the_exile: Terrorists mass murdering innocent U.S. civilians to force us to adopt their religion
is a very black and white issue. We are the good guys and the terrorists are evil.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dunedain [/i]
[B]"Them" means only the terrorists and those that are helping them.[/B][/QUOTE]Excluding western governments, corporations and institutions whose past,current and coming actions have caused (throughout history) or will cause death and suffering to countless millions of innocent people in other less powerfull countries/nations.
And if their real target would have been ordinary western citizens like certain leaders already claim strikes could have easily killed literally hundreds of people, couple [url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m18-claymore.htm]Claymore[/url] like explosives could be easily carried inside clothing and detonating that package on places like train, bus or underground stations in rush hours could kill hundreds.
And before you claim me as enemy of western world in your next post here's post I made in one other forum.
[quote]If you think I don't care about victims of these bombs or aren't furious for perpetrators that goes straight out of road.
I would gladly volunteer for putting lead button to the heads of these perpetrators, planners of strikes and their masters.
It's just that there's so much more suffering in the world caused by past, current and coming actions of so many people/institutions more than these terrorists that this slogan of "after WTC"-era; expressing condolences for victims, condemning terrorists and demanding/swearing detaining of them; feels pure platitude and hypocritical.
With helping of victims equal priority should be on making sure this kind losses wouldn't repeat [b]any[/b]where and lessening suffering and injustice in global scale or otherwise these deaths were yet again for nothing.
And I fear that these were just continuation of all those deaths and sufferings of countless millions of innocents throughout the history... there's already plenty of signs that these people were exactly just more victims to the altar of all those forces behind the curtains driving their selfish interests.
[i]"It is said that the future is always born in pain. The history of war is the history of pain. If we are wise, what is born of that pain matures into the promise of a better world, because we learn that we can no longer afford the mistakes of the past."[/i][/quote]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dunedain [/i]
[B]the_exile: Terrorists mass murdering innocent U.S. civilians to force us to adopt their religion
is a very black and white issue. We are the good guys and the terrorists are evil. [/B][/QUOTE]There are truly evil people out there, agreed, but where do we draw the line? Do we kill everyone who doesn't agree with us, or merely those who don't like us? Not all Muslims are terrorists. I would imagine that not all terrorists are terrorists--how many enemies have we created with our actions? And what about the US Army and Air Force? They've killed plenty of civilians.
I've been looking around at Londoners reactions on the net and it seems that there's a lot of people with the attitude of "That's it? Hell, we've been through the IRA bombings, the Luftwaffe killing 40,000 in the Battle of Britain, V1s and V2s, der Kaiser's Zeppelins and Guy Fawkes trying to blow up parliament. And that's all you've got? Go home you wankers."
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dunedain [/i]
[B]the_exile: Terrorists mass murdering innocent U.S. civilians to force us to adopt their religion
is a very black and white issue. We are the good guys and the terrorists are evil. [/B][/QUOTE]
I have a friend whos Muslim. hes not going around trying to force people to be Muslim. On the other hands Chirtians have been known to force people to Join there religion aswell.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by E.T [/i]
[B]Excluding western governments, corporations and institutions whose past,current and coming actions have caused (throughout history) or will cause death and suffering to countless millions of innocent people in other less powerfull countries/nations.
And if their real target would have been ordinary western citizens like certain leaders already claim strikes could have easily killed literally hundreds of people, couple [url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m18-claymore.htm]Claymore[/url] like explosives could be easily carried inside clothing and detonating that package on places like train, bus or underground stations in rush hours could kill hundreds.
And before you claim me as enemy of western world in your next post here's post I made in one other forum. [/B][/QUOTE]
Claymores aren't as effective as you make them out to be. While great battlefield weapons, they're not so great as terrorist weapons, which essentially need to be spectacular for the media and permanently lethal, whereas battlefield antipersonnel explosive weapons are generally intended to primarily incapacitate.
Not that the bombs used in London couldn't have been a lot worse, but that has more to do with simple luck than anything else.
Incidentally, I do admire the resolve of the British people.
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
i was suppoesed to be calling home on the 7th from Canada to wish my father a happy birthday, instead we spend all the time talking about the bombings:mad:
i have to say that in the wake of these terrorist atrocities, im even more proud to be British after watching the way that London has dealt with this.
while i have long thought that it was inevitable that something like this has happened, the fact that it has has left me furious. not with the government or the intelligence services, but with the kind of people who would do this. they deserve nothing more than to be hunted down and destroyed utterly.
the_exile: What you seem to fail to grasp is that any civilians that happen to be killed
by U.S. Air Force bombers and such are the sole responsibility of the terrorists themselves
and the governments of these foreign countries that help these terrorists and allow them
to freely operate in their countries.
