|
Please attempt to distinguish between extremists and non extremists to avoid starting the inevitable waste of time that is "can Islam be judged by its believers?" - KwarK |
On May 27 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 06:08 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 05:56 Umpteen wrote:
To be brutally frank, based on this episode Islam - judged upon its capacity to foment violence - is still orders of magnitude less worrying than Millwall football club.
Those statistics are pretty sweet, to be honest. I'd be interested to know what percentage of <insert western country here> would say civilian casualties were justified to defend <insert western country here> from its enemies. I'd bet my house and my left testicle it'd be higher than 6%.
I personally wouldn't read anything into stats gleaned from US muslims. With the best will in the world you cannot expect to get data that isn't coloured by the stigma they've had to bear for the last decade. "When asked, 100% of US muslims said: 'please leave us the fuck alone; that wasn't our fault.'" The difference is we are not talking about <insert country here> we are talking about <insert religion here>. I agree with what you are saying though, there are probably plenty of people who agree that civilian casualties justify defending our country....and why wouldn't they? It's just I doubt you'd find many people saying "yeah I think think those christian terrorist attacks were justified in defending christianity".. But the people with <insert religion> are mostly first or second generation immigrants from <insert country>. The second part is semantics. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were American holy wars. The bottom line for both countries is that they refused to bow down, and we invaded them. Our acts are terrorism on a scale that makes 9/11 insignificant. I would bet that far more Americans support that injustice than muslims support suicide bombings. Edit: A better comparison would be americans who are in favor of drone strikes.
Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice.
Killing terrorists (with inadvertent civilian casualties) with drone strikes = intentionally murdering civilians in the name of religion on what planet exactly?
|
On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:
Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice.
Right because Iraq and Afghanistan had to do with an attack on US soil using US and non state affiliated trained Saudi's who attacked US citizens. ...nice.
|
On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 06:08 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 05:56 Umpteen wrote:
To be brutally frank, based on this episode Islam - judged upon its capacity to foment violence - is still orders of magnitude less worrying than Millwall football club.
Those statistics are pretty sweet, to be honest. I'd be interested to know what percentage of <insert western country here> would say civilian casualties were justified to defend <insert western country here> from its enemies. I'd bet my house and my left testicle it'd be higher than 6%.
I personally wouldn't read anything into stats gleaned from US muslims. With the best will in the world you cannot expect to get data that isn't coloured by the stigma they've had to bear for the last decade. "When asked, 100% of US muslims said: 'please leave us the fuck alone; that wasn't our fault.'" The difference is we are not talking about <insert country here> we are talking about <insert religion here>. I agree with what you are saying though, there are probably plenty of people who agree that civilian casualties justify defending our country....and why wouldn't they? It's just I doubt you'd find many people saying "yeah I think think those christian terrorist attacks were justified in defending christianity".. But the people with <insert religion> are mostly first or second generation immigrants from <insert country>. The second part is semantics. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were American holy wars. The bottom line for both countries is that they refused to bow down, and we invaded them. Our acts are terrorism on a scale that makes 9/11 insignificant. Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice.
More like people who have had family murdered by soldiers of country x are generally happier when people of country x die.
'Democracy' is the American religion. 9/11 had >1% of the civilian casualties of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars according to the conservative estimates. I generally don't consider >1% to be extremely significant.
|
On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:
Killing terrorists (with inadvertent civilian casualties) with drone strikes = intentionally murdering civilians in the name of religion on what planet exactly?
No - sorry, it would be lovely to think that way, but no. If you launch a device knowing that civilian casualties are a strong possibility, then their deaths are intentional, not inadvertent. You have judged the cost worth paying.
I'm not saying what was done was right; fuck no. I'm saying there's more wrong going on than we like to admit.
|
On May 27 2013 06:12 Simberto wrote:
True, it would be really interesting to see those stats for other religions. I am actually not that confident that they are significantly lower then those 6% for other religions. I am pretty sure that in most ideological groups you will find some people who think defending that idea is worth civilian casualties.
When was the last time someone in England was decapitated by some Christian lunatic screaming "IN JESUS NAME"??
It's not that Christianity (or Hinduism, or Judaism) are any more ethical moral frameworks than Islam. In my opinion, they most certainly are not. The issue is simply the frequency and the sheer body count of Islamic terrorism in the past ~15 years.
