interview with a jihadi

[Tigranes]

I think the UN should intervene. Why? COMMON SENSE man. The UN pecekeeping troop would likely be a multinational troop, comprised of countries that are pro or neutral to Iraq. Granted, I have no way of knowing for sure what the majority of the Iraqi people want. But don't you think that a war torn Iraq would preffer to be supervised by a country/countries that DID NOT bombard Iraq on a weekly basis since the year 1991? The UN estimates that more than 500.000 iraqi children died from the US sanctions and bombardments.

 

1. Since when has UN peacekeeping troops been effective at restoring peace to a country?

2. Why do you entrust the UN with so much authority when it is not an entirely democratic institution, has too little political power and is not exactly known for its efficiency?

3. Maybe the Iraqis would like a semblance of order and dignity restored to their country as fast as possible, more than worrying about past injustices? If the current arrangement is more efficient at restoring order, then...

 

That said, I don't believe there would be that much difference in restoring order to Iraq at this point whether it was UN or US forces in there. Furthermore, we can't practically expect the US to pull out instantly - no president will ever do that in terms of political action. There will probably be a slow pullout, US troops replaced by UN peacekeepers. Whether that will do the job is another matter. Personally, I'm afraid Iraq won't get very 'stable' for a good few more years, no matter whose troops are or aren't there. At least a hardline US military push is now politically out of the question, that wouldn't do much good.

 

I don't think there's any significant improvement to be had from replacing US troops with UN troops, except for the fact that there might be a bit less animosity towards UN troops. But UN troops will also be less effective at helping a political institution with authority take shape in Iraq.

 

My point is: Don't patronize me man.

 

Well duh...

 

rofl.

[Xard]

My my that US Foreign Policy bitching thread and this has been quite a read. Not fun (which is what I hoped for), only annoying.

 

I think every muslim should get heavy dose of /b/ in some part of their life. And every christian too. And jew. And buddhist. And hindu. Heh.

 

It may kill your soul but at least some damn drawing wouldn't be even remotely offending anymore.

[Meshugger]

1. Boycott is civilized and proper don't you think?

2. Justifiable no. Understandable yes.

3. Unreasonable huh? Would you buy a product from someone who called you and your family terrorists? Freedom of the press is like a loaded gun, nothing will happen so long as the one who wields it is a responsible adult. But if an obnoxious kid gets a hold of it...

4. That's because unlike you 'the middle east' never went through the dark ages.

5. What is there to explain? Peace loving muslims, as in the non radical Muslims. Like me. Not all of us are terrorists y'know. Not all Muslims reacted violently to the 'cartoon.' Some of us cried. It truly hurt us.

-------------------------------------------------

 

1. Civil, but still misdirected. Boycotting danish products because of what one magazine did is putting the blame on the people and the government. What did they do? There were no demonstrations because no dane CARED.

2. It is not understandable, not byt one single inch. That would mean that every other country would've bombed and pillaged every american embassy in the world for having one american artist publish their work of 'P*ss-christ'.

3. I don't get it, did the newspaper sell something else than its own newspaper? And what's the deal with freedom of press? Is it ok to go on a rampage when some has different view than you? Not really. The only other way is censorship, which is not a sign of a free and open society.

4. Yup, we did. Horrible times, and we haven't to this very day got along with each other in Europe. But we're on the right track at least. Trying to negotiate and comprise for a better future. But what has that to do with anything? My point lies in that the middle east never had 'revolution' in terms of free-thinking and intellactualism, which is counterproductive when a society has to evolve with the times.

5. Not everyone is nice to each other, that's the way the world is. You can't have laws against someone being offended since it wouldn't work. Someone's offence can be the compliment of the other. Focus on the better things in life and just recognize that offence is just a part of life that you can't do anything about, just like catching a flu.

Edited August 5, 2007 by Meshugger

[Yuusha]

1. Civil, but still misdirected. Boycotting danish products because of what one magazine did is putting the blame on the people and the government. What did they do? There were no demonstrations because no dane CARED.

2. It is not understandable, not byt one single inch. That would mean that every other country would've bombed and pillaged every american embassy in the world for having one american artist publish their work of 'P*ss-christ'.

3. I don't get it, did the newspaper sell something else than its own newspaper? And what's the deal with freedom of press? Is it ok to go on a rampage when some has different view than you? Not really. The only other way is censorship, which is not a sign of a free and open society.

