|
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 06:51 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.
Brevik is indeed an example of a Christian terrorist who killed a lot of innocent people. The members of the LRA in Uganda are another example. A few years ago, Christian terrorists in Peru killed more than ten animist shamans in cold blood.
Christian terroism exists. The question is, how does the scale compare to Islamic terrorism?
That, to me, is where the disconnect occurs. Look at the most famous Christian Terrorist campaign in the last 100 years: The Troubles in Ireland. More innocents died in TWO HOURS on September 11th than in the thirty-something YEARS of terrorism and violence in Ireland.
I can't imagine anyone would seriously suggest that actions by extremists of every single other world religion combined would even sniff 10% of the body count that Islamic terrorists have acheived in the century. If someone has numbers that would suggest otherwise, I would be genuinely interested to see them.
|
On May 27 2013 07:42 s_side wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 06:51 PrinceXizor wrote: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: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. Brevik is indeed an example of a Christian terrorist who killed a lot of innocent people. The members of the LRA in Uganda are another example. A few years ago, Christian terrorists in Peru killed more than ten animist shamans in cold blood. Christian terroism exists. The question is, how does the scale compare to Islamic terrorism? That, to me, is where the disconnect occurs. Look at the most famous Christian Terrorist campaign in the last 100 years: The Troubles in Ireland. More innocents died in TWO HOURS on September 11th than in the thirty-something YEARS of terrorism and violence in Ireland. I can't imagine anyone would seriously suggest that actions by extremists of every single other world religion combined would even sniff 10% of the body count that Islamic terrorists have acheived in the century. If someone has numbers that would suggest otherwise, I would be genuinely interested to see them.
Are we counting unprovoked acts by isreal against palastine as extremist actions? if so, then islam is likely dwarfed.
|
On May 27 2013 07:28 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 07:20 s_side wrote: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?
I think you need to re-read my post. I did NOT say that it was OK to be indifferent to the survival of innocents. In fact, I wrote that it could possibly considered immoral depending on the circumstances:
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.
Now you write:
In both cases, the aggressor is perfectly happy with killing innocents, because their goal is achieved.
Where in my post did I write that the aggressor in our hypothetical drone strike situation was "perfectly happy with killing innocents"? That is NOT the case which is why there is a difference. Whoever is ordering the strike is NOT targeting civilians, but has accepted the fact that they may be harmed even though they are NOT happy about that fact.
Again, as I wrote, it is debateable whether or not it is moral to carry out attacks that have significant probabalities of innocent casualties. But that is not the argument I was making.
What is clear is that action with the intent of killing or wounding innocents is ALWAYS wrong and always worse than accepting that your action may cause UNWANTED (*key word*) civilian casualties.
I'm really not sure how much clearer I can be.
|
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.
The intention, or the rationalisation?
In the former case, the death of an innocent is accepted as justified because an enemy - who would have done harm - is killed.
In the latter case, an innocent was killed in order to dissuade an enemy from doing harm.
Assuming each accomplishes the desired goal, what is there to recommend #1 over #2?
Again, in case it gets lost in the melee: I'm not saying violence against innocents is right. I just have a huge problem with violence that knowingly affects innocents being treated as morally different than violence that targets them. At the end of the day, you're still elevating the accomplishment of a goal over people's lives. Who the fuck cares how bad you feel about it?
``Because there are some things you have to do even if you are an enlightened liberal cop who knows all about sensitivity and everything!''
"For a moment he felt good about this. A moment or two later he felt bad about feeling good about it. Then he felt good about feeling bad about feeling good about it and, satisfied, drove on into the night."
|
On May 27 2013 07:54 s_side wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 07:28 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 07:20 s_side wrote: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? I think you need to re-read my post. I did NOT say that it was OK to be indifferent to the survival of innocents. In fact, I wrote that it could possibly considered immoral depending on the circumstances: Show nested quote +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. Now you write: Show nested quote +In both cases, the aggressor is perfectly happy with killing innocents, because their goal is achieved. Where in my post did I write that the aggressor in our hypothetical drone strike situation was "perfectly happy with killing innocents"? That is NOT the case which is why there is a difference. Whoever is ordering the strike is NOT targeting civilians, but has accepted the fact that they may be harmed even though they are NOT happy about that fact. Again, as I wrote, it is debateable whether or not it is moral to carry out attacks that have significant probabalities of innocent casualties. But that is not the argument I was making. What is clear is that action with the intent of killing or wounding innocents is ALWAYS wrong and always worse than accepting that your action may cause UNWANTED (*key word*) civilian casualties. I'm really not sure how much clearer I can be.
