| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/30/2008 12:09:18 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by photodude:
If you think this wrong - then what is the alternative solution? |
You keep asking this question as though you've hit upon a devastating tautological truth. In fact, just because most everybody finds genocide repellent, yet doesn't have an immediate answer as to what should be done about terrorism, doesn't indicate a flaw in that position. What it means is the answer is slightly more morally fine-grained than you are willing to admit. This reveals a fundamental flaw in what you think should be done; seeing everything in such stark terms fairly invites moral weakness in your solution. Your position is grossly untenable in so many ways. |
Who said genocide? Retalliation is not genocide. Leave us alone and we leave you alone. Screw with us and we screw back only much harder. Pretty simple concept. |
|
|
|
11/30/2008 12:18:52 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Who said genocide? |
You did.
Originally posted by photodude:
Islam and its followers must learn to live in peace in an increasingly smaller and overpopulated world. If they can't, they must perish for the sake of mankind. The choice is theirs. "Live in Peace or Perish" |
Had you targeted the terrorists instead of "Islam and its followers," you wouldn't be suggesting genocide, but you didn't. You are literally pinning the problems on an entire religious group– exactly as the Nazis did with the Jews. |
|
|
|
11/30/2008 12:26:08 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
There is a very high chance that the one living next door to Ahmad doesn't know anything, let alone knows where for example Mumbai is, as he has never been further from his home than the next village, a day's walk from his own.
And maybe Ahmad threatened to shoot the neighbours wife and children if he didn't keep his mouth shut.
So in that case it must really suck to be Ahmad's neighbour no? If he tells anyone Ahmad or his friends kill his family. If he doesn't tell anyone you will kill his family.... By that logic we can just as well blow up the world. |
The neighbors know. No different than when you live in Howard Beach NY and John Gotti is your neighbor. No different than when you live in South Central LA and your neighbor is a Blood or a Crip. No different than when you live in Belfast and your neighbor is an IRA militant. You know.
Will it take courage for the neighbor do actually do something? It sure will. There are 2 great motivators in life - greed and fear. In this situation, we need to make the fear of doing nothing more than the fear of speaking up or acting in advance. That is accomplished by Mutual Assured Retaliation. Meaning if the neighbor does nothing, he and all of his neighbors face certain death. And I won't even discuss the neighbor who is giving money to buy the bombs or ammo.
I have no doubt that we wouldn't have to do this twice. Once the Islamic world sees our seriousness and committment to doing this, they will get their act together and choose to live in peace rather than perishing, and begin to police themselves.
If you think this wrong - then what is the alternative solution? |
I hate to burst your bubble, but I have absolutely no idea what my neighbors do. There are 3 houses on my street including mine. I'm in the middle. My one neighbor is a couple in their 80's. I've gotten to know them a bit, and even help them out when I can taking them to doctors appointments, carrying their garbage to the curb, etc. But I don't really know squat about their private lives. I know they have a son in his 50's who comes and goes at odd hours. I know he's never been married and has no children. I also know that they have a daughter they haven't spoken to in 20 years, but have no idea why.
On the other side of me is a house owned by an Italian man who also owns a restaurant. He houses his migrant workers there. Mostly Mexican but some Italians as well. They live there for various amounts of time, but there is someone always moving in/moving out. There are never women or children. They never speak English. I don't have a clue about them. So how would I know what they are doing? And why in the world should I be responsible for them anyway? I really don't get why you think everyone knows their neighbors and what they do in the privacy of their homes. |
|
|
|
11/30/2008 12:49:06 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by photodude:
I have no doubt that we wouldn't have to do this twice. Once the Islamic world sees our seriousness and committment to doing this, they will get their act together and choose to live in peace rather than perishing, and begin to police themselves.