All organized religions have the potential to cause immense problems in society. Plenty of Christian groups are certainly partially to blame for attacks on gays and lesbians and abortion clinics in the United States (IMO) for example.
The Catholic church is unquestionably guilty of the institutionalization of the rape and mistreatment of children and the subsequent coverup of their offenses.
That doesn't make your average Catholic parishoner a pederast any more than the stunning amount of Islamic terrorist violence in the last fifteen years makes your average Muslim a murderer.
But don't expect me to put my head in the sand and ignore the crimes committed in the name of people's faiths so as not to offend the "average" adherents.
I think it is incredibly irresponsible of society to allow the public questioning of the problems with Islamic violence to be dismissed as "intolerant." Many of those in the media who do, do so with extreme intellectual dishonesty.
|
On May 27 2013 06:28 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 06:08 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 05:56 Umpteen wrote:
To be brutally frank, based on this episode Islam - judged upon its capacity to foment violence - is still orders of magnitude less worrying than Millwall football club.
Those statistics are pretty sweet, to be honest. I'd be interested to know what percentage of <insert western country here> would say civilian casualties were justified to defend <insert western country here> from its enemies. I'd bet my house and my left testicle it'd be higher than 6%.
I personally wouldn't read anything into stats gleaned from US muslims. With the best will in the world you cannot expect to get data that isn't coloured by the stigma they've had to bear for the last decade. "When asked, 100% of US muslims said: 'please leave us the fuck alone; that wasn't our fault.'" The difference is we are not talking about <insert country here> we are talking about <insert religion here>. I agree with what you are saying though, there are probably plenty of people who agree that civilian casualties justify defending our country....and why wouldn't they? It's just I doubt you'd find many people saying "yeah I think think those christian terrorist attacks were justified in defending christianity".. But the people with <insert religion> are mostly first or second generation immigrants from <insert country>. The second part is semantics. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were American holy wars. The bottom line for both countries is that they refused to bow down, and we invaded them. Our acts are terrorism on a scale that makes 9/11 insignificant. Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice. More like people who have had family murdered by soldiers of country x are generally happier when people of country x die. 'Democracy' is the American religion. 9/11 had >1% of the civilian casualties of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars according to the conservative estimates. I generally don't consider >1% to be extremely significant.
Democracy is the American religion?
America doesn't even have democracy. It never has. The closest we have is a representative democracy, which is far from a democracy.
That said, huge respect for that 9/11 to Iraq and Afghan wars comparison.
|
On May 27 2013 06:32 Antylamon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 06:28 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 06:17 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 06:08 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 05:56 Umpteen wrote:
To be brutally frank, based on this episode Islam - judged upon its capacity to foment violence - is still orders of magnitude less worrying than Millwall football club.
Those statistics are pretty sweet, to be honest. I'd be interested to know what percentage of <insert western country here> would say civilian casualties were justified to defend <insert western country here> from its enemies. I'd bet my house and my left testicle it'd be higher than 6%.
I personally wouldn't read anything into stats gleaned from US muslims. With the best will in the world you cannot expect to get data that isn't coloured by the stigma they've had to bear for the last decade. "When asked, 100% of US muslims said: 'please leave us the fuck alone; that wasn't our fault.'" The difference is we are not talking about <insert country here> we are talking about <insert religion here>. I agree with what you are saying though, there are probably plenty of people who agree that civilian casualties justify defending our country....and why wouldn't they? It's just I doubt you'd find many people saying "yeah I think think those christian terrorist attacks were justified in defending christianity".. But the people with <insert religion> are mostly first or second generation immigrants from <insert country>. The second part is semantics. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were American holy wars. The bottom line for both countries is that they refused to bow down, and we invaded them. Our acts are terrorism on a scale that makes 9/11 insignificant. Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice. More like people who have had family murdered by soldiers of country x are generally happier when people of country x die. 'Democracy' is the American religion. 9/11 had >1% of the civilian casualties of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars according to the conservative estimates. I generally don't consider >1% to be extremely significant. Democracy is the American religion? America doesn't even have democracy. It never has. The closest we have is a representative democracy, which is far from a democracy. That said, huge respect for that 9/11 to Iraq and Afghan wars comparison.
