|
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 09:14 s_side wrote:
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.
I took a class of middle eastern Politics and influence here a couple semesters ago in college, and the UN estimates we were given to study were 7500 civilians dead from islamic terrorists and soldiers since the founding of Isreal. UN also estimated around 12000 civilians were killed by isreal in that time. 90% of terrorist attacks since '48 had less than 10 deaths. and 50% had <5. ^_^. It's possible what i was taught was incorrect. but the 100000 estimated in 10 years is almost as much as the entire iraq war (on both sides) over the same time. which seems pretty ridiculous. 100k even beats out British civilian casualties during WW2.
|
On May 27 2013 09:17 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 08:35 Jormundr wrote: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-1-2856428I 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?
Intentions do make a huge difference. When you fire a missile in a city, you intend to kill civilians. It's not like you fire a missile at a guy and you conveniently forget that there are innocent people around him who will die. It is a willful decision to kill those civilians. It is a willful decision that their lives mean nothing because they are in the way of our goal. That is why a drone strike is on the same level as a suicide bombing.
|
Who is saying 9/11 had to do with invading Afghanistan or especially Iraq? If we wanted to stem Islamic extremism, we'd invade Iran and Saudi Arabia. Wahhabists and Ayatollah Khomeini (and onwards) are the greatest plague to the Mideast since the Mongols. Maybe it'll give those extremist barbarians something to think about when they see Christians ruling Mecca and Medina.
Anyways, if anything pleases me, it's that the British legal system is not senseless like the Norwegian or Swedish, and that these murderers will get something more than a slap on the wrist. This wasn't a bar fight gone bad or murder in self-defense or vengeance for a grave wrong-doing against oneself (which is still wrong). It was simply a brutal crime. Completely unprovoked murder. No excuse for it.
|
On May 27 2013 09:17 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 09:14 s_side wrote:
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. I took a class of middle eastern Politics and influence here a couple semesters ago in college, and the UN estimates we were given to study were 7500 civilians dead from islamic terrorists and soldiers since the founding of Isreal. UN also estimated around 12000 civilians were killed by isreal in that time. 90% of terrorist attacks since '48 had less than 10 deaths. and 50% had <5. ^_^. It's possible what i was taught was incorrect. but the 100000 estimated in 10 years is almost as much as the entire iraq war (on both sides) over the same time. which seems pretty ridiculous. 100k even beats out British civilian casualties during WW2.
Are we talking Israel-Palestine only? I was just looking to add innocents killed by Israelis to our "world-wide" look at things with the parameters you suggested.
In other words, the 5-10k/year (which, again is super speculative) includes the body count from Islamic terrorist actions world wide.
|
On May 27 2013 09:40 s_side wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 09:17 PrinceXizor wrote:On May 27 2013 09:14 s_side wrote:
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. I took a class of middle eastern Politics and influence here a couple semesters ago in college, and the UN estimates we were given to study were 7500 civilians dead from islamic terrorists and soldiers since the founding of Isreal. UN also estimated around 12000 civilians were killed by isreal in that time. 90% of terrorist attacks since '48 had less than 10 deaths. and 50% had <5. ^_^. It's possible what i was taught was incorrect. but the 100000 estimated in 10 years is almost as much as the entire iraq war (on both sides) over the same time. which seems pretty ridiculous. 100k even beats out British civilian casualties during WW2. Are we talking Israel-Palestine only? I was just looking to add innocents killed by Israelis to our "world-wide" look at things with the parameters you suggested. In other words, the 5-10k/year (which, again is super speculative) includes the body count from Islamic terrorist actions world wide. Only 1200-2000 isreali civies have been killed since '48. its closer to 200 a year last 10 years excluding 9/11 which brings the average up to 500 a year based on that event alone. and know that almost all of the activity in the last century has happened since 2001. in other words i was comparing deaths by all islamic terrorists/soldiers of civilians against ONLY isreal's acts. ignoring any non islamic terrorist acts in the last century.
|
On May 27 2013 09:33 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Who is saying 9/11 had to do with invading Afghanistan or especially Iraq? If we wanted to stem Islamic extremism, we'd invade Iran and Saudi Arabia. Wahhabists and Ayatollah Khomeini (and onwards) are the greatest plague to the Mideast since the Mongols. Maybe it'll give those extremist barbarians something to think about when they see Christians ruling Mecca and Medina.
