Terrorists are not bad people

[mental_traveller]

Terrorism is wrong but we need to be more consistent and less hypocritical about condemning violence. To me dropping bombs on neighborhood from the safety of a plane or launching cruise missiles from the ocean are just as horrible as blowing yourself up in a bus station but one is condemned by the world while the other one gets medals.

 

It depends. For example if a country attacks a military installation of a hostile country, and some civilians nearby get killed accidentally, then that is not necessarily immoral, even if the attacker knows that some civilian casualties are possible. Their intent was to wage war against an aggressor, not to kill civilians. It is like a force which shoots hostage-takers and hit one or two hostages in the process. This is IMO morally equivalent to "terrorists" who attack an enemy military, and some civilians die in the bomb blast. Their target was the enemy military, not the civilians.

 

Deliberately targeting the civilians of an enemy power, in order to pressure the enemy government into surrender, would IMO be immoral. That would be morally equivalent to terrorists who deliberately blow up civilians to try to pressure their enemy to negotiate.

 

Both result in civilians dying. But IMO one action is immoral and the other is not. It is a difference of intent.

[mental_traveller]

If you killed me because you truly and purely believed it was needed, I do not think you should be faulted. You should be taught differently, but not punished.

 

What if someone truly and purely believed punishment for terrorism is needed? Moral relativists cannot judge anyone, remember - so you cannot condemn others for not being moral relativists, or wanting to impose their absolutist morals on others, since they sincerely believe it is the right thing to do.

[White Flower]

Hi Mahatma,

 

I'm just going to replace a few phrases and words from your OP with new words which I will bold:

 

If a person is born, and submersed into a culture that educates them about how and why the Jewish (you said 'Western') nations are evil, they will begin to believe this. Then they are taught that being an incinerator operator (you said suicide bomber) will make them a Pure Race (you said make them a martyr and get them forty virgins in the afterlife.) If that person is then told that their family will be supported financially by the government they will begin to consider the idea. Their culture, family, and personal beliefs all suggest that doing something like Jew killing (you said a suicide bombing) is beneficial to everyone, including humanity. If not suicide, at least bombing and killing Jews (you said Westerners) is a good thing for everyone. This person has nothing bad on their conscious. They really do think they are doing the "right" thing.

 

This has all been done before. Been there, done that, wrote the book and bought the T-shirt. We are bound to repeat history if we fail to learn from it. Oh yeah, Ahmedinejad and his buddies believe the Holocaust never happened.

 

It would seem that some parts of the Middle East want to pick and choose which history they want to believe in order to fulfill whatever deed they want. How convenient.

 

But what we learned about the Holocaust was that people throughout Europe, including Germans, hid, helped, fed, and took care of many Jews because guess what? They actually had a conscience of their own, regardless of how they were brainwashed.

 

Extremists are not robots; they know how to think and follow their gut instincts.

 

BTW, I believe it is 72 virgins they are promised. Tell me, what man in his right mind wants that many virgins? How can they please him if they have no sexual experience? Ah, it must be the power he has over them. Sexism at its finest.

[White Flower]

Sorry, I forgot about your original question. I just felt it was important to point out that people can and do think on their own.

 

As for your question whether or not a god would punish a person who did whatever they did, believing totally that it was right. Well, one hears all the time that, 'God was on our side', or, 'God be with us' on the battlefield. I suppose if any soldier went into any kind of battle using 'God' as his strength, leader, etc., then of course they FEEL like they are doing the right thing. God, the universe, or big ball of energy knows what is in the heart of the person doing the killing at the time. I happen to believe (there's that word again) that we will all judge ourselves, how we could have done this or that better next time around. We are all here to learn and improve.

[Mahatma]

The purpose was to give an extreme example of what I was thinking about in order to find any flaws. I would agree that most people internally judge themselves all the time. I would also agree that most people inherently know that there is just something wrong with killing each other. At the same time, the brain is incredibly malleable and can be made to believe some very twisted things.

 

The Germans were killing, but from what I know they were not doing it based on religion. It was done to just create a master race.

 

The Muslim extremist terrorists do it in the name of god. Terrorists are not the first to become twisted and do horrible things in the name of "religion."

 

If you have ever seen an interview with a terrorist or seen one of the leaders speaking, they are clearly borderline psychopathic. They way they justify something or think something is the solution is not rational at all. I would be willing to bet a few of those guys are not sane, so what about them?

[Mahatma]

What if someone truly and purely believed punishment for terrorism is needed? Moral relativists cannot judge anyone, remember - so you cannot condemn others for not being moral relativists, or wanting to impose their absolutist morals on others, since they sincerely believe it is the right thing to do.

 

If someone killed a terrorist based on your beliefs mentioned above, then no I do not think that is a bad person. Maybe a misguided person, but who is really to blame?