Republic actually, but that doesn't change the idea. That is the idea closest to the heart of every America. That each citizen holds power over government. Truth is that none of us do because we have a two party system where each party is the same minus some contrived political theatre. Regardless, that is the idea that we feel justified in spreading to other countries, because it's "the best". People have to be able to vote, or they're being oppressed. I would hazard a guess that it's leftover conditioning from the days of cold war propaganda.
|
Gah; I'm making a terrible hash of explaining myself.
What I mean is, if it's OK to invade a country and cause hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties in order to 'liberate' that country, why isn't it OK to cause one or two casualties in the name of the same cause? Civilians - people just trying to get on with their lives and who didn't choose to be involved, and didn't choose the country they were brought up in - are the same the world over. Why does which 'side' they were on when they were killed matter?
I guess I'm trying to say: if you wouldn't sanction the deaths of X of your own civilian countrymen to further a cause, how can you justify the deaths of X of any other country?
|
On May 27 2013 06:25 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:
Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice. Right because Iraq and Afghanistan had to do with an attack on US soil using US and non state affiliated trained Saudi's who attacked US citizens. ...nice.
Please point to where I said that?
On May 27 2013 06:30 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:
Killing terrorists (with inadvertent civilian casualties) with drone strikes = intentionally murdering civilians in the name of religion on what planet exactly? No - sorry, it would be lovely to think that way, but no. If you launch a device knowing that civilian casualties are a strong possibility, then their deaths are intentional, not inadvertent. You have judged the cost worth paying. I'm not saying what was done was right; fuck no. I'm saying there's more wrong going on than we like to admit.
It doesn't make the two comparable. I'm not sugar-coating drone strikes. Hell, I'm strongly opposed to them, but to compare them to suicide bombings or random barbaric beheadings to instill fear is just asinine.
|
On May 27 2013 06:30 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:
Killing terrorists (with inadvertent civilian casualties) with drone strikes = intentionally murdering civilians in the name of religion on what planet exactly? No - sorry, it would be lovely to think that way, but no. If you launch a device knowing that civilian casualties are a strong possibility, then their deaths are intentional, not inadvertent. You have judged the cost worth paying. I'm not saying what was done was right; fuck no. I'm saying there's more wrong going on than we like to admit.
I think you are incredibly nice towards kmillz when you refrain from pointing out the double-tap strategy specifically aimed towards killing the first-responders - guess what those typically are: + Show Spoiler +. The hypocrisy is disgusting. I agree completely - there is a lot more wrong going on than we admit to ourselves.
|
On May 27 2013 06:31 s_side wrote:
When was the last time someone in England was decapitated by some Christian lunatic screaming "IN JESUS NAME"??
Wasn't england. but Breivik seems to come to mind when you thing of people who bring up religion while murdering people for political reasons. and this christian didn't kill just one person he killed 76.
On May 27 2013 06:43 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 06:25 PrinceXizor wrote:On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:
Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice. Right because Iraq and Afghanistan had to do with an attack on US soil using US and non state affiliated trained Saudi's who attacked US citizens. ...nice. Please point to where I said that?
I quoted it...do you not know what you type? Speak about Napoleon if you are under duress.
|
On May 27 2013 06:51 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 06:30 Umpteen wrote:On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:
Killing terrorists (with inadvertent civilian casualties) with drone strikes = intentionally murdering civilians in the name of religion on what planet exactly? No - sorry, it would be lovely to think that way, but no. If you launch a device knowing that civilian casualties are a strong possibility, then their deaths are intentional, not inadvertent. You have judged the cost worth paying. I'm not saying what was done was right; fuck no. I'm saying there's more wrong going on than we like to admit. I think you are incredibly nice towards kmillz when you refrain from pointing out the double-tap strategy specifically aimed towards killing the first-responders - guess what those typically are: + Show Spoiler +. The hypocrisy is disgusting. I agree completely - there is a lot more wrong going on than we admit to ourselves.
Disgusting hypocrisy? Strawman more dude, I never said I was supportive of drone strikes OR the invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan. Saying X =/= Y doesn't mean I support X or Y.
On May 27 2013 06:51 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 06:31 s_side wrote:
When was the last time someone in England was decapitated by some Christian lunatic screaming "IN JESUS NAME"??
