quote: "Whoever kills a person has killed the whole of humanity," says one of the best known Koranic verses.
Suicide is a sign of an individual's alienation from God and their alienation from the human family to which we all belong.
a small quote for those who can't read the whole thing.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
This from the same country that encourages its citizens to go to Iraq to shoot up some Americans. Funny.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
no. not funny. a strong statement. and a good thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes. Because we all know that it's possible to describe the entire population of any given country with one pithy stereotype.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Really? Wow. Who did that? I was speaking about the government. Apparently you can't read.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I heard part of this speech earlier this week and really enjoyed hearing it.
One of the things that has bothered me in the wake of suicide bombings by radical Muslims is that people seem to see Islam as a monolithic structure. Islam isn't a monolithic structure. There are many different ideologies in Islam, much like there are many different Christian denominations and different groups within Judaism. There is no central power figure for Islam. There isn't really any central committee or leadership or recognized sources for Koranic interpretation. Therefore, it is difficult to have any sort of trickle-down within the community. Islam cannot respond, Muslims must respond (as we have seen many do for years). Every community must, on its own, decide how to respond to fanatacism among it's members - Christian, Muslim, and Jewish alike.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
dh, the country does not do those things, people in that country do. Its like saying the US mugs old women and sexually abuses little boys. While these crimes are commited by to many members of our society, that does not mean its US official policy.
Here is a member of their government coming out and saying such behavior is wrong, legally and religiously. I applaude that.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote:dh, the country does not do those things, people in that country do
False. There have been, in the recent past, members of the Saudi government explicitly encouring their citizens to do exactly what I said. (Forgive me for not linking to it, they haven't yet figured out how to link to something printed on paper and buried somewhere in the pile of newspapers in the corner of my room.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: There have been, in the recent past, members of the Saudi government explicitly encouring their citizens to do exactly what I said.
Hm. Would you argue that anything an American official says is official American policy?
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
That depends. If he's ordering his dinner, obviously not. When making declarations so serious as these, however, he'd better be either expressing official government policy, or fired, tried and jailed on the spot.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
dh--I hope you don't mind me calling you dh. I know that some members of the government are at odds with what this ambassador and prince is saying. At the least, his speach shows that not everyone in Saudi Arabia, or their government, is pro-terror.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Perhaps. Or perhaps it just shows the hypocrisy of the Saudi government, saying one thing in English and the opposite in Arabic, in the time-honoured tradition of Yasser Arafat.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It could, certainly. Would you apply the same standard to the Bush Administration?
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Mubbarak has also declared a war against terror. You could just sit and believe him. But if you look at the speeches of his advisors back in Egypt you will find some very disturbing phrases. The words of the Saudi Arabian Ambassador represent a beautiful ideology - but does the government act according to that ideology?
I do not pretend to know anything about what is happening in Saudi Arabia, for I have read nothing in the subject but rumours, which, of course, scarcely reflect the truth. I'll try and do some research about this.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
quote:It could, certainly. Would you apply the same standard to the Bush Administration?
Gee, Tom, why don't you just post that compromising quote that you're obviously dying to post right away and get it over it? Then you can say "aha!" and I'll just roll my eyes and we'll both feel better.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I believe we have a case of people saying what they believe we want them to say in our presence. Deeds would be better than words.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What a beautiful and informative piece.
quote: Suicide is a sign of an individual's alienation from God and their alienation from the human family to which we all belong. This shared human bond, on which we are all so widely and clearly agreed is a bond that can transcend other divisions. Our deeply shared humanity unites us.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Then you can say "aha!" and I'll just roll my eyes and we'll both feel better.
And yet the question is: why would you roll your eyes? What makes the situation in Saudi Arabia not analogous to the situation in this country?
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
First of all, no Bush administration official has yet encouraged americans to go do Jihad in Iraq. Nothing even slightly analogous to that has occurred. If you actually believe that there is, then your perception of reality is so completely twisted that further conversation with you would be entirely futile.
But most important, I get very annoyed when people like you have to drag in partisan politics (in this case, Bush-bashing) in to every single other unrelated conversation. He won. Get over it already, the rest of the world has. I don't care about your stupid politics.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
quote: He won. Get over it already, the rest of the world has.
I rarely comment on political propaganda but I'm so underwhelmed by your vitriol that I feel forced to post. Your assertion that the "rest of the world" has gotten over it (Bush's nomination) is arguable. There are many here in the US that are STILL less than comfortable with GW's policy and his rhetoric. To proclaim that we, to say nothing of other nationalities, have gotten over it is nothing less than ridiculous.