 

It is like those Christians who attempt to convert me by telling me I am going to go to hell. Sure, I get incredibly annoyed by these people but, if I think their intentions are pure, I do not view them as a bad person either.

[Taramere]

If you have ever seen an interview with a terrorist or seen one of the leaders speaking, they are clearly borderline psychopathic. They way they justify something or think something is the solution is not rational at all. I would be willing to bet a few of those guys are not sane, so what about them?

 

The prevailing view in psychiatry and criminal justice is that psychopaths are not insane. That they're fully aware society deplores their actions, and they're fully aware of the harm their actions cause to others....but they simply don't care. They lack conscience, and can't be rehabilitated into caring about the consequences their actions have on others - though when it suits their purposes, they'll feign empathy and concern.

 

Psychiatry and religion often come into conflict, and I'd imagine that this is an area where that conflict could be particularly vigorous and bitter. Religion creates eternal hope that people who perform evil acts will be "saved" if they are genuinely remorseful. Psychiatry holds the less rose-tinted view that if the evil act stems from a genuinely psychopathic nature then genuine remorse in that individual is impossible.

 

In which case it would be misguided for any well-intentioned individual to involve themselves in trying to "change" a psychopathic character or argue that there's inherent goodness in that character. I prefer the psychiatric perspective, because a) I think it's better researched, and stems from intellectual examination rather than superstitious beliefs, and b) I think infinite harm is created where the well-intended pour their own resources (and society's) into a futile task.

 

So whether the "terrorist" is a recognised world leader, or the head of an underground political organisation, if they were to meet the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy as applied by a trained and experienced psychologist, then I think it would be fair to categorise them as evil. If, that is, they have performed actions we would regard as evil (eg taking innocent lives in the furtherance of their goals and quest for power). You've got both the mens rea and the actus rheus in such a person. What's wrong with defining that person as "bad"?

[White Flower]

The purpose was to give an extreme example of what I was thinking about in order to find any flaws. I would agree that most people internally judge themselves all the time. I would also agree that most people inherently know that there is just something wrong with killing each other. At the same time, the brain is incredibly malleable and can be made to believe some very twisted things.

 

The Germans were killing, but from what I know they were not doing it based on religion. It was done to just create a master race.

 

The Muslim extremist terrorists do it in the name of god. Terrorists are not the first to become twisted and do horrible things in the name of "religion."

 

If you have ever seen an interview with a terrorist or seen one of the leaders speaking, they are clearly borderline psychopathic. They way they justify something or think something is the solution is not rational at all. I would be willing to bet a few of those guys are not sane, so what about them?

We certainly agree, but I would use the word sociopath to describe these natural born leaders who kill without remorse. They may even be sane for the most part but selfish in getting what they want without remorse. (Is that sane? I'll look into that). But certainly not rational.

 

I'm not sure it matters whether a leader sought genicide based on religion or creating a master race. Any human can be brainwashed for sure, but the spirit is always there and rules overall.

[FleshNBones]

Psychiatry and religion often come into conflict, and I'd imagine that this is an area where that conflict could be particularly vigorous and bitter. Religion creates eternal hope that people who perform evil acts will be "saved" if they are genuinely remorseful. Psychiatry holds the less rose-tinted view that if the evil act stems from a genuinely psychopathic nature then genuine remorse in that individual is impossible.

 

In which case it would be misguided for any well-intentioned individual to involve themselves in trying to "change" a psychopathic character or argue that there's inherent goodness in that character. I prefer the psychiatric perspective, because a) I think it's better researched, and stems from intellectual examination rather than superstitious beliefs, and b) I think infinite harm is created where the well-intended pour their own resources (and society's) into a futile task.

Religion tends to empahsize prevention over rehabilitation. They go to great lengths to preserve the family structure, and to protect children from negative influences. This includes early exposure to sex, drugs, violence, and other forms of anti-social behavior.

 

I believe modern day liberalism holds the belief that bad people are simply victims of society who can be rehabilitated. Oddly enough, they also empahsize experimentation (a recipe for disaster in opion).

[dunstable]

Terrorist is an emotive term. Most governments have committed similar acts to so-called terrorists. I condemn those governments and their leaders as well as the so-called terrorists. I also condemn the leading religions for propagating stories about their god and his chosen people killing people deemed bad, and so setting wrong examples for members of those religions today.

[FleshNBones]

Terrorist is an emotive term. Most governments have committed similar acts to so-called terrorists. I condemn those governments and their leaders as well as the so-called terrorists. I also condemn the leading religions for propagating stories about their god and his chosen people killing people deemed bad, and so setting wrong examples for members of those religions today.

The only "CHOSEN" people are the Jews.

 

Too many people here discount ethnic pride, bigotry, and the human capacity for creulty.