You're making the same argument again.
You are trying to classify them differently. Your entire argument hinges on the word unwanted. Which I find incredibly ridiculous. Are you seriously unable to understand this?
"Yeah I fired a missile at him but I didn't necessarily want to kill the people around him."
Is a very thin basis for a moral argument.
|
On May 27 2013 07:58 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 07:20 s_side wrote: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. The intention, or the rationalisation? In the former case, the death of an innocent is accepted as justified because an enemy - who would have done harm - is killed. In the latter case, an innocent was killed in order to dissuade an enemy from doing harm. Assuming each accomplishes the desired goal, what is there to recommend #1 over #2? Again, in case it gets lost in the melee: I'm not saying violence against innocents is right. I just have a huge problem with violence that knowingly affects innocents being treated as morally different than violence that targets them. At the end of the day, you're still elevating the accomplishment of a goal over people's lives. Who the fuck cares how bad you feel about it? Show nested quote +``Because there are some things you have to do even if you are an enlightened liberal cop who knows all about sensitivity and everything!'' Show nested quote +"For a moment he felt good about this. A moment or two later he felt bad about feeling good about it. Then he felt good about feeling bad about feeling good about it and, satisfied, drove on into the night."
First, just let me say thanks for actually reading my post and making an informed, well written response even though we may disagree.
I was with you, even if I disagreed, until this part.
In the latter case, an innocent was killed in order to dissuade an enemy from doing harm.
I hate to keep bringing up 9/11, but since it was the most influential (on a world scale) terrorist action perhaps ever, I'll do it begrudgingly.
Those attacks did the absolute polar opposite of dissuading an enemy (the US in this case) from doing harm. They set into motion events that plunged millions and millions of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan into massive violent conflict, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of them.
Going back to the attack this thread is about, what enemy were the two assailants dissuading and from doing what?
|
On May 27 2013 08:22 s_side wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 07:58 Umpteen wrote:On May 27 2013 07:20 s_side wrote: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. The intention, or the rationalisation? In the former case, the death of an innocent is accepted as justified because an enemy - who would have done harm - is killed. In the latter case, an innocent was killed in order to dissuade an enemy from doing harm. Assuming each accomplishes the desired goal, what is there to recommend #1 over #2? Again, in case it gets lost in the melee: I'm not saying violence against innocents is right. I just have a huge problem with violence that knowingly affects innocents being treated as morally different than violence that targets them. At the end of the day, you're still elevating the accomplishment of a goal over people's lives. Who the fuck cares how bad you feel about it? ``Because there are some things you have to do even if you are an enlightened liberal cop who knows all about sensitivity and everything!'' "For a moment he felt good about this. A moment or two later he felt bad about feeling good about it. Then he felt good about feeling bad about feeling good about it and, satisfied, drove on into the night." First, just let me say thanks for actually reading my post and making an informed, well written response even though we may disagree. I was with you, even if I disagreed, until this part. Show nested quote +In the latter case, an innocent was killed in order to dissuade an enemy from doing harm. I hate to keep bringing up 9/11, but since it was the most influential (on a world scale) terrorist action perhaps ever, I'll do it begrudgingly. Those attacks did the absolute polar opposite of dissuading an enemy (the US in this case) from doing harm. They set into motion events that plunged millions and millions of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan into massive violent conflict, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of them. Going back to the attack this thread is about, what enemy were the two assailants dissuading and from doing what?
It doesn't really matter what the terrorist strikes ended up doing; the point of them was to, supposedly, scare the West into changing its policies (or something vaguely like that). Just because it didn't work doesn't mean that wasn't the intent.
|
On May 27 2013 08:22 s_side wrote:
I hate to keep bringing up 9/11, but since it was the most influential (on a world scale) terrorist action perhaps ever, I'll do it begrudgingly.
Those attacks did the absolute polar opposite of dissuading an enemy (the US in this case) from doing harm. They set into motion events that plunged millions and millions of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan into massive violent conflict, killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of them.