4. Yup, we did. Horrible times, and we haven't to this very day got along with each other in Europe. But we're on the right track at least. Trying to negotiate and comprise for a better future. But what has that to do with anything? My point lies in that the middle east never had 'revolution' in terms of free-thinking and intellactualism, which is counterproductive when a society has to evolve with the times.

5. Not everyone is nice to each other, that's the way the world is. You can't have laws against someone being offended since it wouldn't work. Someone's offence can be the compliment of the other. Focus on the better things in life and just recognize that offence is just a part of life that you can't do anything about, just like catching a flu.

1. No Dane cared? Wow... You really are attuned with the force Luke. You're power of insight is inspiring. What about the owners of the Danish companies? You think they don't care when their companies suffered significant loss as a result of the boycott?

2. If I remember corectly, there was an incident regarding the burning of the Beatles records following a statement by John Lennon. He said, and I quote: "We're more popular than Jesus Christ." Now the people that reacted to this statement weren't Muslims. Point is, the retaliation against the Danish Newspaper is perfectly understandable no matter what you say. It's human nature. Doesn't make it right though.

3. I'd dispute point 3. Freedom of the Press only extends to government interference. It doesn't protect a newspaper from the ill will of the public, nor does it immunize a newspaper from criticism. If direct pressure on the newspaper doesn't yield a desired apology, then applying pressure elsewhere, such as with a boycott of Danish goods, is acceptable in the pursuit of said apology. The point of a boycott would be to persuade Danish private enterprise to join the protesters in demanding an apology in the interests of returning business to normal. Arabs have no obligation to partake of Danish goods. They crossed the line with the violence, not the boycott.

4. Simple. The middle east already abandoned the ways of the ancients when Islam touched their lives. Did you know that before Islam came along, the arabs had this disgusting habit of burrying alive their daughters. And they were highly consumptive of alcohol and free-sex or whatever it is you call sex outside of marriage. There were slave traders in Arabia etc. Islam changed that, and that my self righteous friend, is our revolution.

5. What about tolerance? Does that word even appear in your dictionary? Just because it's not ilegal to insult someone doesn't mean you should go ahead and do it. If I were to go by your logic, then I reserve every right to call your mother a dirty whore and a ****sucking ****. But as a civilized person I am restricted by teachings of Islam that hurting others both emotionally and physically is a sin.

[Guard Dog]

3. I'd dispute point 3. Freedom of the Press only extends to government interference. It doesn't protect a newspaper from the ill will of the public, nor does it immunize a newspaper from criticism. If direct pressure on the newspaper doesn't yield a desired apology, then applying pressure elsewhere, such as with a boycott of Danish goods, is acceptable in the pursuit of said apology. The point of a boycott would be to persuade Danish private enterprise to join the protesters in demanding an apology in the interests of returning business to normal. Arabs have no obligation to partake of Danish goods. They crossed the line with the violence, not the boycott.

 

Wow. I actually agree with Yushaa on something. He's right Mes. The thing about free speech is it does work two ways. The newspaper was perfectly within it's rights to print whatever it wanted about Muhammed. And any offended muslim would be perfectly right to be angry and express such in the form of boycotts or protests. However, the moment they resorted to violence or even threats of violence they flushed the moral high ground right down the toilet. Nobody deserves to die or risk bodily harm over words or pictures. That is a lesson the more violent practioners of Islam has not yet learned.

 

As I posted earlier, God/Allah/Jesus/Muhammed (henceforth referred to collectively as God) is not some helpless figure that requires us mere mortals to stand up for His honor. If someone issues an insult to God, that is between them and God. It is not for us to mete out justice for an offence aginst the divine. Killing a human we are able to adjudicate because we are humans. Besides, I somehow doubt God would be offended.

[Yuusha]

As I posted earlier, God/Allah/Jesus/Muhammed (henceforth referred to collectively as God) is not some helpless figure that requires us mere mortals to stand up for His honor. If someone issues an insult to God, that is between them and God. It is not for us to mete out justice for an offence aginst the divine. Killing a human we are able to adjudicate because we are humans. Besides, I somehow doubt God would be offended.

One thing, Islam states that there is only one God. Hence the prophet Muhammad can only be regarded as God's messenger.

 

And yes you're right, we don't need to stand up for God. And I think most of the normal, SANE, non-violent Muslim would agree with you.

[Blarghagh]

I guess I could search for specifics on my own. I just want to know in case I hear somone praising Che or wearing a shirt with his face printed on it.

 

In my experience, at least 45% of all people with a Che t-shirt think he is a member or mascot for the band "Rage Against the Machine".