 

Careful with the finger pointing. Some people are so blinded by waterboarding that they miss the genocide. Perspective seems to be in short supply.

[dunstable]

The only "CHOSEN" people are the Jews.

I was referring to the old testament because that is what I am most familiar with. But I feel that the Torah and the Koran probably tell similar stories. I am open to correction if that is wrong.

 

Too many people here discount ethnic pride, bigotry, and the human capacity for creulty.

If you mean me, you have misunderstood my message. I am appalled by all those things.

Careful with the finger pointing. Some people are so blinded by waterboarding that they miss the genocide. Perspective seems to be in short supply.

 

If you are saying the waterboarding was a response to genocide, I have to disgree with you. But even if it was such a response, it was not justified. The USA has to keep the moral high ground if it is overcome the widespread hatred against it. Obama has recongnized that, thank goodness.

[FleshNBones]

If you are saying the waterboarding was a response to genocide, I have to disgree with you. But even if it was such a response, it was not justified. The USA has to keep the moral high ground if it is overcome the widespread hatred against it. Obama has recongnized that, thank goodness.

Do you think Jews could ever gain approval from the nazis?

 

The US isn't hated for its morality, but for its strength. The moral high ground won't get you anywhere with these people. They will never like us, but they can learn to respect us.

 

I think the ultimate sign of weakness is surrender. Surrendering to protect your population is one thing, but surrendering under political pressure (from self-serving powerless politicians) is weakness itself.

 

Obama is just another politican. He is probably more naive than most.

[clv0116]

.... what man in his right mind wants that many virgins? How can they please him if they have no sexual experience?

 

I doubt they are meant to be virgins for very long, and sexual experience in women is way overrated.

[adzent]

Well, no matter how hard any of you tries, you will not be able to comprehend their situation. They are brought up, from brith, to believe that this is good and just, and so provides a false sense of achievement if they manage to commit a task like suicide bombing.

 

I wonder what would happen if we tried to properly educate a fully grown suicide bomber into our culture and society, after years of teaching him.

 

We don't live in a perfect world, far far from it. Diversity is considered good on this planet by most, while that fact only remains in certain, un-nessasary things like wildlife, the diversity of human cultures, beliefs and societies may herald the end of humanity.

[Mahatma]

Diversity is considered good on this planet by most.

 

You really think that?

 

Diversity is the reason for all the wars, for the genocide, for the hatred.

 

I would say diversity is considered good by few.

[White Flower]

I doubt they are meant to be virgins for very long, and sexual experience in women is way overrated.

Then explain the term Cougar and ask millions of men why they chase them.

 

BTW, are you Mideastern?

[Taramere]

Well, no matter how hard any of you tries, you will not be able to comprehend their situation. They are brought up, from brith, to believe that this is good and just, and so provides a false sense of achievement if they manage to commit a task like suicide bombing.

 

Emboldened part is not always correct. In the UK, we have a lot of home grown extremists who became radical later on in life. The July tube bombings of 2005 are an example of this. The instigators there didn't have the excuse of having been born into a war-torn region where fundamentalist Islamic beliefs were the only culturally acceptable ones.

 

They were born and brought up in the UK. A country where the emphasis on being tolerant of other people's religious beliefs frequently takes our political and cultural leaders (as well as those who implement the laws) beyond the point of common sense. Let me quote to you from Melanie Phillips' "Londonistan".

 

In February 2006, Muslims demonstrating outside the Danish Embassy in London's exclusive Knightsbridge area were allowed to call for bombings and decapitations while the police looked on. "Bomb, bomb Denmark"..."Exterminate those who slander Islam." "Europe you'll come crawling when mujahideen come roaring....And one demonstrator was even dressed in the garb of a suicide bomber.

 

Not only was such open incitement to murder and terrorism allowed to go on, but at the time the only action taken by the police was actually directed against those passers-by who objected to such displays....And those who tried to photograph the man directed as a suicide bomber were threatened by arrest....Realising that a public relations disaster was in the offing, British Muslim Community leaders themselves criticised the police for allowing the demonstrators to threaten violence on British streets. With such calls from the very people they were bending over backwards not to offend, the police and government abruptly changed their tune."

 

No. The people whose beliefs (in tolerance and freedom) and way of life is under threat from fundamentalist Islam won't understand. It's hard enough to comprehend the mindset of an Islamic suicide bomber who was brought up in a culture that's ruled by fundamentalist Islam. Harder still to understand the mindset of those who have grown up enjoying all the freedoms and rights extended to citizens in the Western World, and who respond with a commitment to destroying that way of life for future generations.

 

I would venture that, in the UK at least, we've already spent too many years trying too hard to understand. I have the uneasy feeling that cowardice, rather than tolerance, is all too often at the heart of that desire to understand.