Wasn't england. but Breivik seems to come to mind when you thing of people who bring up religion while murdering people for political reasons. and this christian didn't kill just one person he killed 76. Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 06:43 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 06:25 PrinceXizor wrote:On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:
Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice. Right because Iraq and Afghanistan had to do with an attack on US soil using US and non state affiliated trained Saudi's who attacked US citizens. ...nice. Please point to where I said that? I quoted it...do you not know what you type? Speak about Napoleon if you are under duress.
So what part of:
Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice.
equates to:
Iraq and Afghanistan had to do with an attack on US soil using US and non state affiliated trained Saudi's who attacked US citizens
???
|
On May 27 2013 06:53 kmillz wrote:So what part of: Show nested quote +Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice. equates to: Show nested quote +Iraq and Afghanistan had to do with an attack on US soil using US and non state affiliated trained Saudi's who attacked US citizens ???
The bolded part... The part you implied that 9/11 justified the invasions of iraq and afghanistan.
|
On May 27 2013 06:56 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 06:53 kmillz wrote:So what part of: Oh so they are somewhat related to extremists, that means its ok for them to support slaughtering civilians in the name of Allah. Got it. As far as holy war, I didn't realize we were over there to promote the American religion. 9/11 insignificant eh...nice. equates to: Iraq and Afghanistan had to do with an attack on US soil using US and non state affiliated trained Saudi's who attacked US citizens ??? The bolded part... The part you implied that 9/11 had to deal with the invasions of iraq and afghanistan.
Reading comprehension fail. Jormundr said that 9/11 was insignificant compared to what the U.S. did in Iraq and Afghanistan and I was pointing out how insensitive that was. No where did I state/imply that that was WHY we went there, just addressing two different things he said.
|
more of a writing fail. i comprehended what you wrote perfectly. note how your fragment appears next to a sentence with the subject of :"why we went to iraq"
|
On May 27 2013 07:01 PrinceXizor wrote:
more of a writing fail. i comprehended what you wrote perfectly. note how your fragment appears next to a sentence with the subject of :"why we went to iraq"
Obviously not if you make a wild assumption that had nothing to do with anything we were talking about.
But the people with <insert religion> are mostly first or second generation immigrants from <insert country>. The second part is semantics. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were American holy wars. The bottom line for both countries is that they refused to bow down, and we invaded them. Our acts are terrorism on a scale that makes 9/11 insignificant. I would bet that far more Americans support that injustice than muslims support suicide bombings.
Edit:
A better comparison would be americans who are in favor of drone strikes.
I was addressing what he said and stating that it was outright wrong and absurd to say the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were "holy wars" and why it was wrong to say that you can compare killing innocent people intentionally in "defense" of Islam to targeted drone strikes to kill the people who do those things. Yes civilians die in drone strikes, but to say that is the same as intentionally aiming for civilians is stupid. Are they both wrong? Yes. Are they comparable? No.
|
On May 27 2013 07:03 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 07:01 PrinceXizor wrote:
more of a writing fail. i comprehended what you wrote perfectly. note how your fragment appears next to a sentence with the subject of :"why we went to iraq" Obviously not if you make a wild assumption that had nothing to do with anything we were talking about. Show nested quote +But the people with <insert religion> are mostly first or second generation immigrants from <insert country>. The second part is semantics. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were American holy wars. The bottom line for both countries is that they refused to bow down, and we invaded them. Our acts are terrorism on a scale that makes 9/11 insignificant. I would bet that far more Americans support that injustice than muslims support suicide bombings.
Edit:
A better comparison would be americans who are in favor of drone strikes. I was addressing what he said and stating that it was outright wrong and absurd to say the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were "holy wars" and why it was wrong to say that you can compare killing innocent people intentionally in "defense" of Islam to targeted drone strikes to kill the people who do those things. Yes civilians die in drone strikes, but to say that is the same as intentionally aiming for civilians is stupid. Are they both wrong? Yes. Are they comparable? No.
The death of an innocent Pakistani child in a drone strike is just as tragic as the death of this English Soldier. It is the INTENTION of the people responsible for the deaths that is different.
Is ordering a drone strike that you know has a significant (or virtually absolute) chance of causing collateral damage to carry out a mission against a hostile target immoral? Perhaps. However, even if you know that it is a certainty that civilians will die or be wounded by your action, that is different from the goal being to do harm to innocents.