The blood is on *their* hands for forcing us to strike back at the countries that harbor
and support these terrorist organizations.
If the people in these countries would wipe out the terrorists and those that help them,
then there would be no need for us to come and do it. But they refuse to do that.
There is no moral equivalency *whatsoever* between the terrorists and our soldiers
who are bringing just retribution to those nations that aid, are allied with, or harbor
the terrorists. We make no distinction between the terrorists and those that help them.
Through aiding the terrorists to attack us, they became just as guilty as the terrorists
who flew the planes into the World Trade Center.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dunedain [/i]
What you seem to fail to grasp is that any civilians that happen to be killed
by U.S. Air Force bombers and such are the sole responsibility of the terrorists themselves[/quote]
You are only partly correct, and I consider your approach too far simplified. It entirely depends on circumstances.
If a party to conflict harms civilians where it *can* avoid that... such actions are considered a war crime (and may be reasonably compared with another war crime, like terrorism).
If however, a party to conflict has compelling reasons to *not* postpone a strike at its enemy... and during this strike, it cannot reliably avoid civilian casualties...its duty becomes to minimize such casualties, and ensure they cannot soar unreasonably high (in proportion to the number of enemy fighters killed).
This introduces certain criteria.
One has to know with reasonable certainty that the target *does* contain enemy fighters, that striking the target *does* harm them, and that civilian casualties *will* remain reasonably low (what is reasonable, I cannot tell), compared to the number of enemy troops, or the imminent harm those troops threaten to cause.
Otherwise, one should postpone the move... and try hitting one's enemy in another time or place (or using other means) to gain acceptable selectivity.
[quote]The blood is on *their* hands for forcing us to strike back at the countries that harbor and support these terrorist organizations.[/quote]
In broad terms, you are correct -- meaning, if an administrative unit cannot ensure justice within its borders... it gives license for other people to interfere.
However, it naturally follows that the interfering people (or administrative units)... bear an obligation to actually *do more benefit than harm*.
Which sadly... cannot be said in equal degree about all recent interventions. Some of them have been reckless, and *have* cost disproportionate numbers of innocent lives, losses which careful planning *could* have avoided.
Iraq for example -- in no way an imminent terrorist threat, before Bush made it so -- lost more innocent lives to US invasion... than Saddam's regime, in its suppressed state, could have taken during 5 more years (and possibly a full decade).
And there is responsibility for those losses -- responsibility of different degrees, partly resting on leaders, partly on followers, Setting out to achieve good... does not erase responsibility, if one ends up doing harm.
[quote]If the people in these countries would wipe out the terrorists and those that help them, then there would be no need for us to come and do it. But they refuse to do that.[/quote]
Since you say "but they refuse"... I must ask which countries you foremost have in mind.
Without hearing which countries you mean, I cannot comment on this part of your statement.
[quote]There is no moral equivalency *whatsoever* between the terrorists and our soldiers[/quote]
Sadly, you are wrong. There is regretful similarity between every terrorist -- and every soldier who ends up killing a peaceful person.
Once both kill a civilian... soldiers and terrorists play the same game. Soldiers merely differ in the methods they use. Some are criminal in both intent and conduct... some only in conduct, not intent... and some rare individuals in neither.
Generally however, innocent deaths caused by poor planning or reckless leaders... *do* significantly lessen the guilt on their committers... compared to acts of entirely deliberate nature.
[quote]We make no distinction between the terrorists and those that help them.[/quote]
You don't?
And "you" represent who?
[quote]Through aiding the terrorists to attack us, they became just as guilty as the terrorists
who flew the planes into the World Trade Center. [/QUOTE]
The key question here... is which level of inaction you consider "aiding".
If you consider "material inability to stop, due to lack of power" a form of aiding... then regretfully, I consider you complicit in many criminal acts which your country happened to commit, and cannot possibly mind someone bombing you, because you "brought it upon yourself".
If however, you consider "aiding" to mean actively supporting someone (giving them something which they are not threatening to take, and capable of taking by force)... then I actually agree, consider aiding terrorism to be a crime, and consider those who do it... to have agreed with suffering some consequences.