If you think this wrong - then what is the alternative solution? |
 photodude, any lack of an alternative solution does not make your solution proposal a good idea. You've been correct in identifying a problem, but your solution (even putting moral arguments aside) would create what was is called "blowback" in the 9/11 report. Attacking the Muslim world without taking great care to avoid innocent Muslims would end up creating more terrorists than would be destroyed and they would be all the more hell bent on attacking western targets in a big way. If you don't understand this then I suggest you read the 9/11 report. It is a sobering tale of how the US took a bad situation and made it worse with strategies like you're suggesting that failed to understand the psychology of fundamentalist Muslim terrorists.
Originally posted by Azrifel:
These terrorists have jack-all to do with faith. Their only goal is to gain power and control over people. They abuse religion for these purposes. They are not real Muslims. They are terrorists and deserve to die.
I will not deny that there are Muslim streams that envision a great Muslim worldstate and want to kill all that don't comply with this idea, I do want to stress that this is a minority vision.
|
Actually, there's no way without faith that widespread suicidal terrorism exists. To moderates they may not be "real Muslims", but according to them it is the moderates who are not "real Muslims" and they have clear black and white writings from the Quran and the Hadith to back up their convictions.
I'm not religious at all and I'd love to be able to say that the Bible is just as bad, but it's not. There is terrible violence particularly in the Old Testament for which I don't understand how any Jew or Christian can believe in such a cruel & vindictive god, but there is NO comparison to the Qur'an & Hadith with regard to clearly and repeatedly instructing followers to become murderers & martyrs. Moderate Islam has a problem, but it's not simply with terrorists, it's with the ideas in the the holy books. SO, my question for 'moderates' is this: What do these writings mean to you?...
Originally posted by The Hadith:
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." [In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.]
Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'
Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)
Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious
Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah
Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."
Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"
Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihid died the death of a hypocrite.'"
Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."
Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." [Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.]
Ibn Ishaq: 327 - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
Ibn Ishaq: 990 - [An account of cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' under Muhammad, who seems to approve.]
Ibn Ishaq: 992 - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah."
|
Originally posted by The Qur'an:
Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
Sura (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."
Sura (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Sura (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Sura (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".
Sura (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."
Sura (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"
Sura (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Sura (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit. Unto all Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit by a special reward,-"
Sura (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they suffer pain as you suffer pain..."
Sura (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Sura (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."
Sura (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"
Sura (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."
Sura (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then [b]slay the idolaters wherever you find them[b], and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
Sura (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."
Sura (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." [The "striving" spoken of here is Jihad.]
Sura (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
Sura (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Sura (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." [This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.]
Sura (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew."
Sura (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
Sura (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Sura (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an)." ["Strive against" is Jihad]
Sura (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"
Sura (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"
Sura (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"
Sura (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way"
Sura (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." [The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites," those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.]
|
|
|
|
|
11/30/2008 02:50:05 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by photodude:
The neighbors know. |
I'm sure there are a few families in Oklahoma City who'd like to know which of Timothy McVeigh's neighbors "knew" ... |
|
|
|
11/30/2008 03:39:28 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by photodude:
The neighbors know. |
I'm sure there are a few families in Oklahoma City who'd like to know which of Timothy McVeigh's neighbors "knew" ... |
Or what James Nichols knew(from Bowling for Columbine).
The neighbor issue aside, there are big differences between the Michigan Militia w/ Timothy McVeigh and Fundamentalist Muslim terrorism. Crazy homegrown political terrorists like McVeigh aren't perpetually replaced with the help of verses from their "holy book" and people like McVeigh try getting away without dieing or getting caught. That increases the difficulty for that type of person to succeed in their plans compared to someone who is just ready to throw their life away and take as many lives as they can with them. |
|
|
|
11/30/2008 05:02:28 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by JMart:
If you think this wrong - then what is the alternative solution? |
photodude, any lack of an alternative solution does not make your solution proposal a good idea. You've been correct in identifying a problem, but your solution (even putting moral arguments aside) would create what was is called "blowback" in the 9/11 report. Attacking the Muslim world without taking great care to avoid innocent Muslims would end up creating more terrorists than would be destroyed and they would be all the more hell bent on attacking western targets in a big way. If you don't understand this then I suggest you read the 9/11 report. It is a sobering tale of how the US took a bad situation and made it worse with strategies like you're suggesting that failed to understand the psychology of fundamentalist Muslim terrorists.