Tom made a valid point and was polite in his phrasing. You, on the other hand, were abrupt, dismissive and arrogant. I would not have been moved to comment if you had replied in kind, with respect and courtesy.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I don't know if what digging_holes has to say has merit or not, though I can confirm that Arafat practiced exactly what dh has said.
But I would agree that when Bush gets up and says nice things about being a Christian nation while our government practices avarice and denies the needs of the poor, it is analogous to that extent.
So, Tom, you are saying you agree with digging holes, then, that this prince just represents Saudi Arabia talking out of one side of their face? And it makes us equivalent to one of our allies.
It is not mysterious that a Sunni Nation like Saudi Arabia wants to overthrow democracy in Iraq, because then there will be two Shi'a nations instead of the one (Iran). One of the most troubling thing about Shi'as to the Sunnis is that their sect was founded by a woman.
So go ahead and defend the Sunni majority (within the Islamic world), all you true blue liberals.
By the way, I apologize in advance for not following up.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
While I don't have a point to make on the topic at hand, I'd like to say something about the attitudes in here:
quote:Originally posted by punwit: Tom made a valid point and was polite in his phrasing. You, on the other hand, were abrupt, dismissive and arrogant. I would not have been moved to comment if you had replied in kind, with respect and courtesy.
I think you're missing the fact that Tom's first answer to dh was (or seemed) deliberately worded so that he'd get an angry reaction from him.
This:
quote:Yes. Because we all know that it's possible to describe the entire population of any given country with one pithy stereotype.
is not a statement from someone who wants to generate a constructive discussion, but from someone who tries to provoke. At least that's how I see it. And the "style" of Tom's posts from then on is unchanged. I would probably get a little bit angry too if someone talked to me like that, and it would be really difficult to take anything seriously from a person with that attitude. So before you talk about the way dh acted, I think you need to look again at Tom's posts.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Perhaps it is true that Tom is adept at posing questions that are pointed. My point was that dh either wasn't able to, or declined to continue that civility. I suppose it's possible that I'm somewhat blinded because I hold a similar viewpoint, but I still believe that Tom maintained civility while dh lost it. It's also possible that Tom is adroit at asking questions that are worded in such a fashion as to elicit emotional responses. I would suggest that those wishing to debate him consider their responses.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It is certainly the case that I am good at asking very pointed and often leading questions in a civil way. And this can frustrate and irritate people, especially those who are not able or do not choose to engage in similar behavior; occasionally -- although not always -- such people find themselves forced to either abandon the discussion altogether or vent their frustration through less "civil" means. And as these less civil means are frequently in violation of the letter of the user's agreement (on both Hatrack and Ornery), I've been accused in the past of deliberately "trapping" people in this fashion, and "forcing" them to run afoul of the moderator by provoking them into being harsher or more directly insulting than I was.
While the latter has never been and will never be my intent, I recognize that I am indeed both sanctimonious and possessed of a very dry, cynical wit; while I'd never say that I argue with a scalpel -- that being the province of some of the truly brilliant people on this board -- it's certainly the case that I argue with a sharpened implement of some sort. I cut and do not bludgeon. In the past, I considered this inherently meritorious; I have come over the past few years to recognize this as no more "polite" in spirit than the alternatives.
But while it's a habit I'm trying to break, it's also a hard habit to break -- especially since my preferred method of argument consists primarily of analogy, Socratic questioning, and other forms of what amount to (from a certain point of view) sleazy manipulation.
So DH has a valid complaint. He feels that I'm leading him on, that I've got some big hammer I'm holding over his head to "trap" him. More importantly, by asking him leading questions while volunteering very little information, I'm deliberately not exposing my own position to return fire.
I can understand why that would annoy him. It's a bad habit I'm trying to eliminate, not least because it makes me seem more pompous and aloof than I actually am -- but primarily because I'm not sure it's the best way to reach people with whom I have genuine disagreements. Arguing for "points" ceased being fun for me ages ago, so I can't understand why I still do it.
-------
DH, what I've been trying to say in my own cowardly way is this: the Saudi government, like our own, is not monolithic. Even in America, the left hand (like, say, the State Department) has no idea what the right hand (like, say, the DoD) is doing; in Saudi, where appointments are often hereditary and ripe ground for conspiracy, it's easy for me to believe that this is also the case.