However still, I would consider the seriousness of warranted consequences... dependent on the quantity of aid given. I would *not* consider an Afghan peasant deservant of having their village bombed, merely because they handed over some food to an armed Taliban bandit who came, asked, and didn't believe that nothing was available to give. I couldn't condemn that person for buying their safety -- unless they had an AK-47 tucked away, and many friendly neighbours with more AK-47's tucked away, making refusal a *viable* option.
As I said, it all depends on circumstance.
Your post made it look black and white.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dunedain [/i]
[B]the_exile: What you seem to fail to grasp is that any civilians that happen to be killed
by U.S. Air Force bombers and such are the sole responsibility of the terrorists themselves
and the governments of these foreign countries that help these terrorists and allow them
to freely operate in their countries.[/B][/QUOTE]
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Sorry, but thats just such a stupid way to think.
According to this warped thinking, I suppose some of you would blame the U.S., England,
etc. for the deaths of German civilians in WWII, as opposed to putting the blame where it
belongs, entirely on Hitler, the Nazis and those that supported them?
It's amazing the convoluted, illogical, backwards "reasoning" that some have because they
lack the ability to think with moral clarity. I guess we can thank the public schools and socialist
"professors" like Ward Churchill in the University of Colorado for this brainwashing.
And we can thank Bush for the twenty-something thousand dead civilians in Iraq, the restriction of our liberties, and our 1-in-6 rate of birth defects due to Mercury poisoning.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dunedain [/i]
[B]According to this warped thinking, I suppose some of you would blame the U.S., England,
etc. for the deaths of German civilians in WWII, as opposed to putting the blame where it
belongs, entirely on Hitler, the Nazis and those that supported them?
It's amazing the convoluted, illogical, backwards "reasoning" that some have because they
lack the ability to think with moral clarity. I guess we can thank the public schools and socialist
"professors" like Ward Churchill in the University of Colorado for this brainwashing. [/B][/QUOTE]
And should you also blame Hitler for the several millions firebombed and nuked in Japan, should you blame the Japanese Emperor?
If taxations on Germany hadnt been that hard after WW1, there probably wouldnt have been a WW2..
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dunedain [/i]
[B]According to this warped thinking, I suppose some of you would blame the U.S., England,
etc. for the deaths of German civilians in WWII, as opposed to putting the blame where it
belongs, entirely on Hitler, the Nazis and those that supported them?
It's amazing the convoluted, illogical, backwards "reasoning" that some have because they
lack the ability to think with moral clarity. I guess we can thank the public schools and socialist
"professors" like Ward Churchill in the University of Colorado for this brainwashing. [/B][/QUOTE]
I think this is slightly fitting here...
[i]Nigel Powers:[/i] "There are two things in the world I can't stand: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch."
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dunedain [/i]
[B]According to this warped thinking, I suppose some of you would blame the U.S., England,
etc. for the deaths of German civilians in WWII, as opposed to putting the blame where it
belongs, entirely on Hitler, the Nazis and those that supported them?[/quote]
In short? Yes. Just like one should blame the Nazis (and those agreed to serve them without resistance, obstruction, sabotage or other redeeming actions) for starting WWII, occupying countries, trying to exterminate groups of population, bombing cities and directly killing millions of civilians...
...one should blame the US and UK air forces for needlessly obliterating multiple tens of thousands of German civilians.
If one wishes to blame the opposing side for their war crimes... one has to exhibit readiness to blame one's own side, where it has committed similar crimes.
There was no compelling reason to obliterate Dresden -- just its factories, railways and fuel depots. Not residential areas. Just like there was no compelling reason to exterminate Jews or Gypsies. Just as Jews of Gypsies couldn't have been guilty of the "crimes" assigned to them... neither could most German civilians be considered responsible for letting Nazis rise to power.
They weren't in possession of magic wands. Their senses and reactions were successfully manipulated, their options limited. I commend those who fought the regime, condemn those who served it... but cannot consider all guilty of letting the regime appear.
Should I do that... I should consider multiple more countries collectively guilty of nauseating crimes. Yours, and mine too. Regardless of some individuals not having oppressed others, not having initiated violence against others... not having done what I would be deeming them guilty of.
Without the simple realization that individuals differ... and one should, given ability, treat them selectively (harm those who harm, help those who help)... aspiration to do justice (or behave efficiently) entirely loses its meaning.