Going back to the attack this thread is about, what enemy were the two assailants dissuading and from doing what?
Not really forseeable that a nation attacked by a non-nationalistic group filled with Saudi's would attack two unrelated nations as a result. you can't exactly blame AL qaeda for not knowing that the US govt would use their attack and false reports as justification for two large scale invasions.
|
On May 27 2013 08:04 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 07:54 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 07:28 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 07:20 s_side wrote: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? I think you need to re-read my post. I did NOT say that it was OK to be indifferent to the survival of innocents. In fact, I wrote that it could possibly considered immoral depending on the circumstances: 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. Now you write: In both cases, the aggressor is perfectly happy with killing innocents, because their goal is achieved. Where in my post did I write that the aggressor in our hypothetical drone strike situation was "perfectly happy with killing innocents"? That is NOT the case which is why there is a difference. Whoever is ordering the strike is NOT targeting civilians, but has accepted the fact that they may be harmed even though they are NOT happy about that fact. Again, as I wrote, it is debateable whether or not it is moral to carry out attacks that have significant probabalities of innocent casualties. But that is not the argument I was making. What is clear is that action with the intent of killing or wounding innocents is ALWAYS wrong and always worse than accepting that your action may cause UNWANTED (*key word*) civilian casualties. I'm really not sure how much clearer I can be. You're making the same argument again. You are trying to classify them differently. Your entire argument hinges on the word unwanted. Which I find incredibly ridiculous. Are you seriously unable to understand this? "Yeah I fired a missile at him but I didn't necessarily want to kill the people around him." Is a very thin basis for a moral argument.
We're making progress.
In both cases, the aggressor is perfectly happy with killing innocents, because their goal is achieved.
I didn't necessarily want to kill the people around him
We're almost there!
|
On May 27 2013 07:45 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 07:42 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 06:51 PrinceXizor wrote: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: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. Brevik is indeed an example of a Christian terrorist who killed a lot of innocent people. The members of the LRA in Uganda are another example. A few years ago, Christian terrorists in Peru killed more than ten animist shamans in cold blood. Christian terroism exists. The question is, how does the scale compare to Islamic terrorism? That, to me, is where the disconnect occurs. Look at the most famous Christian Terrorist campaign in the last 100 years: The Troubles in Ireland. More innocents died in TWO HOURS on September 11th than in the thirty-something YEARS of terrorism and violence in Ireland. I can't imagine anyone would seriously suggest that actions by extremists of every single other world religion combined would even sniff 10% of the body count that Islamic terrorists have acheived in the century. If someone has numbers that would suggest otherwise, I would be genuinely interested to see them. Are we counting unprovoked acts by isreal against palastine as extremist actions? if so, then islam is likely dwarfed.
I don't think it's really appropriate, but for argument's sake, why not?
I'll try to find some accurate numbers (always difficult with anything as heated and polarizing as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) from solid sources.
|
On May 27 2013 08:27 s_side wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 08:04 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 07:54 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 07:28 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 07:20 s_side wrote: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? I think you need to re-read my post. I did NOT say that it was OK to be indifferent to the survival of innocents. In fact, I wrote that it could possibly considered immoral depending on the circumstances: 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. Now you write: In both cases, the aggressor is perfectly happy with killing innocents, because their goal is achieved. Where in my post did I write that the aggressor in our hypothetical drone strike situation was "perfectly happy with killing innocents"? That is NOT the case which is why there is a difference. Whoever is ordering the strike is NOT targeting civilians, but has accepted the fact that they may be harmed even though they are NOT happy about that fact. Again, as I wrote, it is debateable whether or not it is moral to carry out attacks that have significant probabalities of innocent casualties. But that is not the argument I was making. What is clear is that action with the intent of killing or wounding innocents is ALWAYS wrong and always worse than accepting that your action may cause UNWANTED (*key word*) civilian casualties. I'm really not sure how much clearer I can be. You're making the same argument again. You are trying to classify them differently. Your entire argument hinges on the word unwanted. Which I find incredibly ridiculous. Are you seriously unable to understand this? "Yeah I fired a missile at him but I didn't necessarily want to kill the people around him." Is a very thin basis for a moral argument. We're making progress. Show nested quote +In both cases, the aggressor is perfectly happy with killing innocents, because their goal is achieved. We're almost there!