It's certainly true that members of the Saudi government support a Jihad against the United States; it's also true that those members are extraordinarily unlikely to admit to that position in front of us. We know they've engaged in PR campaigns for our benefit, in the same way that we've engaged in PR campaigns for theirs. Even granting that this particular position is one such campaign -- and I don't believe that it is -- I think it still represents enormous success: after all, even if they're just saying what we want to hear, they've finally figured out how to say what we want to hear in a convincing and passionate way. As I strongly believe that it's impossible to maintain a lie without disseminating those memes, I can't imagine a downside here; even if they're working to manipulate us by spreading anti-jihadist philosophy, they're still spreading anti-jihadist philosophy.
I'm sorry I wasn't more direct about this; I suspect that you would have been considerably less irritated and defensive if I had laid this out cogently in the first place. Old habits...
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Tom, I don't think I've ever seen a post of yours that I've appreciated more than that one; my respect for you, which was already not inconsiderable, just rose by quite a bit.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Tom: Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
*echoes Noemon*
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
The ability to turn that keen intellect within and not lose focus is a rare thing, Tom. You have my utmost respect.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:So DH has a valid complaint. He feels that I'm leading him on, that I've got some big hammer I'm holding over his head to "trap" him. More importantly, by asking him leading questions while volunteering very little information, I'm deliberately not exposing my own position to return fire.
I think that complaint is only valid if the goal of this discussion is to "defeat" the opposing viewpoint. If this is that sort of game, then it would be unfair to go after his conclusion in such a fashion, while keeping him blind to your final conclusion.
However, I'm not inclined to think of this as a game where the goal is for your side to win. Instead, I think the hope is to come to some sort of agreement. If that is the case, then I think a line of pointed questions, answered honestly, is a useful discussion tool. In fact, it might be the one of the most useful tools of all - because at the end you can see what conclusion is reached and the assumptions that appear to lead to that conclusion. At that point you can either choose between alterning your view to accept the conclusion (and thus hopefully agreeing with your opponent), or you can narrow the focus to the particular assumption(s) that you disagree upon, allowing for progress in a discussion. Other methods of discussion tend to be more ambiguous, and although they are effective for expressing ideas in the first place, they are often not as useful for refining disagreements over those ideas to figure out why one participant has concluded something different from another.
It does sometimes make people mad, though, if they have different intentions in mind. And if they are going to simply accept the premises, deny the conclusion, and roll their eyes as if they don't care about any possible contradiction, then I think it would in fact make the whole process somewhat pointless.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's a nice speech. But as has been said of America and the Bush Administration before in particular, it's easy to speak in generalities and ideals, but it doesn't mean much if you're leaving very specific problems and hypocrisies unmentioned and uncorrected.
If the Bush Administration's obvious double-talk is going to be greeted with (rightful) obvious skepticism and outright scorn, why is this speech beautiful and hope-inspiring?
It's a speech. Means nothing. Window-dressing. Rather like the recent PRC's adjustment of their currency, it's designed to make us feel good without actually sacrificing anything or changing their position.
(I do think it's amusing though, Tresopax, that Tom has said, "Yes, I do this, though I'm working on correcting it, and digging_holes is right about that," and you're saying, "No, really, he's not.")
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I do think it's amusing though, Tresopax, that Tom has said, "Yes, I do this, though I'm working on correcting it, and digging_holes is right about that," and you're saying, "No, really, he's not."
Well, yes.... amusing indeed!
Although, I didn't suggest entirely letting Tom off the hook. Arguing for "points" is not good, I do agree. I just think that is not a good reason to stop asking pointed questions in the way Tom did, because getting "points" is not the only value in it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The problem -- and I'm reluctant to move away from the topic of this thread, but so be it -- is that I don't think pointed questions are a useful tool for coming to agreement. Socrates was not a universally popular person.
Pointed questions are an extremely powerful tool for pointing out the weaknesses in someone else's argument, but this only gets you halfway there -- and does it in a way that makes them defensive and suspicious of your intent. I can't help thinking that there's a better way to be convincing, even if I haven't found it yet.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:An organization of top American Muslim religious scholars plans to issue a formal ruling today condemning terrorism and forbidding Muslims to cooperate with anyone involved in a terrorist act, according to officials of two leading Islamic organizations.
The one-page ruling, or fatwa, will be issued by the Fiqh Council of North America, an association of Islamic legal scholars that interprets Islamic law for the Muslim community. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an advocacy group, said the ruling does not represent a new position on terrorism.