[quote]It's amazing the convoluted, illogical, backwards "reasoning" that some have because they lack the ability to think with moral clarity.[/quote]
I strongly oppose compromising a realistic world-model to need for moral clarity. If the price of clarity is blindness... I prefer to keep my vision, even if it confuses me.
If the above examples demonstrate your perception of "moral clarity"... then permit me to suspect... that a disease called "patriotism" has overwhelmed your ethics, and hijacked your morality.
It happens even to the best... reasonable people recover from it. What one dislikes abroad, one should dislike at home... and what one condemns in other countries... one should condemn in one's own.
Degrees, motivations, mechanisms... all are likely to differ. If you read my previous post, you surely noticed that I consider an average terrorist a *notably* worse fellow than an average soldier who destroyed a "suspected enemy" target, and killed civilians instead of enemy fighters.
But one thing, permit me to tell you. Regretfully, history has not yet seen a war... where even *one* side fought clean. Some merely fought *notably* dirtier than others.
[quote]I guess we can thank the public schools [/QUOTE]
Oh dear? Those terrible public schools? Well, thanks for injecting some propaganda into your statements. It helps clarify atop which particular molehill you are viewing events. Public schools are very useful, and in some oddball places, actually give better education than average private ones.
Some very good posts sleepy shadow. That kind of rationality and intelligence in people's comments are very rare these days.
[quote][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[b]If the above examples demonstrate your perception of "moral clarity"... then permit me to suspect... that a disease called "patriotism" has overwhelmed your ethics, and hijacked your morality."[/b][/quote]
I have long observed this disease, which too many people seem to have. And in my country there seems to be a whole lot of them. I have actually been reading lately some forums, which are full of people who have the worst kind of infection of this disease. These are the kind of people who rather shoot first and think afterwards. Or actually.... they don't think even afterwards, as they don't have the ability to do so. At least not at a level of intelligent human beings.
- PJH
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Idiots? In Aardvarkia? We must notify the [b][COLOR=green]Great Green Aardvark[/COLOR][/b] at once!
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mundane [/i]
[B][url]http://dna.whi.net/data/z-misc/how%20to%20make%20war%20work.jpg[/url] somehow I want to post this again :) [/B][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[B]that a disease called "patriotism" has overwhelmed your ethics, and hijacked your morality. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not all of us are like that. I consider myself deeply patriotic, but my attitudes are tempered by simple common-sense. What I dislike is when those similar to myself are tarred with the same brush; and portrayed as jingoistic nutcases.
I would like to point out that there are distinct differences between being "Patriotic" and being Patriotic, most of which were maid fairly clear by sleepy_shadow's post.
Comments
is a very black and white issue. We are the good guys and the terrorists are evil.
:rolleyes:
[B]"Them" means only the terrorists and those that are helping them.[/B][/QUOTE]Excluding western governments, corporations and institutions whose past,current and coming actions have caused (throughout history) or will cause death and suffering to countless millions of innocent people in other less powerfull countries/nations.
And if their real target would have been ordinary western citizens like certain leaders already claim strikes could have easily killed literally hundreds of people, couple [url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m18-claymore.htm]Claymore[/url] like explosives could be easily carried inside clothing and detonating that package on places like train, bus or underground stations in rush hours could kill hundreds.
And before you claim me as enemy of western world in your next post here's post I made in one other forum.
[quote]If you think I don't care about victims of these bombs or aren't furious for perpetrators that goes straight out of road.
I would gladly volunteer for putting lead button to the heads of these perpetrators, planners of strikes and their masters.
It's just that there's so much more suffering in the world caused by past, current and coming actions of so many people/institutions more than these terrorists that this slogan of "after WTC"-era; expressing condolences for victims, condemning terrorists and demanding/swearing detaining of them; feels pure platitude and hypocritical.
With helping of victims equal priority should be on making sure this kind losses wouldn't repeat [b]any[/b]where and lessening suffering and injustice in global scale or otherwise these deaths were yet again for nothing.
And I fear that these were just continuation of all those deaths and sufferings of countless millions of innocents throughout the history... there's already plenty of signs that these people were exactly just more victims to the altar of all those forces behind the curtains driving their selfish interests.