[Walsingham]

@Walshingham:

QUOTE

OK, Yuusha, I'm trying to be civil here, but maybe I'm too long winded. I'll restrict myself even further to one point at a time.

 

Simply because an act involves fear does not make it terrorism. You can hook me up to an intravenous drip full of fear juice and give me a big horror sandwich and it still isn't terrorism. For comparison, because jihad is involved in a terrorist's motivation does not make every muslim's pursuit of jihad terrorism.

 

*chews stub of cigar* Or maybe I'm not very bright?

 

~~~

Let's not kid ourselves here. You and I both know that we don't see eye to eye, there's nothing wrong with that right? But even so I would never resort to calling you stupid or uncivillized coz that's just not true. Back on my US foreign policy topic, I remember you were being pressured to lock the thread by an angry mob hoding out pitchforks. "Would someone please lock this thread!!" "Oh dear... When Fionavar sees this..." "Where's a mod when you need one," and so on and so forth. You didn't back down and that was IMO one of the mark of a good leader. It's understandable to cater the needs of the majority but never on the expense of the minority.

 

My point is: Don't patronize me man. Don't restrain/restrict yourself and your views on my account. I'm not gonna do you any favours just coz you're a mod. Ok bro.

 

*coughs politely*

 

I was actually attempting a takeoff of my great hero - Columbo.

 

*image edited out due to overtraffic or something. Due to goblins, that sounds better.*

 

My restricting my points was simply to ease the pressure you are under, tackling multiple questions. Speaking of which, what do you think of my point that simply because an act involves terror does not make it terrorism. To use a purely military analogy, just because the French army had tanks in 1940 does not mean that they were conducting blitzkrieg.

[Tigranes]

I'm pretty sure mes and yuusha on those 5 points were tackling them from slightly different perspectives... both are right in a way, if you can see where they're coming from.

[Meshugger]

1. Civil, but still misdirected. Boycotting danish products because of what one magazine did is putting the blame on the people and the government. What did they do? There were no demonstrations because no dane CARED.

2. It is not understandable, not byt one single inch. That would mean that every other country would've bombed and pillaged every american embassy in the world for having one american artist publish their work of 'P*ss-christ'.

3. I don't get it, did the newspaper sell something else than its own newspaper? And what's the deal with freedom of press? Is it ok to go on a rampage when some has different view than you? Not really. The only other way is censorship, which is not a sign of a free and open society.

4. Yup, we did. Horrible times, and we haven't to this very day got along with each other in Europe. But we're on the right track at least. Trying to negotiate and comprise for a better future. But what has that to do with anything? My point lies in that the middle east never had 'revolution' in terms of free-thinking and intellactualism, which is counterproductive when a society has to evolve with the times.

5. Not everyone is nice to each other, that's the way the world is. You can't have laws against someone being offended since it wouldn't work. Someone's offence can be the compliment of the other. Focus on the better things in life and just recognize that offence is just a part of life that you can't do anything about, just like catching a flu.

1. No Dane cared? Wow... You really are attuned with the force Luke. You're power of insight is inspiring. What about the owners of the Danish companies? You think they don't care when their companies suffered significant loss as a result of the boycott?

2. If I remember corectly, there was an incident regarding the burning of the Beatles records following a statement by John Lennon. He said, and I quote: "We're more popular than Jesus Christ." Now the people that reacted to this statement weren't Muslims. Point is, the retaliation against the Danish Newspaper is perfectly understandable no matter what you say. It's human nature. Doesn't make it right though.

3. I'd dispute point 3. Freedom of the Press only extends to government interference. It doesn't protect a newspaper from the ill will of the public, nor does it immunize a newspaper from criticism. If direct pressure on the newspaper doesn't yield a desired apology, then applying pressure elsewhere, such as with a boycott of Danish goods, is acceptable in the pursuit of said apology. The point of a boycott would be to persuade Danish private enterprise to join the protesters in demanding an apology in the interests of returning business to normal. Arabs have no obligation to partake of Danish goods. They crossed the line with the violence, not the boycott.

4. Simple. The middle east already abandoned the ways of the ancients when Islam touched their lives. Did you know that before Islam came along, the arabs had this disgusting habit of burrying alive their daughters. And they were highly consumptive of alcohol and free-sex or whatever it is you call sex outside of marriage. There were slave traders in Arabia etc. Islam changed that, and that my self righteous friend, is our revolution.

