Koran Abuse follow up

[jBirch]

Not as long as you are around. In America, both sides of the argument are usually represented. Where is the conscience of radical islam? Where are the guys that say "maybe we shouldn't set off our car bomb in the crowded marketplace because innocent peolpe will die". If such voices existed, they are dead by now.

Horse tripe. Where is the conscience of radical Christianity? Where is the conscience of radical patriotism? By definition, anything done by a radical in the name of their cause is free from questions of conscience.

The conscience of radical Islam is the 1.3 Billion non radical Islamics.

James.

[L.O.A.S.]

The conscience of radical Islam is the 1.3 Billion non radical Islamics.

Then why don't we hear them?

[jBirch]

Then why don't we hear them?

You're deaf?

James.

[L.O.A.S.]

You're deaf?

James.

Could be (I am old). Could be that I just can't hear them over the whine of the people who want to blame America first.

[LUDICROUS]

*chop*

The fact is, one day we in the west will have to confront islam for real(no poxy little Iraq-style wars)which means that we will have to reduce their world to a pile of radio-active ash.

I can't help but agree with RL. I know, I'm a right winger. But that's how I am.
I can see that happening, and frankly, I don't think I would oppose it.

I do believe the USA will to confront Islam at some point. Something along the lines of "Stop the fundamentalist jihad type attitude, or you'll get it."

This is all IMHO... I mean, I'm a 16 yr old conservative kid who just likes to read alot

[Inquartata]

I agree that survival is first and foremost, but doubt that going berserk, cancelling civil liberties and ignoring international law is the most effective path to the USA's survival.

What, not even for enemies as virulent and amoral as these?

I'm concerned about the fact that many of the tortures inflicted on prisoners are either not the most efficient ways of obtaining information, or are otherwise motivated by malice or boredom of the interrogators. This shows the lack of preparation that went into the interrogator's training and the operation as a whole.

Indeed, indeed. However, the usual way one goes about fixing a car is to, well, fix what's wrong with it, not to melt it down and refrain from building any future cars, no?

2) Does a polity really "survive" if, fearful of its destruction, it jettisons its ideals and beliefs at the first sign of trouble?

I'm not talking about polities, I'm talking about its individual members---living, breathing people...

3) I think that it behooves a country as powerful and majestic as the united states to maintain proper form while fighting bands of ragged zealots.

Meh, bands of very well financed ragged zealots keen on obtaining some very unragged weapons, and not at all averse to using them---that's the problem.

[Larrison]

Isn't this the core of the disagreement? Jihadists don't believe the people they kill to be innocents. Not to defend their actions, but how else does one defeat a vastly superior military presence other than destroying the will of the supporting populace to continue the war?

Ask Mahatma Gandhi.

[jBirch]

What, not even for enemies as virulent and amoral as these?

No.

I'm looking at the debate we're having here from the perspective of stopping terrorism and increasing security. I don't much care which actions are morally good and which are morally evil. Regardless of how you spin it, some evil actions must be taken at the end of the day. People, probably, have to be killed.

That said, which people and how is crucially important. What is most important to the How is that the actions stay morally, ethically and culturally consistent and that the enemy populace be treated with respect. This is of the utmost importance in battling terror because the purpose of terrorism is to provoke an excessive response from the state/aggressor which then rallies the people to a communal defense. This is the first stage of the "poor rising up" that we've seen in revolution after revolution across the ages.

If you want the process to end peacefully, you have to provide a mechanism for the grievances of the terrorists to be accepted as valid while getting the populace to denounce the terrorists as criminals. The real problem is that these terrorists are heros to some people for very real and justifiable reasons. Robin Hood used to be a terrorist too, y'know.

James.

[jBirch]

Could be (I am old). Could be that I just can't hear them over the whine of the people who want to blame America first.

What's this Blame America stuff? If I'm speeding and I ram my car into a little old lady going 10mph in a 80mph zone, it's all my fault right? I'm the one breaking the law and she was just a good, intelligent and honourable person who had no part in the accident whatsoever.

Why is it that America is blameless?

James.