[i]"It is said that the future is always born in pain. The history of war is the history of pain. If we are wise, what is born of that pain matures into the promise of a better world, because we learn that we can no longer afford the mistakes of the past."[/i][/quote]
[B]the_exile: Terrorists mass murdering innocent U.S. civilians to force us to adopt their religion
is a very black and white issue. We are the good guys and the terrorists are evil. [/B][/QUOTE]There are truly evil people out there, agreed, but where do we draw the line? Do we kill everyone who doesn't agree with us, or merely those who don't like us? Not all Muslims are terrorists. I would imagine that not all terrorists are terrorists--how many enemies have we created with our actions? And what about the US Army and Air Force? They've killed plenty of civilians.
Shall we hang Bush and Bin Laden side by side?
@Dunedain - If you want to start a flame war, PLEASE goto [url]http://spacebattles.com[/url] where you can Bicker all you want.
I admire that.
[B]the_exile: Terrorists mass murdering innocent U.S. civilians to force us to adopt their religion
is a very black and white issue. We are the good guys and the terrorists are evil. [/B][/QUOTE]
I have a friend whos Muslim. hes not going around trying to force people to be Muslim. On the other hands Chirtians have been known to force people to Join there religion aswell.
[B]Excluding western governments, corporations and institutions whose past,current and coming actions have caused (throughout history) or will cause death and suffering to countless millions of innocent people in other less powerfull countries/nations.
And if their real target would have been ordinary western citizens like certain leaders already claim strikes could have easily killed literally hundreds of people, couple [url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m18-claymore.htm]Claymore[/url] like explosives could be easily carried inside clothing and detonating that package on places like train, bus or underground stations in rush hours could kill hundreds.
And before you claim me as enemy of western world in your next post here's post I made in one other forum. [/B][/QUOTE]
Claymores aren't as effective as you make them out to be. While great battlefield weapons, they're not so great as terrorist weapons, which essentially need to be spectacular for the media and permanently lethal, whereas battlefield antipersonnel explosive weapons are generally intended to primarily incapacitate.
Not that the bombs used in London couldn't have been a lot worse, but that has more to do with simple luck than anything else.
Incidentally, I do admire the resolve of the British people.
i have to say that in the wake of these terrorist atrocities, im even more proud to be British after watching the way that London has dealt with this.
while i have long thought that it was inevitable that something like this has happened, the fact that it has has left me furious. not with the government or the intelligence services, but with the kind of people who would do this. they deserve nothing more than to be hunted down and destroyed utterly.
And further developments, could be real or could be paranoia: [URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4668313.stm]Birmingham evacuated[/URL].
Worf
by U.S. Air Force bombers and such are the sole responsibility of the terrorists themselves
and the governments of these foreign countries that help these terrorists and allow them
to freely operate in their countries.
The blood is on *their* hands for forcing us to strike back at the countries that harbor
and support these terrorist organizations.
If the people in these countries would wipe out the terrorists and those that help them,
then there would be no need for us to come and do it. But they refuse to do that.
There is no moral equivalency *whatsoever* between the terrorists and our soldiers
who are bringing just retribution to those nations that aid, are allied with, or harbor
the terrorists. We make no distinction between the terrorists and those that help them.
Through aiding the terrorists to attack us, they became just as guilty as the terrorists
who flew the planes into the World Trade Center.
What you seem to fail to grasp is that any civilians that happen to be killed
by U.S. Air Force bombers and such are the sole responsibility of the terrorists themselves[/quote]
You are only partly correct, and I consider your approach too far simplified. It entirely depends on circumstances.
If a party to conflict harms civilians where it *can* avoid that... such actions are considered a war crime (and may be reasonably compared with another war crime, like terrorism).
If however, a party to conflict has compelling reasons to *not* postpone a strike at its enemy... and during this strike, it cannot reliably avoid civilian casualties...its duty becomes to minimize such casualties, and ensure they cannot soar unreasonably high (in proportion to the number of enemy fighters killed).
This introduces certain criteria.
One has to know with reasonable certainty that the target *does* contain enemy fighters, that striking the target *does* harm them, and that civilian casualties *will* remain reasonably low (what is reasonable, I cannot tell), compared to the number of enemy troops, or the imminent harm those troops threaten to cause.
Otherwise, one should postpone the move... and try hitting one's enemy in another time or place (or using other means) to gain acceptable selectivity.
[quote]The blood is on *their* hands for forcing us to strike back at the countries that harbor and support these terrorist organizations.[/quote]
In broad terms, you are correct -- meaning, if an administrative unit cannot ensure justice within its borders... it gives license for other people to interfere.