Anyways, if anything pleases me, it's that the British legal system is not senseless like the Norwegian or Swedish, and that these murderers will get something more than a slap on the wrist. This wasn't a bar fight gone bad or murder in self-defense or vengeance for a grave wrong-doing against oneself (which is still wrong). It was simply a brutal crime. Completely unprovoked murder. No excuse for it.
You do realize that these are two very different (if equally dangerous) animals?
Anyways, why would we want Christians "ruling" Mecca or Medina?
Haven't we learned how disastrous organized religion is in the Middle East?
|
On May 27 2013 09:52 s_side wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 09:33 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Who is saying 9/11 had to do with invading Afghanistan or especially Iraq? If we wanted to stem Islamic extremism, we'd invade Iran and Saudi Arabia. Wahhabists and Ayatollah Khomeini (and onwards) are the greatest plague to the Mideast since the Mongols. Maybe it'll give those extremist barbarians something to think about when they see Christians ruling Mecca and Medina.
Anyways, if anything pleases me, it's that the British legal system is not senseless like the Norwegian or Swedish, and that these murderers will get something more than a slap on the wrist. This wasn't a bar fight gone bad or murder in self-defense or vengeance for a grave wrong-doing against oneself (which is still wrong). It was simply a brutal crime. Completely unprovoked murder. No excuse for it. You do realize that these are two very different (if equally dangerous) animals? Anyways, why would we want Christians "ruling" Mecca or Medina? Haven't we learned how disastrous organized religion is in the Middle East?
Yes, I do realize they are very different. But my point was that they are both very dangerous and are responsible through their influence and direct support for many of the Islamist issues in the Mideast over the past 30 years. I'm glad someone else even knows the name Khomeini. Props.
And no, we haven't learned. Otherwise, we wouldn't be indirectly and directly supporting Islamic extremists and organized religion for decades now. It's a sickening two-faced policy and it needs to stop.
Pretty soon, there isn't going to be a single secular country left in the Mideast, except maybe Israel.
|
On May 27 2013 09:26 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 09:17 Reason wrote:On May 27 2013 08:35 Jormundr wrote: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-1-2856428I 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? Intentions do make a huge difference. When you fire a missile in a city, you intend to kill civilians. It's not like you fire a missile at a guy and you conveniently forget that there are innocent people around him who will die. It is a willful decision to kill those civilians. It is a willful decision that their lives mean nothing because they are in the way of our goal. That is why a drone strike is on the same level as a suicide bombing.
Except ideally there are no civilians around. You don't intend to kill civilians, it is an inherent risk in the act. Sometimes there are no civilians nearby, that is the ideal situation. Sometimes there are civilians nearby and they don't get hurt, that is the second most desirable situation.
The least desirable situation is that there are civilians nearby and some of them get hurt.
That is the order of desire for a drone strike, whereas a suicide bomber has completely the reverse. The absolutely ideal situation is as many innocent people as possible to get hurt.
You've admitted yourself intentions make a huge difference. Clearly, drone strikes are absolutely nothing like a suicide bombing.
|
Someone mentioned Wahhabists and Ayatollah Khomeini. Can someone do a quick summary on who they are and what they've done? That way we're all a bit more wiser. :p
Something that I thought about while cooking my lunch is that many, many people are condemning drone strikes and the military intervention. These strikes are basically attacks which have the goal of dislodging Taliban and Islamist extremists. Unfortunately, they sometimes also injure or kill civilians who aren't the target. That is what is considered immoral and sinful.
The question I'm asking myself is whether or not it's really those who are striking (USA/UK/etc) who are immoral. The western coalition is there to get rid of terrorists, the terrorists then hide where civilians are. What terrorists are basically doing is putting themselves in situations were civilians are acting as a sort of shield, which is pretty despicable when you think about it. Wouldn't they be the real assholes in this situation? They know they're being hunted, why would they hide near civilians? You can hate on drone strikes all you want, drone strikes are NEVER used to purposely go after civilians.