Rather, Hooper said, "it is another way to drive home the point that the American Muslim community rejects terrorism and extremism."
Although Muslim leaders and political organizations have repeatedly denounced religious extremism, Hooper added, "any time any Muslim goes on a talk show or on television, the first question is, 'Why haven't Muslims condemned terrorism?' "
Louay Safi of the Islamic Society of North America noted that there is an important difference between a fatwa and previous statements from the Muslim community. The fatwa "is not a political statement. It's a legal or religious opinion by a recognized religious authority in the United States," said Safi, whose group is based in Indianapolis.
The fatwa, to be released at a news conference in Washington, was prompted by the condemnation of terrorism in a similar ruling from the Muslim Council of Britain after the July 7 terrorist attacks in London, Hooper said.
Safi, who heads the society's Leadership Development Center, said yesterday that "the statement prohibits Muslims from giving any support to terrorist groups who have carried out attacks against unarmed civilians. Groups like al Qaeda have misused and abused Islam to fit their own radical and criminal agenda, and I feel the statement is an important step to repudiating such groups."
Although the fatwa is important, Safi added, "there is a need to become more proactive in addressing the issue of terrorism by American Muslims."
The British fatwa did not name al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and neither does the ruling to be issued today. But a March 11 fatwa from the Spanish Muslim Council on the first anniversary of the Madrid train attacks received widespread publicity because of its harsh denunciation of bin Laden by name.
This is as close to "official" pronouncements that the Islamic structure allows. I see it as a very positive sign.
Are there people who will openly endorse it yet still support terrorism? Probably. So? Certainly Islam is not unique in the fact that some of its self-proclaimed followers are hypocrites.
Ignore the political ramifications for a minute. These fatwas provide religious response to the rhetoric used by OBL, et al. It's very important and very powerful, but it will take a while to have full effect.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
But this is just one group, right?
Couldn't another Islamic group could then issue their own Fatwa in support of Terrorism? How would that get resolved?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It was one group, but the article mentioned a group in Spain and one in England.
It's not like there's central authority on this. My hope isn't that it's a ruling that will be obeyed, but rather the introduction of a belief that will become more widely accepted over time.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
From the article
quote: This is happening: there is a deep significance in three declarations made immediately before and after the London bombings. First, more than 170 Muslim religious leaders met in Amman, Jordan, both Shi'ite and Sunni leaders as well as Ibadis and Ismailis.
They all agreed that only those trained within the traditional eight schools of Islamic jurisprudence have the authority to issue fatwas. This might seem an academic point, but it is fundamental to undermining the legitimacy of so called Islamist (rather than Islamic) terrorism. This declaration makes clear that none of these supposed fatwas is legitimate or Islamic: Islam has united and declared the terrorists to be in breach of the Islamic faith.
Second, immediately after the bombing, the Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz Al-alSheikh, issued a statement condemning the terrorists. He has consistently condemned suicide bombings which have no basis in Sharia. This week, 500 British imams put out a fatwa prohibiting suicide bombings and the killing of innocent people.
So, this isn't just a diplomat from SA talking out his ass.
And, yes, another group can issue a Fatwa in support of terrorism, but that's to be expected.
As long as the Muslim community has a side that is making loud noises against terrorism, I am happy.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
quote: He feels that I'm leading him on, that I've got some big hammer I'm holding over his head to "trap" him. More importantly, by asking him leading questions while volunteering very little information, I'm deliberately not exposing my own position to return fire.
I do? You do? You are?
Congratulations on a very funny post, Tom. Especially the part where you compared yourself to Socrates, I was actually debating whether or not to burst into tears of laughter. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Oh, pooh, mph, don't ruin my fun.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Then don't make it ruinable by Porter believing you mean what you say. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As long as the Muslim community has a side that is making loud noises against terrorism, I am happy.
Exactly!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*sigh* Don't be an ass, dh. If you've got some personal issue to work out, drop me an E-mail.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
I just thought it was amusing, people speculating about my feelings and being widely off the mark. No harm done. Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
"The West also needs to understand the dangers encompassed in the liberal society which it advocates. That liberalism is the very tool used by extremists to foster and spread their twisted ideology."
I wonder what he meant by this. I understand what he is saying, to a certain extent. But, is he implying a responsibility on the part of the US to change their society in order to maintain peace with Islam? I wish I could ask him.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
We had to speculate, because it wasn't very clear what your intent was from your posts.
quote: First of all, no Bush administration official has yet encouraged americans to go do Jihad in Iraq. Nothing even slightly analogous to that has occurred.