However, it naturally follows that the interfering people (or administrative units)... bear an obligation to actually *do more benefit than harm*.
Which sadly... cannot be said in equal degree about all recent interventions. Some of them have been reckless, and *have* cost disproportionate numbers of innocent lives, losses which careful planning *could* have avoided.
Iraq for example -- in no way an imminent terrorist threat, before Bush made it so -- lost more innocent lives to US invasion... than Saddam's regime, in its suppressed state, could have taken during 5 more years (and possibly a full decade).
And there is responsibility for those losses -- responsibility of different degrees, partly resting on leaders, partly on followers, Setting out to achieve good... does not erase responsibility, if one ends up doing harm.
[quote]If the people in these countries would wipe out the terrorists and those that help them, then there would be no need for us to come and do it. But they refuse to do that.[/quote]
Since you say "but they refuse"... I must ask which countries you foremost have in mind.
Without hearing which countries you mean, I cannot comment on this part of your statement.
[quote]There is no moral equivalency *whatsoever* between the terrorists and our soldiers[/quote]
Sadly, you are wrong. There is regretful similarity between every terrorist -- and every soldier who ends up killing a peaceful person.
Once both kill a civilian... soldiers and terrorists play the same game. Soldiers merely differ in the methods they use. Some are criminal in both intent and conduct... some only in conduct, not intent... and some rare individuals in neither.
Generally however, innocent deaths caused by poor planning or reckless leaders... *do* significantly lessen the guilt on their committers... compared to acts of entirely deliberate nature.
[quote]We make no distinction between the terrorists and those that help them.[/quote]
You don't?
And "you" represent who?
[quote]Through aiding the terrorists to attack us, they became just as guilty as the terrorists
who flew the planes into the World Trade Center. [/QUOTE]
The key question here... is which level of inaction you consider "aiding".
If you consider "material inability to stop, due to lack of power" a form of aiding... then regretfully, I consider you complicit in many criminal acts which your country happened to commit, and cannot possibly mind someone bombing you, because you "brought it upon yourself".
If however, you consider "aiding" to mean actively supporting someone (giving them something which they are not threatening to take, and capable of taking by force)... then I actually agree, consider aiding terrorism to be a crime, and consider those who do it... to have agreed with suffering some consequences.
However still, I would consider the seriousness of warranted consequences... dependent on the quantity of aid given. I would *not* consider an Afghan peasant deservant of having their village bombed, merely because they handed over some food to an armed Taliban bandit who came, asked, and didn't believe that nothing was available to give. I couldn't condemn that person for buying their safety -- unless they had an AK-47 tucked away, and many friendly neighbours with more AK-47's tucked away, making refusal a *viable* option.
As I said, it all depends on circumstance.
Your post made it look black and white.
[B]the_exile: What you seem to fail to grasp is that any civilians that happen to be killed
by U.S. Air Force bombers and such are the sole responsibility of the terrorists themselves
and the governments of these foreign countries that help these terrorists and allow them
to freely operate in their countries.[/B][/QUOTE]
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Sorry, but thats just such a stupid way to think.
etc. for the deaths of German civilians in WWII, as opposed to putting the blame where it
belongs, entirely on Hitler, the Nazis and those that supported them?
It's amazing the convoluted, illogical, backwards "reasoning" that some have because they
lack the ability to think with moral clarity. I guess we can thank the public schools and socialist
"professors" like Ward Churchill in the University of Colorado for this brainwashing.
[B]According to this warped thinking, I suppose some of you would blame the U.S., England,
etc. for the deaths of German civilians in WWII, as opposed to putting the blame where it
belongs, entirely on Hitler, the Nazis and those that supported them?
It's amazing the convoluted, illogical, backwards "reasoning" that some have because they
lack the ability to think with moral clarity. I guess we can thank the public schools and socialist
"professors" like Ward Churchill in the University of Colorado for this brainwashing. [/B][/QUOTE]
And should you also blame Hitler for the several millions firebombed and nuked in Japan, should you blame the Japanese Emperor?
If taxations on Germany hadnt been that hard after WW1, there probably wouldnt have been a WW2..
Read your history books.. :rolleyes:
[B]According to this warped thinking, I suppose some of you would blame the U.S., England,
etc. for the deaths of German civilians in WWII, as opposed to putting the blame where it
belongs, entirely on Hitler, the Nazis and those that supported them?