5. What about tolerance? Does that word even appear in your dictionary? Just because it's not ilegal to insult someone doesn't mean you should go ahead and do it. If I were to go by your logic, then I reserve every right to call your mother a dirty whore and a ****sucking ****. But as a civilized person I am restricted by teachings of Islam that hurting others both emotionally and physically is a sin.

 

1. The danish companies had nothing to do with it. The Danes didn't care until there was an embassy burned down.

 

2. Different times, different settings. Those people simply bought Beatles-albums and burned them, they didn't burn down public property or anyone else's private property. "Strangely" enough, the strongest protest came from the "all-so-tolerant-at-the-time", the american south.

 

3. Criticism? Yup, that's alright. Open protest and demonstrations? That's alright. Punishing others for what a newspaper writes? Wrong and stupid. I sure wouldn't boycott Iranian sweets because of a local newspaper did deny the holocaust and called for the destruction of Israel.

 

4. There has certainly been progress, but intellectualism and free-thinking has still a way to go. Al-Jazeera seems to have broken some taboos with its debate-panels though.

 

5. Tolerance goes both ways. It doesn't mean that you have to be nice, but you have to tolerate what other people think too. What if some sun-worshiper found it very offensive to talk about the sun in every way? Would you ban the word 'sun' from public speech? Would you supporting media for doing self-censorship and never mention the sun during their broadcasts? Restraining your own thoughts and words in the name of 'tolerance' is self-censorship.

Edited August 6, 2007 by Meshugger

[St_Jimmy]

Discrimination and bigotry exist only if you let them Yuusha.

 

However, I do see many of your points. As in regards to the Cartoon debate, I feel in some ways you could understand why one might feel offended enough to bomb said embassy. Knowing quite a few Muslims (Seriously, there are more Masques in my city in Arizona than there are Churches, and it's right next to the Phoenix metro area too), I think can I make some form of generalization.

 

Because of secularization of society and the economic boom of the west; many Christians and other western religions are nowhere near as devout and (dare I say?) fanatical about their religions as they used to be. However many people of the Islamic faith practice regularly, and despite a few fools, they tend to follow the tenets of their religion quite well. Most Muslims are generally people with a good moral background. I cannot say that of most of the Christians I know. However, maybe what I am seeing is a result of Muslims having to "identify" themselves as one part of society. It's an incredibly basic psychological principal. Most humans want to identify with some sort of organization or ideal.

 

Maybe that causes the good faith I see in most Muslims and the Secularized society I see in my fellow Christians (I am a confirmed Catholic, and I am just as, if not more secularized than most people in general.... however, try to follow my point all the same ) However I do not think so, as even Muslims in the Middle East tend to be quite religious. Some see that as a good thing (myself being one), but some see it as a bad thing, considering some forms of devoutness might cause you to blow up a few (Small number of course. Religious extremism didn't bring down the largest buildings in the world did it?..... Wait....yes it did..........) buildings.

 

Very good point about the Middle East not going through the Dark Ages Yuusha

Saladin did kick our asses. Yet, that was mostly because all of the crusades were either A) diverted for no particular reason other than to make someone happy enough to take them to the Middle East, or B) completely disjointed and filled with Catholic leaders that had no idea how to command an Army.

 

However, the thing about the Middle East is the fact that they have not gone though the Dark Ages, but didn't really have a renaissance or industrial revolution either. They more or less stayed where they were, being at one time much greater than most of Europe technology wise, they fell behind the Europeans over time for the simple fact that they did not move ahead of move backward for awhile.

 

Many people will tell you that without the Dark Ages, Europe and the west would not be as powerful as they are today (read Bubonic plague), that is another debate for another time though.

 

@Walshingham.

 

Then what is Terrorism? Does it anything expressly say that a terrorist is a brown-skinned individual with a bomb strapped to his chest, screaming religious taunts at passerby

[St_Jimmy]

@Walshingham:

QUOTE

OK, Yuusha, I'm trying to be civil here, but maybe I'm too long winded. I'll restrict myself even further to one point at a time.

 

Simply because an act involves fear does not make it terrorism. You can hook me up to an intravenous drip full of fear juice and give me a big horror sandwich and it still isn't terrorism. For comparison, because jihad is involved in a terrorist's motivation does not make every muslim's pursuit of jihad terrorism.

 

*chews stub of cigar* Or maybe I'm not very bright?

 