[/quote]
We can win the blowback issue with overwhelming responses, but direct ones. Instead of an eye for an eye - it will be an eye for a thousand eyes. Again the neighbors must understand that the terrorist next door is going to get them and their families killed.
I see no other way of stopping all of this. I am tired of playing defense. And again - nobody is offering another solution here! If you have one we are all waiting to hear it. |
|
|
|
11/30/2008 05:12:58 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by photodude:
I see no other way of stopping all of this. I am tired of playing defense. And again - nobody is offering another solution here! If you have one we are all waiting to hear it. |
This has already been answered. Just because you are not satisfied with a neatly packaged response that solves a complex social ill like terrorism doesn't make your repeated implication that genocide is the only alternative either palatable or sane. Nobody has to say "Solution X is an alternative to killing thousands" to know that what you're proposing is morally outrageous. In short, stop demanding an answer to a stupid question. |
|
|
|
11/30/2008 05:29:25 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by photodude:
No different than when you live in Belfast and your neighbor is an IRA militant. You know. |
That's not accurate. In most cases a mother wouldn't know if her son was a member, let alone their neighbour. |
|
|
|
11/30/2008 07:08:01 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by photodude:
I see no other way of stopping all of this. I am tired of playing defense. And again - nobody is offering another solution here! If you have one we are all waiting to hear it. |
This has already been answered. Just because you are not satisfied with a neatly packaged response that solves a complex social ill like terrorism doesn't make your repeated implication that genocide is the only alternative either palatable or sane. Nobody has to say "Solution X is an alternative to killing thousands" to know that what you're proposing is morally outrageous. In short, stop demanding an answer to a stupid question. |
Retalliation is not genocide. |
|
|
|
11/30/2008 09:04:22 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by photodude:
I see no other way of stopping all of this. I am tired of playing defense. And again - nobody is offering another solution here! If you have one we are all waiting to hear it. |
This has already been answered. Just because you are not satisfied with a neatly packaged response that solves a complex social ill like terrorism doesn't make your repeated implication that genocide is the only alternative either palatable or sane. Nobody has to say "Solution X is an alternative to killing thousands" to know that what you're proposing is morally outrageous. In short, stop demanding an answer to a stupid question. |
Retalliation is not genocide. |
Your form of it is. |
|
|
|
11/30/2008 09:06:09 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by photodude:
I see no other way of stopping all of this. I am tired of playing defense. And again - nobody is offering another solution here! If you have one we are all waiting to hear it. |
This has already been answered. Just because you are not satisfied with a neatly packaged response that solves a complex social ill like terrorism doesn't make your repeated implication that genocide is the only alternative either palatable or sane. Nobody has to say "Solution X is an alternative to killing thousands" to know that what you're proposing is morally outrageous. In short, stop demanding an answer to a stupid question. |
Retalliation is not genocide. |
genocide
noun
systematic killing of a racial or cultural group
Genocide is genocide no matter what the excuse is.
You don't want to see another way. Your seem to be consumed by blood lust and fear...fuel to the fire. |
|
|
|
11/30/2008 09:34:23 PM · #88 |
No, I just want to end the terrorism. Most of the terrorists come from and reside in weak, failed or non existant states, so therefore the west and other industrialized states have been unable or unwilling to deal with them directly and their own "governments" can't or won't.
I am not out for blood - no terrorism would mean no retaliation. |
|
|
|
11/30/2008 09:51:55 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by photodude:
No, I just want to end the terrorism. Most of the terrorists come from and reside in weak, failed or non existant states, so therefore the west and other industrialized states have been unable or unwilling to deal with them directly and their own "governments" can't or won't.