You're apparently Romanian. Or blind to italics and context.
Edit:
Since you evidently need it spelled out to you, my last point was that you can't fire a missile five feet away from someone and say you didn't want to kill him. You can't fire a weapon at someone on the other side of a crowd, shoot five innocent people and then say that you didn't want them to die as if it puts you on a moral pedestal. There's this thing called line of fire, and it's generally pretty big for missiles.
You might as well say that suicide bombers just really tend to hate planes, trains, buses, and public places, but people get in the way when they try to take them out.
|
On May 27 2013 08:35 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 08:27 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 08:04 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 07:54 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 07:28 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 07:20 s_side wrote: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? I think you need to re-read my post. I did NOT say that it was OK to be indifferent to the survival of innocents. In fact, I wrote that it could possibly considered immoral depending on the circumstances: 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. Now you write: In both cases, the aggressor is perfectly happy with killing innocents, because their goal is achieved. Where in my post did I write that the aggressor in our hypothetical drone strike situation was "perfectly happy with killing innocents"? That is NOT the case which is why there is a difference. Whoever is ordering the strike is NOT targeting civilians, but has accepted the fact that they may be harmed even though they are NOT happy about that fact. Again, as I wrote, it is debateable whether or not it is moral to carry out attacks that have significant probabalities of innocent casualties. But that is not the argument I was making. What is clear is that action with the intent of killing or wounding innocents is ALWAYS wrong and always worse than accepting that your action may cause UNWANTED (*key word*) civilian casualties. I'm really not sure how much clearer I can be. You're making the same argument again. You are trying to classify them differently. Your entire argument hinges on the word unwanted. Which I find incredibly ridiculous. Are you seriously unable to understand this? "Yeah I fired a missile at him but I didn't necessarily want to kill the people around him." Is a very thin basis for a moral argument. We're making progress. In both cases, the aggressor is perfectly happy with killing innocents, because their goal is achieved. I didn't necessarily want to kill the people around him We're almost there! You're apparently Romanian. Or blind to italics and context.
Don't get upset. There are plenty of other people in this thread who are much better equipped to make the argument you are trying to make than you are. I'll respond to them instead.
|
I think it is pretty clear that a terror attack like this was meant to become very widespread - the murderers waited for the police to confront them, that way there would be pictures and video of the killing all over the world.
So while it is good to raise awareness about such an attack, it is important that we don't give it much heed - or else if it gets on our heads the killers will have achieved what they wanted.
So i'll personally stay away from this because there is also not much I can do about it.
However, i do hope such an operation is uncovered (since there might be someone who orchestrated it and hasn't been identified) and dealt with swiftly.
|
On May 27 2013 08:30 s_side wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 07:45 PrinceXizor wrote:On May 27 2013 07:42 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 06:51 PrinceXizor wrote: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: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. Brevik is indeed an example of a Christian terrorist who killed a lot of innocent people. The members of the LRA in Uganda are another example. A few years ago, Christian terrorists in Peru killed more than ten animist shamans in cold blood. Christian terroism exists. The question is, how does the scale compare to Islamic terrorism? That, to me, is where the disconnect occurs. Look at the most famous Christian Terrorist campaign in the last 100 years: The Troubles in Ireland. More innocents died in TWO HOURS on September 11th than in the thirty-something YEARS of terrorism and violence in Ireland. I can't imagine anyone would seriously suggest that actions by extremists of every single other world religion combined would even sniff 10% of the body count that Islamic terrorists have acheived in the century. If someone has numbers that would suggest otherwise, I would be genuinely interested to see them. Are we counting unprovoked acts by isreal against palastine as extremist actions? if so, then islam is likely dwarfed. I don't think it's really appropriate, but for argument's sake, why not? I'll try to find some accurate numbers (always difficult with anything as heated and polarizing as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) from solid sources.
you are looking at anywhere between 7k-20k civies killed by isreal since '48. as opposed to the roughly 1200 isreali civies killed by islamic nations. it's pretty bad in general.