~~~

Let's not kid ourselves here. You and I both know that we don't see eye to eye, there's nothing wrong with that right? But even so I would never resort to calling you stupid or uncivillized coz that's just not true. Back on my US foreign policy topic, I remember you were being pressured to lock the thread by an angry mob hoding out pitchforks. "Would someone please lock this thread!!" "Oh dear... When Fionavar sees this..." "Where's a mod when you need one," and so on and so forth. You didn't back down and that was IMO one of the mark of a good leader. It's understandable to cater the needs of the majority but never on the expense of the minority.

 

My point is: Don't patronize me man. Don't restrain/restrict yourself and your views on my account. I'm not gonna do you any favours just coz you're a mod. Ok bro.

 

*coughs politely*

 

I was actually attempting a takeoff of my great hero - Columbo.

 

*image edited out due to overtraffic or something. Due to goblins, that sounds better.*

 

My restricting my points was simply to ease the pressure you are under, tackling multiple questions. Speaking of which, what do you think of my point that simply because an act involves terror does not make it terrorism. To use a purely military analogy, just because the French army had tanks in 1940 does not mean that they were conducting blitzkrieg.

 

They also weren't invading Poland.

 

Terrorism is a vague term that can only befined from a certain point of view.

[Walsingham]

St. Jimmy,

 

It is only vague when you try to attach a moral judgement to it. It is the moral question which causes the ambiguity, not the mechanical characteristics.

 

Mechanical Definition

 

Terrorism is the deliberate attack by weak, irregular, and (by inference) usually clandestine forces against poorly defended targets, with the express purpose of creating chaos that weakens the target entity. Fear and apprehension are a part of the equation, in that they contribute to the psychological weakening of the target. However, it is the total system effect on the target that is the object of its application.

 

Moral Component

 

The moral reprehensibility of terrorism is tied to, but still distinct from the above mechanical description for four reasons:

 

1. "Poorly defended targets" tends to slide into 'civilians', and nothing else. I personally find deliberate targeting of civilians reprehensible. Civilians do get killed by the regular military, but there is a difference in my mind between an air tasking order that has been triple reviewed to avoid civilian casualties, and deliberately crashing bombs into packed nightclubs or office buildings.

 

2. Weakness in military force can arise due to minority rule, such as in apartheid South Africa. However, where democracy exists such an argument cannot be used as an excuse for using resorting to violence.

 

3. More often, worldwide, weakness in military force is associated with the party concerned being weak in terms of popular support.

 

4. Due to point 3, and also for reasons of maintaining security as a clandestine grouping, terrorist organisations almost invariably kill many of their own community who oppose them.

 

 

Point 1 is almost universally true of all terrorist organisations. The only exception I can think of would be the Weather Underground Organisation (aka The Weathermen) - and they were essentially just bored middle class kids.

 

Points 2 and 3 apply to groups acting against governments susceptible to democratic pressure. Failing to oppose such groups is tantamount to abandoning the principles of democracy itself, and subordinating ourselves to despotism. Something which I was always told we have had to work bloody hard to escape from, and protect against.

 

Point 4, combined with the necessity of obtaining large sums of money and equipment, has a tendency to provoke the organisation into a lifestyle of petty warlordism. Rapidly they cease to be the executors and heroes of the people and become another set of oppressors.

 

For all the above reasons I believe it is wrong to sympathise in the smallest part with any organisation that uses terrorist methods. They are questionable at the outset, and almost inevitably slide into worse and worse outrages. Our responsibility is to render the use of terrorism as defunct as the use of poison gas by totally rejecting it.

[Xard]

 

Sorry, felt like trolling

Edited August 6, 2007 by Xard

[Yuusha]

@Xard:

 

You got me so mad I almost like it....

[Guard Dog]

Sorry, felt like trolling

 

Ok that was a little funny...

[St_Jimmy]

LOLZ

Edited August 7, 2007 by St_Jimmy

[St_Jimmy]

St. Jimmy,

 

It is only vague when you try to attach a moral judgement to it. It is the moral question which causes the ambiguity, not the mechanical characteristics.

 

Mechanical Definition

 

Terrorism is the deliberate attack by weak, irregular, and (by inference) usually clandestine forces against poorly defended targets, with the express purpose of creating chaos that weakens the target entity. Fear and apprehension are a part of the equation, in that they contribute to the psychological weakening of the target. However, it is the total system effect on the target that is the object of its application.

 

Moral Component

 

The moral reprehensibility of terrorism is tied to, but still distinct from the above mechanical description for four reasons:

 

1. "Poorly defended targets" tends to slide into 'civilians', and nothing else. I personally find deliberate targeting of civilians reprehensible. Civilians do get killed by the regular military, but there is a difference in my mind between an air tasking order that has been triple reviewed to avoid civilian casualties, and deliberately crashing bombs into packed nightclubs or office buildings.