It's amazing the convoluted, illogical, backwards "reasoning" that some have because they
lack the ability to think with moral clarity. I guess we can thank the public schools and socialist
"professors" like Ward Churchill in the University of Colorado for this brainwashing. [/B][/QUOTE]
Your thinking has clearly been warped by Bush :P
[i]Nigel Powers:[/i] "There are two things in the world I can't stand: people who are intolerant of other people's cultures... and the Dutch."
/repressing urge to make "shoe-bomber" joke
[B]According to this warped thinking, I suppose some of you would blame the U.S., England,
etc. for the deaths of German civilians in WWII, as opposed to putting the blame where it
belongs, entirely on Hitler, the Nazis and those that supported them?[/quote]
In short? Yes. Just like one should blame the Nazis (and those agreed to serve them without resistance, obstruction, sabotage or other redeeming actions) for starting WWII, occupying countries, trying to exterminate groups of population, bombing cities and directly killing millions of civilians...
...one should blame the US and UK air forces for needlessly obliterating multiple tens of thousands of German civilians.
If one wishes to blame the opposing side for their war crimes... one has to exhibit readiness to blame one's own side, where it has committed similar crimes.
There was no compelling reason to obliterate Dresden -- just its factories, railways and fuel depots. Not residential areas. Just like there was no compelling reason to exterminate Jews or Gypsies. Just as Jews of Gypsies couldn't have been guilty of the "crimes" assigned to them... neither could most German civilians be considered responsible for letting Nazis rise to power.
They weren't in possession of magic wands. Their senses and reactions were successfully manipulated, their options limited. I commend those who fought the regime, condemn those who served it... but cannot consider all guilty of letting the regime appear.
Should I do that... I should consider multiple more countries collectively guilty of nauseating crimes. Yours, and mine too. Regardless of some individuals not having oppressed others, not having initiated violence against others... not having done what I would be deeming them guilty of.
Without the simple realization that individuals differ... and one should, given ability, treat them selectively (harm those who harm, help those who help)... aspiration to do justice (or behave efficiently) entirely loses its meaning.
[quote]It's amazing the convoluted, illogical, backwards "reasoning" that some have because they lack the ability to think with moral clarity.[/quote]
I strongly oppose compromising a realistic world-model to need for moral clarity. If the price of clarity is blindness... I prefer to keep my vision, even if it confuses me.
If the above examples demonstrate your perception of "moral clarity"... then permit me to suspect... that a disease called "patriotism" has overwhelmed your ethics, and hijacked your morality.
It happens even to the best... reasonable people recover from it. What one dislikes abroad, one should dislike at home... and what one condemns in other countries... one should condemn in one's own.
Degrees, motivations, mechanisms... all are likely to differ. If you read my previous post, you surely noticed that I consider an average terrorist a *notably* worse fellow than an average soldier who destroyed a "suspected enemy" target, and killed civilians instead of enemy fighters.
But one thing, permit me to tell you. Regretfully, history has not yet seen a war... where even *one* side fought clean. Some merely fought *notably* dirtier than others.
[quote]I guess we can thank the public schools [/QUOTE]
Oh dear? Those terrible public schools? Well, thanks for injecting some propaganda into your statements. It helps clarify atop which particular molehill you are viewing events. Public schools are very useful, and in some oddball places, actually give better education than average private ones.
[quote][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[b]If the above examples demonstrate your perception of "moral clarity"... then permit me to suspect... that a disease called "patriotism" has overwhelmed your ethics, and hijacked your morality."[/b][/quote]
I have long observed this disease, which too many people seem to have. And in my country there seems to be a whole lot of them. I have actually been reading lately some forums, which are full of people who have the worst kind of infection of this disease. These are the kind of people who rather shoot first and think afterwards. Or actually.... they don't think even afterwards, as they don't have the ability to do so. At least not at a level of intelligent human beings.
- PJH
[B][url]http://dna.whi.net/data/z-misc/how%20to%20make%20war%20work.jpg[/url] somehow I want to post this again :) [/B][/QUOTE]
Post it more!
[B]that a disease called "patriotism" has overwhelmed your ethics, and hijacked your morality. [/B][/QUOTE]
Not all of us are like that. I consider myself deeply patriotic, but my attitudes are tempered by simple common-sense. What I dislike is when those similar to myself are tarred with the same brush; and portrayed as jingoistic nutcases.
Otherwise, I agree entirely with what you said.
Regards,
Morden