The point is blaming islam for being a radical religion or blaming islamic radicals as being a dire threat has everything to do with exposure and personal bias, and little to do with fact.
|
On May 27 2013 08:30 s_side wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 07:45 PrinceXizor wrote:On May 27 2013 07:42 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 06:51 PrinceXizor wrote: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: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. Brevik is indeed an example of a Christian terrorist who killed a lot of innocent people. The members of the LRA in Uganda are another example. A few years ago, Christian terrorists in Peru killed more than ten animist shamans in cold blood. Christian terroism exists. The question is, how does the scale compare to Islamic terrorism? That, to me, is where the disconnect occurs. Look at the most famous Christian Terrorist campaign in the last 100 years: The Troubles in Ireland. More innocents died in TWO HOURS on September 11th than in the thirty-something YEARS of terrorism and violence in Ireland. I can't imagine anyone would seriously suggest that actions by extremists of every single other world religion combined would even sniff 10% of the body count that Islamic terrorists have acheived in the century. If someone has numbers that would suggest otherwise, I would be genuinely interested to see them. Are we counting unprovoked acts by isreal against palastine as extremist actions? if so, then islam is likely dwarfed. I don't think it's really appropriate, but for argument's sake, why not? I'll try to find some accurate numbers (always difficult with anything as heated and polarizing as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) from solid sources.
It looks like I'll need to do some serious digging if we want stats from 1948-2013.
Lets start with more recently. For 2000-2012, I found some pretty comprehsive stats from a group called B’Tselem. Would be nice to see some stats from a Palestinian source, but I speak no Arabic. If anyone does, and has a good source please post. Here's how this group describe themselves:
The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories was established in February 1989 by a group of prominent academics, attorneys, journalists, and Knesset members. It endeavors to document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, combat the phenomenon of denial prevalent among the Israeli public, and help create a human rights culture in Israel.
B'Tselem in Hebrew literally means "in the image of," and is also used as a synonym for human dignity. The word is taken from Genesis 1:27 "And God created humans in his image. In the image of God did He create him." It is in this spirit that the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All human beings are born equal in dignity and rights."
As an Israeli human rights organization, B'Tselem acts primarily to change Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories and ensure that its government, which rules the Occupied Territories, protects the human rights of residents there and complies with its obligations under international law.
According to them, 6,511 Palestinians were killed in this time period by the IDF. Of those, 3,027 were killed despite not being part of the hostilities. 2,245 Palestians were killed fighting the IDF.
The hard part is going to be aggregating the Islamic terror attack stats for that same period.
|
On May 27 2013 08:52 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 08:30 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 07:45 PrinceXizor wrote:On May 27 2013 07:42 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 06:51 PrinceXizor wrote: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: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. Brevik is indeed an example of a Christian terrorist who killed a lot of innocent people. The members of the LRA in Uganda are another example. A few years ago, Christian terrorists in Peru killed more than ten animist shamans in cold blood. Christian terroism exists. The question is, how does the scale compare to Islamic terrorism? That, to me, is where the disconnect occurs. Look at the most famous Christian Terrorist campaign in the last 100 years: The Troubles in Ireland. More innocents died in TWO HOURS on September 11th than in the thirty-something YEARS of terrorism and violence in Ireland. I can't imagine anyone would seriously suggest that actions by extremists of every single other world religion combined would even sniff 10% of the body count that Islamic terrorists have acheived in the century. If someone has numbers that would suggest otherwise, I would be genuinely interested to see them. Are we counting unprovoked acts by isreal against palastine as extremist actions? if so, then islam is likely dwarfed. I don't think it's really appropriate, but for argument's sake, why not? I'll try to find some accurate numbers (always difficult with anything as heated and polarizing as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) from solid sources. you are looking at anywhere between 7k-20k civies killed by isreal since '48. as opposed to the roughly 1200 isreali civies killed by islamic nations. it's pretty bad in general. The point is blaming islam for being a radical religion or blaming islamic radicals as being a dire threat has everything to do with exposure and personal bias, and little to do with fact.
I'm not in any way biased against any particular religion. I find no use for any of them, but don't begrudge people who do until they do horrific things in the name of their religion.
But on the topic, if 20k is the high estimate for Palestinian civilians killed since Israel was founded, there's no way that Islamic terrorists don't top that at least a few times over. My unconfirmed estimate is about 5-10k dead per year in the last decade (not forgetting that the majority of Islamic terrorism is sectarian).
|
On May 27 2013 08:54 s_side wrote:
According to them, 6,511 Palestinians were killed in this time period by the IDF. Of those, 3,027 were killed despite not being part of the hostilities. 2,245 Palestians were killed fighting the IDF.