 

2. Weakness in military force can arise due to minority rule, such as in apartheid South Africa. However, where democracy exists such an argument cannot be used as an excuse for using resorting to violence.

 

3. More often, worldwide, weakness in military force is associated with the party concerned being weak in terms of popular support.

 

4. Due to point 3, and also for reasons of maintaining security as a clandestine grouping, terrorist organisations almost invariably kill many of their own community who oppose them.

 

 

Point 1 is almost universally true of all terrorist organisations. The only exception I can think of would be the Weather Underground Organisation (aka The Weathermen) - and they were essentially just bored middle class kids.

 

Points 2 and 3 apply to groups acting against governments susceptible to democratic pressure. Failing to oppose such groups is tantamount to abandoning the principles of democracy itself, and subordinating ourselves to despotism. Something which I was always told we have had to work bloody hard to escape from, and protect against.

 

Point 4, combined with the necessity of obtaining large sums of money and equipment, has a tendency to provoke the organisation into a lifestyle of petty warlordism. Rapidly they cease to be the executors and heroes of the people and become another set of oppressors.

 

For all the above reasons I believe it is wrong to sympathise in the smallest part with any organisation that uses terrorist methods. They are questionable at the outset, and almost inevitably slide into worse and worse outrages. Our responsibility is to render the use of terrorism as defunct as the use of poison gas by totally rejecting it.

 

#1 There is a point there, but you cannot rightly justify violence at any time in my opinion.

 

#2 & 3 Is democracy necessarily the best alternative to terrorism? As I said before, should we be so arrogant to believe that installing a democratic government in a foreign country will magically solve all of its problems? Did we escape despotism only to come to the realization that in 300 years, the basic principles haven't changed? The rich still rule, and frankly not every man in our country can grow up to be president. The days of Lincoln are gone, and we have been relegated to simply electing someone out of a pool of individuals.

 

#4 True, but do you consider Che and Mao to be terrorists? They were heads of state AND had a small military force which toppled a country's current regime. Do we begin to call the Iraqi insurgents revolutionaries if they topple our Iraqi puppet government?

 

For example Che Guevara by any

Edited August 7, 2007 by St_Jimmy

[Walsingham]

#1 There is a point there, but you cannot rightly justify violence at any time in my opinion.

 

~~~Violence does not need to be justified. It is axiomatic. As I will prove to all-comers at any time who present themselves to me with an ordinary pencil. There are, moreover, gradations of violence and making distinctions between types of violence is an essential part of mitigating the horrors of war.

 

 

#2 & 3 Is democracy necessarily the best alternative to terrorism? As I said before, should we be so arrogant to believe that installing a democratic government in a foreign country will magically solve all of its problems? Did we escape despotism only to come to the realization that in 300 years, the basic principles haven't changed? The rich still rule, and frankly not every man in our country can grow up to be president. The days of Lincoln are gone, and we have been relegated to simply electing someone out of a pool of individuals.

 

~~~Absolutely, democracy is better than terrorism. Leaving aside your peculiar notions about the 'failures' you mention, they cannot compare with the inherent failures of any system based on pure force before reason. If you believe that life in the USA or another democracy is just as harsh as living in a dictatorship I would respectfully suggest you pull your head out of your ass and immediately emigrate to Zimbabwe or Myanmar. Democracy is about one thing pure and simple, and that is giving the common man some protection against being abused.

 

 

#4 True, but do you consider Che and Mao to be terrorists? They were heads of state AND had a small military force which toppled a country's current regime. Do we begin to call the Iraqi insurgents revolutionaries if they topple our Iraqi puppet government?

 

For example Che Guevara by any

[St_Jimmy]

Of course, since the dawn of time and through our evolution (or creation) as a human species, violence has definitely been one of our essential truths. However, a civilized society has a certain responsibility that never applied to a group of primitive humans. It would be utterly reprehensible to ignore that responsibility and act in a manner that causes evil to all, no matter what the intentions. As a

[Colrom]

Housewives and children were incinerated instantly or paralysed in their daily routines, their internal organs boiled and their bones charred into brittle charcoal.

 

Now that's terrorism!!!

 

Yeah, and the firebombing of Dresden. Don't forget that.

 

I'm too hungover to really get to grips with this, but if you really equate organised warfare, however disgusting, with the random _and pointless_ deliberate slaughter of civilians _and not military personnel_ then I suggest you get back to studying.