To think that terrorists enjoy hiding among civilians basically show that they don't really give a shit about innocent people getting hurt, even those innocents share their beliefs, religion, country...
|
On May 27 2013 20:13 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 09:26 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 09:17 Reason wrote:On May 27 2013 08:35 Jormundr wrote: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:
[quote]
Obviously not if you make a wild assumption that had nothing to do with anything we were talking about.
[quote]
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-1-2856428I 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? Intentions do make a huge difference. When you fire a missile in a city, you intend to kill civilians. It's not like you fire a missile at a guy and you conveniently forget that there are innocent people around him who will die. It is a willful decision to kill those civilians. It is a willful decision that their lives mean nothing because they are in the way of our goal. That is why a drone strike is on the same level as a suicide bombing. Except ideally there are no civilians around. You don't intend to kill civilians, it is an inherent risk in the act. Sometimes there are no civilians nearby, that is the ideal situation. Sometimes there are civilians nearby and they don't get hurt, that is the second most desirable situation. The least desirable situation is that there are civilians nearby and some of them get hurt. That is the order of desire for a drone strike, whereas a suicide bomber has completely the reverse. The absolutely ideal situation is as many innocent people as possible to get hurt. You've admitted yourself intentions make a huge difference. Clearly, drone strikes are absolutely nothing like a suicide bombing.
You're extrapolating intention. You say that the intent is to save as many human lives as possible (which would be better achieved by not bombing people). It is just as likely that the intention has nothing to do with human life and has everything to do with preventing media fallout and declarations of war.
|
I'm not extrapolating anything.
Perhaps more lives would be lost sending in soliders or allowing these people to act unhindered, you can't just stick your head in the sand and say "if you didn't bomb them you would save lives."
It is just as likely that strikes are done to prevent media fallout and declarations of war? What?
What is that supposed to mean? Are you now extrapolating intention?
Likening suicide bombings to drone strikes just doesn't add up, I'm sorry.
|
On May 27 2013 21:56 Reason wrote:
I'm not extrapolating anything.
Perhaps more lives would be lost sending in soliders or allowing these people to act unhindered, you can't just stick your head in the sand and say "if you didn't bomb them you would save lives."
It is just as likely that strikes are done to prevent media fallout and declarations of war? What?
What is that supposed to mean? Are you now extrapolating intention?
Likening suicide bombings to drone strikes just doesn't add up, I'm sorry.
I wonder how many suicide bombs or terrorist attacks go on in china or south africa or any other country not involved in modern day imperialism.
|
On May 27 2013 22:04 sekritzzz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 21:56 Reason wrote:
I'm not extrapolating anything.
Perhaps more lives would be lost sending in soliders or allowing these people to act unhindered, you can't just stick your head in the sand and say "if you didn't bomb them you would save lives."
It is just as likely that strikes are done to prevent media fallout and declarations of war? What?
What is that supposed to mean? Are you now extrapolating intention?
Likening suicide bombings to drone strikes just doesn't add up, I'm sorry. I wonder how many suicide bombs or terrorist attacks go on in china or south africa or any other country not involved in modern day imperialism.
I wonder what the hell that is supposed to mean. Seriously, don't talk in riddles. If you have a point to make then please make it clearly, I've read that 3 times now and the only thing I can get from it is this : "it's the fault of the West that terrorists exist"
If that's what you meant then why didn't you just type it?
Is that even what you meant?
Even if it was, why are you quoting me and writing that? What's the connection?
Is it really so hard to just clearly explain what it is that you are writing instead of mysteriously quoting me and writing some garbled musing that I'm supposed to divine the intent of and then come back with an even more cryptic reply?
|
On May 27 2013 22:04 sekritzzz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 21:56 Reason wrote:
I'm not extrapolating anything.
Perhaps more lives would be lost sending in soliders or allowing these people to act unhindered, you can't just stick your head in the sand and say "if you didn't bomb them you would save lives."
It is just as likely that strikes are done to prevent media fallout and declarations of war? What?
What is that supposed to mean? Are you now extrapolating intention?
Likening suicide bombings to drone strikes just doesn't add up, I'm sorry. I wonder how many suicide bombs or terrorist attacks go on in china or south africa or any other country not involved in modern day imperialism.