The hard part is going to be aggregating the Islamic terror attack stats for that same period.
its roughly identical to the low end of the Israeli caused civilian death count. you can accurately estimate around 7500 deaths since '48, and with taking the UN's estimations isreali activity killed around 12000 in the same period.
it's a fact that islamic terrorist prefer high visibility - easy to accomplish - minimal casuality acts over large scale bombings like the WTC. they want the most visibility for their political causes as possible. this is why the men stayed to wait for the police to cause a scene. they wanted it reported on twitter, facebook and the internet. they wanted everyone to know what happened and why.
|
On May 27 2013 09:02 s_side wrote:
But on the topic, if 20k is the high estimate for Palestinian civilians killed since Israel was founded, there's no way that Islamic terrorists don't top that at least a few times over. My unconfirmed estimate is about 5-10k dead per year in the last decade (not forgetting that the majority of Islamic terrorism is sectarian).
I'd like to see those numbers because that's pretty bogus. i don't think it's even 50k CASUALITIES let alone deaths.
EDIT: damnit thought i was editing. sorry.
|
On May 27 2013 09:05 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 09:02 s_side wrote:
But on the topic, if 20k is the high estimate for Palestinian civilians killed since Israel was founded, there's no way that Islamic terrorists don't top that at least a few times over. My unconfirmed estimate is about 5-10k dead per year in the last decade (not forgetting that the majority of Islamic terrorism is sectarian).
I'd like to see those numbers because that's pretty bogus. i don't think it's even 50k CASUALITIES let alone deaths. EDIT: damnit thought i was editing. sorry.
I was a little unclear. These "numbers" are just my impressions from roughly discounting crazy right wing sources and upping the antisemetic ones. Just a first impression without solid sources.
|
On May 27 2013 08:35 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 08:27 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 08:04 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 07:54 s_side wrote:On May 27 2013 07:28 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 07:20 s_side wrote: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? I think you need to re-read my post. I did NOT say that it was OK to be indifferent to the survival of innocents. In fact, I wrote that it could possibly considered immoral depending on the circumstances: 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. Now you write: In both cases, the aggressor is perfectly happy with killing innocents, because their goal is achieved. Where in my post did I write that the aggressor in our hypothetical drone strike situation was "perfectly happy with killing innocents"? That is NOT the case which is why there is a difference. Whoever is ordering the strike is NOT targeting civilians, but has accepted the fact that they may be harmed even though they are NOT happy about that fact. Again, as I wrote, it is debateable whether or not it is moral to carry out attacks that have significant probabalities of innocent casualties. But that is not the argument I was making. What is clear is that action with the intent of killing or wounding innocents is ALWAYS wrong and always worse than accepting that your action may cause UNWANTED (*key word*) civilian casualties. I'm really not sure how much clearer I can be. You're making the same argument again. You are trying to classify them differently. Your entire argument hinges on the word unwanted. Which I find incredibly ridiculous. Are you seriously unable to understand this? "Yeah I fired a missile at him but I didn't necessarily want to kill the people around him." Is a very thin basis for a moral argument. We're making progress. In both cases, the aggressor is perfectly happy with killing innocents, because their goal is achieved. I didn't necessarily want to kill the people around him We're almost there! You're apparently Romanian. Or blind to italics and context. Edit: Since you evidently need it spelled out to you, my last point was that you can't fire a missile five feet away from someone and say you didn't want to kill him. You can't fire a weapon at someone on the other side of a crowd, shoot five innocent people and then say that you didn't want them to die as if it puts you on a moral pedestal. There's this thing called line of fire, and it's generally pretty big for missiles. You might as well say that suicide bombers just really tend to hate planes, trains, buses, and public places, but people get in the way when they try to take them out.
So if I accidentally run somebody over, an inherent risk in driving, then I'm just as morally corrupt as this guy?
http://www.scotsman.com/edinburgh-evening-news/latest-news/murder-trial-taxi-driver-ran-man-over-1-2856428
I think intentions do count for something...
Suicide bombers intend to murder those innocent civilians unfortunate to be near them to send a political/religious/ideaological message, drone strikes are used in combat situations in an effort to minimize casualties and their intended target is not civilians, and when in war do the innocent survive unscathed, one way or another?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