 

I'm a simple person. I see highly effective murder as morally equivalent to highly ineffective murder. Every premeditated killer who had an option has had a reason and a point - but whatever their reason or point or organization - in the end - they were just a killer. Even inane murders have inane points. There are no murders that were pointless to the murderers.

 

I remember reading a story about a guy who was in jail for murder who described his reason for killing some old man. He said the old man didn't deserve to live because the killer was able to kill him - and so he did. It made sense to the killer. It was enough for him. The reason seems inane to me - but he thought it was a good reason.

 

Since we are (mostly) smarter and less deranged than that nut our reasons for sending out killers are more complex and well thought out - but I'm not sure they are really all that different.

 

So the comparison - especially if people insist on referencing "terror" as a motivation - is quite correct. Maybe even more than correct.

[Walsingham]

Quickly, Colrom, I don't see your point, and invite you to try again. My friend and I are opposed to the US Government. One of us shoots and kills the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the other shoots and kills a mom on her way back from soccer practice. Equivalent?

 

St Jimmy, I'm going to try and keep it short, because one problem with these threads is that as they get deeper they get unweildy and people stop reading. Apologies in advance if I over-simplify.

 

1. We certainly do have a responsibility as civilised people to try and escape violence as far as possible. But it will never be totally removed or can be forgotten. I see it rather like bacteria. As civilised people we should try not to live in filth. But equally we should not try to remove them entirely. After a certain point are efforts are hopeless and may even harm us. My point here is that violence cannot be acceptable in the hands of the individual and the criminal by any standards. It inevitably tends towards the worst excesses.

 

2. I apologise if I gave the impression I thought you were directly condoning terrorism. But I stand by the principle that any intellectual justification provides covering fire for terrorist activity. This is not to say that we shouldn't understand terrorist motivation. But there is a difference between understanding and sympathising.

 

3. Robert Mugabe bulldozes whole neighbourhoods opposed to him, and his security forces routinely pick up, beat, and abuse reporters and politicians who oppose him. I want to be sure you are genuinely arguing his corner before I go to the trouble of pulling together articles to support my contention that he is an a-hole, and his side-stepping of democracy has ruined a once successful country.

 

4. While I accept and have seen the farcical output of some developing democratic countries I do not think they prove democracy is not for everyone. Who precisely are you saying cannot handle democracy? Coloured gentlemen? Muslims? Luton? The benefits of having a say in the laws which govern us are universal in both the avoidance of abuse, and the elevation of the human spirit.

[St_Jimmy]

Quickly, Colrom, I don't see your point, and invite you to try again. My friend and I are opposed to the US Government. One of us shoots and kills the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the other shoots and kills a mom on her way back from soccer practice. Equivalent?

 

St Jimmy, I'm going to try and keep it short, because one problem with these threads is that as they get deeper they get unweildy and people stop reading. Apologies in advance if I over-simplify.

 

1. We certainly do have a responsibility as civilised people to try and escape violence as far as possible. But it will never be totally removed or can be forgotten. I see it rather like bacteria. As civilised people we should try not to live in filth. But equally we should not try to remove them entirely. After a certain point are efforts are hopeless and may even harm us. My point here is that violence cannot be acceptable in the hands of the individual and the criminal by any standards. It inevitably tends towards the worst excesses.

 

2. I apologise if I gave the impression I thought you were directly condoning terrorism. But I stand by the principle that any intellectual justification provides covering fire for terrorist activity. This is not to say that we shouldn't understand terrorist motivation. But there is a difference between understanding and sympathising.

 

3. Robert Mugabe bulldozes whole neighbourhoods opposed to him, and his security forces routinely pick up, beat, and abuse reporters and politicians who oppose him. I want to be sure you are genuinely arguing his corner before I go to the trouble of pulling together articles to support my contention that he is an a-hole, and his side-stepping of democracy has ruined a once successful country.

 

4. While I accept and have seen the farcical output of some developing democratic countries I do not think they prove democracy is not for everyone. Who precisely are you saying cannot handle democracy? Coloured gentlemen? Muslims? Luton? The benefits of having a say in the laws which govern us are universal in both the avoidance of abuse, and the elevation of the human spirit.

 

I agree in principle to Colrom's point, yet yours does highlight a very important aspect of this: there are many factors to the perceived "severity" of a violent act. To add to that, what if the mom was raped by a gang of men before hand? Does that still make it comparable to the murder of the Joint Chief? Mechanically yes; morally no. Murder is murder regardless, but I agree that some forms of it are especially atrocious.

