|
|
| Post Number: 51
|
editor 
forum whore
Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: Jan. 2002
|
 |
Posted on: Jun. 19 2002,02:57 |
|
   |
Umm? no?
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 52
|
CatKnight
Jedi Republican
Group: Members
Posts: 3807
Joined: Dec. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 19 2002,03:00 |
|
 |
editor don't flame out of ignorance.
Hizbollah, HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, and the PLF are the biggies in palestine.
--------------
[url=http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/b/dbl125/dfa.jpg]If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful that you can possibly imagine.[/url]
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 53
|
wix
politically unstable
Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: Jun. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 20 2002,06:52 |
|
|
| Quote | | Its pretty sad that some people don't understand indiscriminate killing < discriminate killing, and sometimes those are your only realistic choices. |
Why is it any less evil to kill someone as an unintented consequence? I understand the difference you're trying to make but first you have to establish a moral just for your actions before there becomes a difference. Intent isn't everything.
| Quote | | Didn't Hitler have that cause? |
Of course he did, that's specifically what we're getting at. They were rational in there thinking, we were debunking the myth that they only just hate freedom and are out to get americans at all costs. Terrorists have goals.
| Quote | | Having said that, there is only one side that is using civilian specific targets. SPECIFIC |
In order for a terrorist group to attack a military target, it takes not only considerable intellegence, but serious manpower and funding. Something that terrorist groups rarely have. After several years of planning a terrorist faction was able to take out two skyscrappers, and barely scare the pentagon (there is your military target). In just a couple months, we took out a nation. Terrorists obviously don't have the resources to fight wars, that's why they subvert themselves to these tactics. They see the use of civilian targets as a means to an end, a justification because they claim the moral highground. Thus, the logic becomes that it is indescriminate killing. They walk into a bus and ignite the bomb. They don't care what the accidental damage is because they, just like us, feel the end us justified.
Now logically, should the terrorists actually have the sufficient resources to attack their objectives, I don't think they would for a moment prefer civilian targets. So how is your comparision make them any more evil?
--------------
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session."--Judge Gideon J. Tucker, 1866.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 54
|
lykosis
DetVet
Group: Members
Posts: 109
Joined: Jun. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 20 2002,14:42 |
|
|
ok wix, i think you're getting me wrong here, cause i keep seeing the word "justified" in your posts. i'd like to clear something up right now. i don't think that killing is ever justified...sometimes necessary? yes. justified? no. i'm not trying to justify anything...killing, bombs, explosions, death, murder, shooting, i think it's all pretty fucking horrible (pardon my language). you keep trying to drag this back to a moral debate, and i don't want to debate morals...i gave up on that years ago. i'm not trying to justify my point of view to anyone. i have reached my conclusions based on first hand knowledge of what goes on in these countries. i take human life very seriously, and having met quite a few US soldiers in my time, i think most of them do to. the people we are dealing with...do not.
Edited by lykosis on Jan. 01 1970,01:00
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 55
|
ic0n0
I have become Death, Destroyer of Worlds
Group: Members
Posts: 1352
Joined: Sep. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 20 2002,15:09 |
|
|
The Palestinian terrorists do not hold a moral high ground, they may have been dealt a bad hand in the game of life, but they certainly do not have the right to blow up innocent Israelis. I think for the most part Palestinians do have justified claims on a lot of things, but the actions they take against Israeli civilians and the methods they use cannot be seen as legitimate. Many Palestinians honestly believe that all Israeli’s and Jews for that matter are out to screw them even more then they have already been screwed, that just isn’t the case. There is just no way that the methods justify the ends in this case, no way. I do not have a solution to the conflict in my mind; I do not think that there can be one until both peoples stop killing each other, and that can not happen until the hate stops, and so on and so on. This conflict will not end in our lifetimes.
--------------
"I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." (Isaac Asimov)
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 56
|
rit
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: Jun. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 20 2002,23:31 |
|
|
| Quote (wix @ 19 June 2002,22:52) | | Why is it any less evil to kill someone as an unintented consequence? I understand the difference you're trying to make but first you have to establish a moral just for your actions before there becomes a difference. Intent isn't everything. |
I'm not trying to "morally justify" anything. Also, I didn't say that intent was everything, but it is sure as hell is something. Isn't it?
| Quote | | Of course he did, that's specifically what we're getting at. They were rational in there thinking, we were debunking the myth that they only just hate freedom and are out to get americans at all costs. Terrorists have goals. |
Did anyone ever question if they had goals or not? Their goals are irrational. Their goals are to ELIMINATE ANY western influence in the middle east. Do you understand what that means? This isn't an entire culture rising up against oppression. It's FANATICS that kill people that disagree with them(muslim or not). It's FANATICS that blow up buses filled with children. It's FANATICS that fly airplanes into a skyscraper. It's FANATICS that will send the middle east even futher into the past. It's FANATICS that will eradicate any other forms of religion/expression/speech that they don't like. Look at what they did to all the Hindu art. That was just the begining. Would you like the Christian Coalition running every aspect of YOUR life?
| Quote |
In order for a terrorist group to attack a military target, it takes not only considerable intellegence, but serious manpower and funding. Something that terrorist groups rarely have. After several years of planning a terrorist faction was able to take out two skyscrappers, and barely scare the pentagon (there is your military target). In just a couple months, we took out a nation. Terrorists obviously don't have the resources to fight wars, that's why they subvert themselves to these tactics. They see the use of civilian targets as a means to an end, a justification because they claim the moral highground. Thus, the logic becomes that it is indescriminate killing. They walk into a bus and ignite the bomb. They don't care what the accidental damage is because they, just like us, feel the end us justified.