[Epee_Pox]

What's this Blame America stuff? If I'm speeding and I ram my car into a little old lady going 10mph in a 80mph zone, it's all my fault right? I'm the one breaking the law and she was just a good, intelligent and honourable person who had no part in the accident whatsoever.

Why is it that America is blameless?

James.

So you're basically saying that innocent victims of terrorism deserved it?

[jBirch]

So you're basically saying that innocent victims of terrorism deserved it?

No, which is why I think that invading Iraq was a stupid idea.

James.

[Inquartata]

That said, which people and how is crucially important.

I nominate all those who are seen waving rifles and shouting "Death to America!" All those who have helped train, finance, shelter, hide or otherwise assist another in an attack on innocent civilians. And all imams, ayatollahs, mullahs, shaikhs and other non-cleric-clerics who preach violent jihad.

This is of the utmost importance in battling terror because the purpose of terrorism is to provoke an excessive response from the state/aggressor which then rallies the people to a communal defense.

Come. Do you really think that actually understand the thought processes ( I use the term loosely ) and motives of terrorists? And why are we to credit this particular notion of their "purpose" over any other, such as simplistic nihilism or short-sighted religious hatred or the desire to strike at a perceived oppressor or...?

This is the first stage of the "poor rising up" that we've seen in revolution after revolution across the ages.

If we listen to the press, this ship has already sailed.

If you want the process to end peacefully, you have to provide a mechanism for the grievances of the terrorists to be accepted as valid while getting the populace to denounce the terrorists as criminals.

To use your succinct answer:

No.

I have no interest either in the terrorists' "grievances" or in seeing the matter end peacefully. I am interested in seeing them dead and would-be successors thinking twice about courting similar fates.

No one ever won a war by understanding and empathy for patent villains.

The real problem is that these terrorists are heros to some people for very real and justifiable reasons.

Real, yes. Justifiable, by no means.

[Inquartata]

No, which is why I think that invading Iraq was a stupid idea.

James.

I rather think that the current behavior of the "insurgents" in Iraq demonstrates that there were a lot of not-so-innocents there all along. One pursues such creatures wherever they are to be found.

[Svidrigailov]

I haven't been on the internet for a little while, otherwise I would have responded to these posts. I'd like to run a few points by you guys to see what you think:

1) The reason terrorists aim at civilian targets, or rather, the reason a political group goes terrorist in the first place, is because it has no other better means to fight back. The islamic fundamentalists that might be candidates to blow themselves up would, in my opinion, be more likely to enlist in an islamic army similar to the U.S. army if a military as well organized as the USA's was available for them to join. They are not evil. They are simply too poor to fight back by any more honorable means.

on the flip side, I believe that if the citizens of a place like New York, where I live, where reduced to the impotence faced by many arabs today, and faced an occupation by say, an islamic army, many of us would resort to tactics such as blowing ourselves up, and using terrorism to destabilize our enemy wherever we could.

terrorism is a tactic; we cannot expect our enemies to not use this tactic if this is the only tactic available to them.

2) The other point is that I am not a moral relativist. I condemn terrorism, but I also condemn the silly patriotic jingoism, which I think is behind the inspiration that possesses both "American" and Islamic zealots.


I do not believe the best tactic to use against an enemy who insists on terrorism is to totally annihilate them...not because its immoral. I wish we could just press a button and get rid of them. It is not the best tactic because 1) it is unrealistic and 2) because I think that the desire to wipe these people out is caused by fear and anger on our part, and not from calculation and clear thinking.

The best tactic to use against the terrorists are the quietest ones. On one hand, we must give everyone who the terrorists seek to represent, a viable means of self realization besides terrorrism. (I.E. start funding schools in palestine so that HAMAS doesn't have to.) On the other hand, we have to infiltrate and destabilize these groups through our sophisticated intelligence networks. How hard could it be to destabilize a bunch of crazy radicals? we quietly discredit their leaders...we poison them, we spread bad rumors about them, we keep these people isolated...

by killing them, and mistreating their potential supporters, we are helping them in the long run.

[L.O.A.S.]

They are not evil.

Is there anything you consider evil in your world?