 

Would you consider a wife of a man dying of a terminal illness and begging for death, who finally gives in to his demands, a horrible murderer? (I know euthanasia is a totally different topic, but for the sake of the topic, I think most of us can agree that the example I have just given is far less disturbing than the rape and murder of the soccer mom by the three men in the former example)

 

That is why we have our degrees of murder in place in our judicial system. I think Colrom's point falls pretty easily with enough evidence, but it is an interesting thought that with civilization only comes more excuses for slaughter.

 

1. Violence may seem justified, and it may well be justifiable; but that does not make it an eventuality. As humans we have our own decisions to make, we aren't controlled by some pre-determined fate that says violence will continue to occur throughout all of time. One has to look at life optimistically, and not simply hope for world peace, but actually do something about it. That is the trouble with our world, and that is the trouble with us on this forum... For every man like Gandhi that actually tries to enact something, we have a million people sitting on the sidelines. =/

 

2. Yes, I was arguing with one of my friends the other day. I perfectly understand why someone may be driven to do it, but in no way do I sympathize with one who commits the act. It's truly one of the worst things I can think of in the world. You're standing in the supermarket and wham... You just lost a leg. But alas, combating these acts with more violence will not solve anything.

 

One of the reasons I strongly oppose capital punishment. After all, why do we murder people who have murdered people to teach people not to murder people? Seems rather redundant to me but that is another debate also.

 

3. What I know of him is very basic knowledge. Only to the fact that a part of the population is against him, and the fact that his apparent "side-stepping (if you may call it that) caused an entire political party to disband until "Democracy was restored". So yes, in other words, I would love some articles Always need new examples for policy debate.

 

4. I am simply trying to say that democracy, especially AMERICAN democracy; does not function well within all environments. Switzerland seems to be functioning well in its own little bubble, as does France. They however, have a democratic system very different from ours. Even China is starting their own mini industrial revolution. Perhaps one could even go as far to say that without the trade embargo, Cuba would probably be a much more prosperous country than it is.

 

Finally, I do believe anyone can handle democracy, but whether they want it is a completely different matter.

[Walsingham]

I'm going to go at your comments backwards, if I may.

 

You end by stating that American Democracy does not suit everyone, and I would agree. Fundamentally it is concentrated on hog-tying and hamstringing the state as far as possible. But in most developing countries a weak state isn't the damn problem. Most 'despotism' is carried out by neighbour on neighbour. Nor is it easy to engage in democracy where information and education is scarce and of poor quality. Both being features of large countries with little or no infrastructure, and concentration of media control in the hands of a tiny few.

 

The American Democratic process is based on a lot of profound philosophical thought and reason. It's in many ways how democracy ought to work. But it doesn't work because it's unstable in the face of real lazy avaricious human beings.

 

This links back to my initial point about violence. As long as we have diversity (and I think we can assume this is good) of needs and views about how the world should be we will have conflict. Conflict can be argued rationally and negotiated - which I assume you advocate. But it can also be decided on the basis of a contest of violence. The crucial point is that succumbing to argument and negotiation is optional. Succumbing to a rock on the head is not.

 

Your aspiration to achieve a world without violence is fine as a direction to point towards. But expecting to arrive at it, and worse PLANNING as if you will ever get there, is dangerous and in a government would be abuse of their mandate.

 

The example you give of Ghandi is often used, and I think that where a government is bound by law and reason it is fine. BUt you will note that Ghandi himself remarked that against any other colonial power it would not have worked. They would simply have killed him.

[Colrom]

Quickly, Colrom, I don't see your point, and invite you to try again. My friend and I are opposed to the US Government. One of us shoots and kills the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the other shoots and kills a mom on her way back from soccer practice. Equivalent?

 

They are certainly not equivalent - but they are both cruel murders. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is, after all, "just" a father on his way back from war practice.

 

I don't know what reasoning these killers might have but I know their reasons will make sense to them but likely not to me.

 

The one who kills the general might imagine that he is cutting off the head of a hostle snake.

 

The other who kills the civilian mother might imagine that he is weakening the support provided by the feet of a huge hostle giant.

 

In both cases the killers minimize the positive value of the regular life of their target and focus on other "values".

 

In the case of suicide attacks the killer even minimizes the value of their own life.

 

Sometimes people kill only themselves - like the monks who burned themselves in protest during the Vietnam war.

 

Crazy.