[grogster]

I would venture that, in the UK at least, we've already spent too many years trying too hard to understand. I have the uneasy feeling that cowardice, rather than tolerance, is all too often at the heart of that desire to understand.

 

Perhaps fear of unnecessary provocation does enter the law enforcement mix. Come down too hard, risk terrorist blowback. That's prudent not necessarily pusillanimous.

 

Here in the States, we don't perceive Great Britain's counter-terrorist measures as weak or ineffective. Your secuity people appear to understand the difference between street theater (no matter how obnoxious) and Islamist cells that are planning to kill many, many people.

 

Your House of Lords is a bit doddy, though.

[taiko]

Our homegrown jihadist also tend to be prison converts so violence is not such a leap. However now they are forgiven for their acts since they act in defense of Islam.

[Taramere]

Here in the States, we don't perceive Great Britain's counter-terrorist measures as weak or ineffective. Your secuity people appear to understand the difference between street theater (no matter how obnoxious) and Islamist cells that are planning to kill many, many people.

 

I think intelligence here faces an enormous task, not least because indoctrination is taking place on our island amongst people born here. And the public demonstrations threatening violence against the West are the public face of that indoctrination. The people in those demonstrations are perceived, by impressionables, as being powerful. Glamorous. That's the pull of vociferous, noisy, fundamentalist religion. It satisfies something emotional, in people who are struggling for a clear identity. It reaches places that logic and sanity can't.

 

Those demonstrations came in response to the Danish cartoons (remember those?) The message is "don't dare mock Islam" and we respond by creeping around, being respectful and being nodding little doggies at the notion of Sharia Law being introduced.

 

We're not permitted to mock Islam in the way that other religions are mocked. Our leaders tell us that it's naughty and disrespectful to mock Islam, and we're disgusted....because we know very well that this has nothing to do with being tolerant and respectful, and everything to do with being afraid. If we're truly a free country, then Islam should get the piss ripped out of it alongside every other religion whose followers react more in sadness than in anger.

[Dexter Morgan]

Muslims vehemently separate themselves from extremists. No the Qur'an does not teach this, but terrorist leaders do. The people who are taught this firmly believe it.

 

well, then I guess its all good then! sorry innocent civilians...you are just gonna have to deal with it:o

[grogster]

I think intelligence here faces an enormous task, not least because indoctrination is taking place on our island amongst people born here. And the public demonstrations threatening violence against the West are the public face of that indoctrination. The people in those demonstrations are perceived, by impressionables, as being powerful. Glamorous. That's the pull of vociferous, noisy, fundamentalist religion. It satisfies something emotional, in people who are struggling for a clear identity. It reaches places that logic and sanity can't.

 

Those demonstrations came in response to the Danish cartoons (remember those?) The message is "don't dare mock Islam" and we respond by creeping around, being respectful and being nodding little doggies at the notion of Sharia Law being introduced.

 

We're not permitted to mock Islam in the way that other religions are mocked. Our leaders tell us that it's naughty and disrespectful to mock Islam, and we're disgusted....because we know very well that this has nothing to do with being tolerant and respectful, and everything to do with being afraid. If we're truly a free country, then Islam should get the piss ripped out of it alongside every other religion whose followers react more in sadness than in anger.

 

Well, Tara, you're on the ground so to speak. I'll defer to your judgment, perceptions and proximity. If true, it's a sorry spectacle when a mostly immigrant religion can, through violence or the mere threat of violence, hold hostage a nation and itself above criticism. Islam can never be respected, only feared, as long as its public face is that of the suicide bomber.

 

I did notice yesterday that al Qaeda has threatened France with massive retaliation were burkhas to be banned.

 

And the beat goes on...

[Taramere]

I did notice yesterday that al Qaeda has threatened France with massive retaliation were burkhas to be banned.

 

I see that. And from the picture, I can also see France's point. Perhaps some compromise could be reached. Women would be allowed to wear burkhas so long as they were designed by Christian Lacroix.

 

ETA: As my link was broken, here's another one demonstrating the burkha in all its sartorial elegance. I'm totally bemused by the fact that the guy's taking a holiday snap - presumably for the family album that grandchildren can look at.

 

"Oh look....and there's grandma."

"Awwww. You can tell by the way that she's holding her handbag that she was having a great holiday."

[Dexter Morgan]

I did notice yesterday that al Qaeda has threatened France with massive retaliation were burkhas to be banned.

 

France will cave, and burqas will be allowed. those with something to hide will have won.

 

I remember while watching an episode of Fairly Odd Parents with my son where the boy in the cartoon wings a water balloon at the back of the head of someone in France having tea, and the first thing out of the couples' mouths were "WE GIVE UP"!!

 

LOL, even a cartoon writer gets it.