn't agree with politically-motivated violence, even though he grew up in a time when a lot of people around the world did.

 

This was more of a reply I was looking for.

 

Now in regards to what you said...

 

I am not saying "Middle-Eastern society," I am saying terrorists. Middle-Easterners are not bad people either by the way.

 

My point is: if someone does not even know what they are doing is wrong, and in fact they believe it is right, what makes it wrong? How can you hold that person accountable?

[mallsballs]

You say yourself that people make up their own minds about what's right and wrong. Does that mean that a person is unaccountable if they make a decision that others think is wrong?

 

Since you admit that killing is wrong, this is more a debate about psychology than politics. And here's a bit of psychology 101: people aren't going to make decisions they don't think at the time are right.

 

Your position just seems like moral nihilism (you might say relativism, but I don't see a lot of difference). Your statement at its core is that someone who does bad things and thinks they're good can be a good person, even though they have a flaw that anyone outside their mindset can observe.

 

Is there such a thing as a bad person then? And if not, can there be such a thing as a good person?

[Mahatma]

Is there such a thing as a bad person then? And if not, can there be such a thing as a good person?

 

Yes, there are both. People who steal know it is wrong to steal, but do it for whatever reason. There are also people who kill, who know it is wrong, but do it for their personal gain. This is a bad person.

[grogster]

Yes, there are both. People who steal know it is wrong to steal, but do it for whatever reason. There are also people who kill, who know it is wrong, but do it for their personal gain. This is a bad person.

 

Islamist extremists kill for personal gain: to martyr themselves and enter "heaven" to boff all those "hot" virgins.

 

It's all about belief, at least for you, mahatma. The victims won't have any opinion on the subject--they're all dead.

 

My choice: would I rather be slowly decapitated by knife on video by a good Muslim who believes my slow, painful death is good and right or by a bad Muslim who doesn't?

 

One's person's "belief," is another's rationalization.

 

Belief is not a license to kill.