I am not out for blood - no terrorism would mean no retaliation. |
Your suggestion is unfeasible (to say the least) - No government would ever implement a policy of mass killing as retaliation against terrorism. In fact, my idea of eliminating all religion looks more workable in comparison! |
|
|
|
12/01/2008 12:42:41 AM · #90 |
Originally posted by photodude:
No, I just want to end the terrorism. Most of the terrorists come from and reside in weak, failed or non existant states, so therefore the west and other industrialized states have been unable or unwilling to deal with them directly and their own "governments" can't or won't.
I am not out for blood - no terrorism would mean no retaliation. |
So maybe we should be working with the states to strengthen them, instead of threatening to destroy them completely. |
|
|
|
12/01/2008 02:32:37 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by JMart:
SO, my question for 'moderates' is this: What do these writings mean to you?... |
In all seriousness I would like to go deeper into this discussion, but don't have time for it until next weekend. I hope that you will not see this as an attempt to avoid it. But even now I write from work. :)
|
|
|
|
12/01/2008 03:20:19 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by photodude:
No, I just want to end the terrorism. Most of the terrorists come from and reside in weak, failed or non existant states, so therefore the west and other industrialized states have been unable or unwilling to deal with them directly and their own "governments" can't or won't.
I am not out for blood - no terrorism would mean no retaliation. |
So maybe we should be working with the states to strengthen them, instead of threatening to destroy them completely. |
That is a good point. Unfortunately, its not always the case. Sometimes, we work to strengthen one nation against another that we cannot influence. Examples from history: U.S.'s logistic and warfare support of the pre-Taliban sects against the former U.S.S.R in Afghanistan. The well trained and motivated and decentralized army that was left un-engaged after the war became what is Taliban today.
Message edited by author 2008-12-01 11:59:59. |
|
|
|
12/01/2008 03:31:41 AM · #93 |
they say when there's no offense, you dont need defense.
and i think there are a lot of people in this world who had built their life on playing defense.
and their existence would be meaningless should there are nothing to fight against.
the government would reduce their funding, and so forth.
sometimes it makes me wonder if these so called "terrorists" had always been our "counter-terrorists" behind the stage. a clever scheme does wonders. |
|
|
|
12/01/2008 08:46:03 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by photodude:
I see no other way of stopping all of this. I am tired of playing defense. And again - nobody is offering another solution here! If you have one we are all waiting to hear it. |
I am afraid that your proposal is idiotic.
No terrorist ideology has ever been successfully defeated through military action. Killing thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, hundreds of millions or just over one billion people (as you variously appear to be proposing) would be disastrous beyond belief even if it were possible (which it is not) or morally approachable (which it is not).
I cannot present you with a simple one line solution that would be within your grasp (because if it were that simple, there would be no problem). However, I can confirm 100% without doubt that your proposal would not work. History is replete with examples of the reasons why (eg Bloody Sunday in Ireland 1972, when the deaths of just 13 people prompted widespread support for terrorist campaigns for the next three decades).
The solution will be found in reconciliation, politics and education, not unjust force.
In trying to pin down some specifics, you may have to face some unwelcome home truths. The US is not an innocent party in all of this. Your comments highlight some of the problems in the US, such as a widespread failure to appreciate the complexity of international relations, polarised "dumbed down" soundbite politics, extreme nationalism, and christian fundamentalism. These have, for example, contributed to the popular vote in favour of disastrous policies such as the war in Iraq, which has become the clarion call for islamic terrorism and multiplied the challenge.
I would be interested to know what solutions you might propose to these problems in order to forward the cause of world peace?
|
|
|
|
12/01/2008 08:49:13 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by JMart:
SO, my question for 'moderates' is this: What do these writings mean to you?... |
In all seriousness I would like to go deeper into this discussion, but don't have time for it until next weekend. I hope that you will not see this as an attempt to avoid it. But even now I write from work. :) |
That would be interesting when you have a chance as I would greatly appreciate hearing more of a moderate perspective. In a general way moderate Islam seems akin to moderate Christianity in the sense that most moderate Christians either ignore or are ignorant of what their holy book directs them to do. The big difference I see is that when Christians become fundamentalists they tend to just become annoying as they try converting everyone around them with rhetoric, but Muslim fundamentalists have so many very scary verses available to justify violence.