China: ~80,000 incidents of violent acts of civil disruption or terrorism against the government a year.
China not being involved in modern-day imperialism is hilarious, I'd suggest you go read about the Sino-Indian war or the Sino-Vietnamese war or the Chinese attempt to take over Mongolia during the Cold War or well I don't think I need to go on.
This argument about casualties is odd to me. In the last ten years alone Muslims have killed over 200,000 other Muslims - at least - in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Syria. Let's not forget that the main victims of Muslim terrorism are other Muslims. Tangling over casualties seems to be a worthless contest of gamesmanship more than anything else to me.
|
On May 27 2013 20:13 Reason wrote:
Clearly, drone strikes are absolutely nothing like a suicide bombing.
I have to agree here, at least a suicide bomber has to pay for his actions.
|
On May 27 2013 23:24 HeatEXTEND wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 20:13 Reason wrote:
Clearly, drone strikes are absolutely nothing like a suicide bombing. I have to agree here, at least a suicide bomber has to pay for his actions.
So that's the only difference or were you just making a joke?
|
That wasn't a joke. That was snark.
|
If by snark you mean asinine then we are in agreement.
|
On May 27 2013 20:13 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 09:26 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 09:17 Reason wrote:On May 27 2013 08:35 Jormundr wrote: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:
[quote]
Obviously not if you make a wild assumption that had nothing to do with anything we were talking about.
[quote]
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-1-2856428I 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? Intentions do make a huge difference. When you fire a missile in a city, you intend to kill civilians. It's not like you fire a missile at a guy and you conveniently forget that there are innocent people around him who will die. It is a willful decision to kill those civilians. It is a willful decision that their lives mean nothing because they are in the way of our goal. That is why a drone strike is on the same level as a suicide bombing. Except ideally there are no civilians around. You don't intend to kill civilians, it is an inherent risk in the act. Sometimes there are no civilians nearby, that is the ideal situation. Sometimes there are civilians nearby and they don't get hurt, that is the second most desirable situation. The least desirable situation is that there are civilians nearby and some of them get hurt. That is the order of desire for a drone strike, whereas a suicide bomber has completely the reverse. The absolutely ideal situation is as many innocent people as possible to get hurt. You've admitted yourself intentions make a huge difference. Clearly, drone strikes are absolutely nothing like a suicide bombing.
Double tapping targets to hit the people trying to help victims and signature strikes based on nothing but 'behavioral analysis' (look it's 4 dudes in their 20s in a car) makes the difference you claim nonexistent, especially to the group of people you target with it. And that's without even going into what a 'militant' exactly means to the US government.
|
On May 28 2013 00:58 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 20:13 Reason wrote:On May 27 2013 09:26 Jormundr wrote:On May 27 2013 09:17 Reason wrote:On May 27 2013 08:35 Jormundr wrote: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:
[quote]
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-1-2856428I 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? Intentions do make a huge difference. When you fire a missile in a city, you intend to kill civilians. It's not like you fire a missile at a guy and you conveniently forget that there are innocent people around him who will die. It is a willful decision to kill those civilians. It is a willful decision that their lives mean nothing because they are in the way of our goal. That is why a drone strike is on the same level as a suicide bombing. Except ideally there are no civilians around. You don't intend to kill civilians, it is an inherent risk in the act. Sometimes there are no civilians nearby, that is the ideal situation. Sometimes there are civilians nearby and they don't get hurt, that is the second most desirable situation. The least desirable situation is that there are civilians nearby and some of them get hurt. That is the order of desire for a drone strike, whereas a suicide bomber has completely the reverse. The absolutely ideal situation is as many innocent people as possible to get hurt. You've admitted yourself intentions make a huge difference. Clearly, drone strikes are absolutely nothing like a suicide bombing. Double tapping targets to hit the people trying to help victims and signature strikes based on nothing but 'behavioral analysis' (look it's 4 dudes in their 20s in a car) makes the difference you claim nonexistent, especially to the group of people you target with it. And that's without even going into what a 'militant' exactly means to the US government.
And yet the casualty ratio is skewed in the wrong direction for those arguing there is no difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