Now logically, should the terrorists actually have the sufficient resources to attack their objectives, I don't think they would for a moment prefer civilian targets. So how is your comparision make them any more evil? |
They may claim the moral highground, but I'm standing firmly on the moral highground. My god man, do you stand for anything? Maybe we should give them more money so that they won't kill civilians on purpose.
Edited by rit on Jan. 01 1970,01:00
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 57
|
Pravus Angelus
Codito Ergo Sum
Group: Members
Posts: 81
Joined: May 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 27 2002,04:59 |
|
|
| Quote | | you keep trying to drag this back to a moral debate, and i don't want to debate morals...i gave up on that years ago. i'm not trying to justify my point of view to anyone. |
It's not just a moral question. To justify something is also to answer the question of "why". You're advocating a position, and when we ask you to justify it, we're saying "give reasons for taking these actions or taking this position".
| Quote | | Did anyone ever question if they had goals or not? Their goals are irrational. |
This is exactly the kind of perspective Wix and myself are arguing against. Their goals are perhaps poorly reasoned, but still rational and to a large degree the result of American foreign policy. I think you're missing the point we're making (although we've certainly gone out of our way to be clear about this). We are not suggesting that US foreign policy needs to be changed as dramatically as you seem to think we are. We're not saying ignore Israel and accept the views of the Islamic world. We're saying that the perspective put forth in the first few posts here is innaccurate and doesn't help us write new policy. When American congressmen and presidents are thinking of new foreign policy they need to be aware of the effect it might have on Arab nations, and they need to be careful about what might happen when we enact certain policy. They need to weigh the benefits of the policy against the increased risk against Americans. However, taking the perspective that these terrorists are just a bunch of freedom hating crazy psycho killer Arabs who despise people for a variety of random reasons, primarily the use of the letter 'i' does nothing to help us when we decide on new foreign policy. We're just saying people should critically analyze the causes of terrorism against America. That doesn't mean we think we need to totally reverse American foreign policy, but at least understand that it is part of the cause and take that into consideration. Sorry for the repetition, but I don't know how many times we make this point and yet somehow rit and lykosis don't seem to get it...
| Quote | | They may claim the moral highground, but I'm standing firmly on the moral highground. My god man, do you stand for anything? Maybe we should give them more money so that they won't kill civilians on purpose. |
Okay I ususally manage to stay calm on detnet, but rit shut the fuck up. At no point did Wix make the claim we should fund their terrorist activities, and don't tell him he doesn't stand for anything (implied by your question...) because he has the good sense to want to think about diplomacy and the effects of foreign policy before rushing in to everwhere guns ablazing because god-damnit these guys are Arabs!
On attacking civilian targets. Guys, read the analysis we provided above. You can say all you want "hey, you can only attack military targets, otherwise you're an asshole!" but we advocate this only because we have a massive standing military and can do so comfortably. If we were a tiny group and needed to make an impact we would make an impact. I'm certainly not saying that targeting civilians is okay, but it is pretty damn convenient for us to consider the "moral" way to fight a war is in a way that only the US can win.
icono, on palestine. See my earlier analysis. You don't think the PLO has any right to attack civilians? Those "civilians" are for all intents and purposes invaders. Look at the way the jewish state was setup and you see nothing less than unconventional invasion. Again, they're a vastly inferior military power to Israel and the only way they stand a chance of getting anything is by making a big impression (Israel isn't going to give concessions to people who aren't harming them in any significant way). For the record, I think the US should support Israel, but I can certainly empathize with the palestinian position. And quite frankly, we'd do the same thing if the reverse situation happened.
btw, on "indescriminate killing". That's ridiculous. We intentionally attack targets that we know will cause civilian casualties. We accept these casualties as part of what's going to happen for us to achieve our goals. They're just as dead and just as innocent as anybody in the WTC.
--------------
"Lately, the only thing keeping me from being a serial killer is my distaste for manual labor"
--Dilbert
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 58
|
lykosis
DetVet
Group: Members
Posts: 109
Joined: Jun. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jun. 27 2002,14:33 |
|
|
i got your point the first time. i think it's you that doesn't get mine.
before you post anything else about, "because he has the good sense to want to think about diplomacy and the effects of foreign policy before rushing in to everwhere guns ablazing because god-damnit these guys are Arabs!" i think you should know...i'm an arab, and as rit tried to point out to you guys, the people doing the killing/bombing ARE NOT representing the masses in the middle east.
i wish i could take you there...noone is right in this situation...they are just fighting over power, and in the end, those poor people (the masses of people that don't blow shit up) will be no better off, cause noone has the will or desire to do anything about it. all anyone cares about is money...oh well...makes the world go around i guess.
i'm gonna quit thinking/arguing/debating/whatever about this now, cause it depresses the fuck out of me...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