Anyhow, good luck at work and take care not to work too hard. ;) |
|
|
|
12/01/2008 09:25:58 AM · #96 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by photodude:
If you think this wrong - then what is the alternative solution? |
You keep asking this question as though you've hit upon a devastating tautological truth. In fact, just because most everybody finds genocide repellent, yet doesn't have an immediate answer as to what should be done about terrorism, doesn't indicate a flaw in that position. What it means is the answer is slightly more morally fine-grained than you are willing to admit. This reveals a fundamental flaw in what you think should be done; seeing everything in such stark terms fairly invites moral weakness in your solution. Your position is grossly untenable in so many ways. |
Who said genocide? Retalliation is not genocide. Leave us alone and we leave you alone. Screw with us and we screw back only much harder. Pretty simple concept. |
What you're really proposing is that to defeat the terrorists, the US should become terrorists.
Kinda misses the point. |
|
|
|
12/01/2008 01:12:26 PM · #97 |
Photodude-If you are serious about your thoughts and proposal, I know a gent from the New York Times who also writes for the NY Press and few others as a freelancer.
We spoke Friday and he's doing an in depth story on Americans who share the same opinions as you, pertaining to genocide and using indiscriminate force against terrorism. He may want to speak with you for the piece, as I have mentioned this thread to him and what you've posted. He is interested. Let me know if you'd like to be contacted?
Message edited by author 2008-12-02 13:55:09. |
|
|
|
12/02/2008 05:28:55 PM · #98 |
| Muslim, Christian or Jew? I doubt Moshe really cares. |
|
|
|
12/02/2008 06:18:46 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by JH:
Muslim, Christian or Jew? I doubt Moshe really cares. |
That's very sad. Unfortunately, Moshe will care about "Muslim, Christian or Jew?" as he grows up. There's all too good a chance that he will be told that Muslims Palestinians (Muslim or Christian) are inherently evil people who can not be trusted.
As an undergrad I used to get into arguments with a Jewish friend about Palestine. This otherwise reasonable person was completely blind to logic & reason when it came to Palestine because of what he was taught by his religious culture. He often told me things like, "You don't know these people [the Palestinians]. They are not like normal people. They are all liars and murderers and you just don't know this because you have never lived in Israel." He could not accept that there are reasons why Palestinians have grievances and he could not accept that there might be "good" Palestinians.
Such an amazing degree of dehumanizing hatred is incomprehensible to me, and granted, I don't live in an area frequented by terrorist attacks, but it just seems like the differences between these rival groups gets amplified to murderous levels by their blind faith in these stone age myths. :-/ I would like to think that my old college friend represented just a minority in the Israeli community, but I worry that he may have been closer to the mainstream. |
|
|
|
12/02/2008 06:46:46 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Such an amazing degree of dehumanizing hatred is incomprehensible to me, and granted, I don't live in an area frequented by terrorist attacks, but it just seems like the differences between these rival groups gets amplified to murderous levels by their blind faith in these stone age myths. :-/ I would like to think that my old college friend represented just a minority in the Israeli community, but I worry that he may have been closer to the mainstream. |
Analysts have suggested that the terrorists behind the Mumbai attacks carried out the attack the way they did not necessarily to inflict maximum casualties (they knew they were going to die, so why not explode 10 suicide vests instead? they'd have caused more destruction) but to gain maximum international media attention, and cause the most political impact.
You only have to look at what is happening between India and Pakistan at the moment to see there is perhaps some merit in this theory.
But I also asked myself, why didn't they just kill Moshe together with his parents? Well, because by not killing him, he'd be paraded at the funeral, thus achieving a response from Israel / Jews.
I think your friend is closer to the mainstream. |
|