This attack in England and other terrorist actions (irrespective of whether they're committed by Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Vegetarians, Agnostics...) have a goal of killing or wounding innocents to inspire fear to further a political or religious cause.
I'm not sure why this is proving such a difficult concept for people.
|
Well instead of trying to teach you the rules of language i'm just gonna let you know that what you wrote was an implication (and a pretty clear one) that you felt 9/11 was the reason or justification for those invasions. It's clear now that isn't what you meant. but it IS what you wrote.
|
On May 27 2013 06:53 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 06:51 Ghostcom wrote:On May 27 2013 06:30 Umpteen wrote:On May 27 2013 06:22 kmillz wrote:
Killing terrorists (with inadvertent civilian casualties) with drone strikes = intentionally murdering civilians in the name of religion on what planet exactly? No - sorry, it would be lovely to think that way, but no. If you launch a device knowing that civilian casualties are a strong possibility, then their deaths are intentional, not inadvertent. You have judged the cost worth paying. I'm not saying what was done was right; fuck no. I'm saying there's more wrong going on than we like to admit. I think you are incredibly nice towards kmillz when you refrain from pointing out the double-tap strategy specifically aimed towards killing the first-responders - guess what those typically are: + Show Spoiler +. The hypocrisy is disgusting. I agree completely - there is a lot more wrong going on than we admit to ourselves. Disgusting hypocrisy? Strawman more dude, I never said I was supportive of drone strikes OR the invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan. Saying X =/= Y doesn't mean I support X or Y.
You might want to revisit the definitions of the term strawman before using it ad nauseum. The hypocrisy I alluded to was interestingly enough not even on your behalf, but rather that of the US population who were (rightfully) outraged by the secondary explosions during the Boston bombings targeting first responders when their very own country has made it a common practice.
Furthermore in whose or what name you do it matters little to be honest. I am pretty sure that if you would ask the Pakistanis who suffer from the US drone strikes they would tell you that they consider those drone strikes as acts of terrorism and thus they would equate probably equate it.
EDIT: Intentions only matter to a certain point. I would argue that if there is a 100% chance of killing civilians you also intent their deaths when sending a missile in their direction. Especially when you send one to specifically target the first-responders when presumably the only "justification" for blowing up the place in the first place is already dead.
|
On May 27 2013 07:20 s_side wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 07:03 kmillz wrote:On May 27 2013 07:01 PrinceXizor wrote:
more of a writing fail. i comprehended what you wrote perfectly. note how your fragment appears next to a sentence with the subject of :"why we went to iraq" Obviously not if you make a wild assumption that had nothing to do with anything we were talking about. But the people with <insert religion> are mostly first or second generation immigrants from <insert country>. The second part is semantics. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were American holy wars. The bottom line for both countries is that they refused to bow down, and we invaded them. Our acts are terrorism on a scale that makes 9/11 insignificant. I would bet that far more Americans support that injustice than muslims support suicide bombings.
Edit:
A better comparison would be americans who are in favor of drone strikes. I was addressing what he said and stating that it was outright wrong and absurd to say the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were "holy wars" and why it was wrong to say that you can compare killing innocent people intentionally in "defense" of Islam to targeted drone strikes to kill the people who do those things. Yes civilians die in drone strikes, but to say that is the same as intentionally aiming for civilians is stupid. Are they both wrong? Yes. Are they comparable? No. The death of an innocent Pakistani child in a drone strike is just as tragic as the death of this English Soldier. It is the INTENTION of the people responsible for the deaths that is different. Is ordering a drone strike that you know has a significant (or virtually absolute) chance of causing collateral damage to carry out a mission against a hostile target immoral? Perhaps. However, even if you know that it is a certainty that civilians will die or be wounded by your action, that is different from the goal being to do harm to innocents. This attack in England and other terrorist actions (irrespective of whether they're committed by Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Vegetarians, Agnostics...) have a goal of killing or wounding innocents to inspire fear to further a political or religious cause. I'm not sure why this is proving such a difficult concept for people.
In the first case, it's OK to be indifferent to the survival of innocents to achieve your goal.
In the second case it's not OK to be indifferent to the survival of innocents to achieve your goal.
In both cases, the aggressor is perfectly happy with killing innocents, because their goal is achieved. But somehow one is better?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