I disagree..I think that the War on Terror is exactally that. We only target combatants, but there is a lot of "collateral damage". We ARE sending people into Iraq to kill, and a lot of civillians ARE gettign killed in the crossfire....and this is due to the Bush White House and a lack of a decent plan for occupation.
We don't tell the populace to go over there, we snet outr volunteer millitary over there to do a "professional" job if it instead (as long as you don't count all the thousands of "independant contractors working for the DoD over there in private armies, in which case... )
We don't coutch our reasons in religious tones, but we had a mission there as a country that has killed more civillians than all the terroist attacks on us to date.
Including 9/11. . . and we have yet to connect anyone from Iraq to 9/11 at this time. Anyone official at least.
While I may not completely agree with all of those thoughts above, to say that we have not done ANYTHING like a Jihad over there isn't truthful. In fact, we have killed more of their "non-combatents" then they have of ours.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:We only target combatants, but there is a lot of "collateral damage". We ARE sending people into Iraq to kill, and a lot of civillians ARE gettign killed in the crossfire....
Perhaps one day humanity will figure out an efficient and reliable method of conducting war in such a way that only enemy combatants get killed, and no innocent civilian is harmed. When that day comes, arguments like this will be meaningful. At the moment, however, they remain meaningless. There is, so far, no such thing as a war that does not harm innocents. All you have to do is compare this war to every other war in history to see that we're doing the best we can to minimize--not eliminate, because that's impossible--civilian death.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: There is, so far, no such thing as a war that does not harm innocents.
*blink* And you're using this as an excuse for war?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Actually no, the ratio of civilian casualties compared to military casualties has increased continuously throughout history -- with the rise most steeply increasing after the advent of the use of explosives in combat: gunpowder, etc -- up through the VietnamWar.
And since the political leadership has learned the "lesson of Vietnam" -- don't do body counts: they're bad for public relations -- reliable information about the postVietnam civilian-to-military ratio of war casualties is lacking.
[ August 01, 2005, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
There have been wars in which entire cities have been put to the sword, aspectre. So the civilian/military casualty ratio has not been continuously increasing.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I've written here of Alexander's crucifixion of Tyre, and Hulagu's sack of Baghdad.
Now try googling democide and read their statistics on civilian vs military war casualties.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Interesting websites. I stand by my statement, though: if a majority of civilians were killed in some ancient conflicts, to wit, from your source:
quote: Estimates for democide by ancient empires and civilizations are not easily available, although historians insist that the Assyrians, among others, wiped out whole peoples.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP2.HTM --then modern conflicts which do not kill the majority of civilians can hardly be called an increase, much less a continuous increase, in the casualty ratios. I see that some authors divide history statistics into 20th Century and pre-20th Century, which makes sense. Also, many of the statistics in the democide websites are for deaths carried out by governments on their own people, not war per se.
If you have a specific graph or table that backs up your statement, I would be happy to look at it.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:*blink* And you're using this as an excuse for war?
When exactly did I do that? I was saying that the whole argument of "this war is bad because innocents are dying" was invalid. Innocents die in every war, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as a just and necessary war. The death of innocents is an unfortunate negative side effect of even just wars, but that doesn't automatically mean that every war ever fought has been unjust. That fact does not justify an unjust war, but it also does not invalidate a just war.
And whether the present war is just or not--and I have no interest in getting into a flamewar about whether it is or isn't--the fact remains that we have done all we reasonably can to avoid civilian casualties. The circumstances make it tricky, but we're doing it as well as we can. So comparing it to a jihad is dishonest at best.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I think the comparison to a "jihad" has less to do with killing an unusual number of civilians than with the cultural zeal and patriotic idealism that we use as a justification for those deaths. It's not like we face an immediate kill-or-be-killed situation, or even the threat of one in the near future. (Perhaps when the government thought there were WMDs in Iraq, but not now when we know there was no such threat.) Instead our government now describes the Iraq war as a fight against evil and evil values, in the hopes that bringing our ways to Middle Eastern nations will somehow at some point make us safer - in the same sort of way that Al Qaeda seems to think that fighting America will ultimately, in some indirect way, save what they consider their people and their culture. In this way, our Iraq war is quite similar to their jihad.
(Note: Just to add, this use of "jihad" is not the correct use of the term in Islam, from what I hear. I'm using it this way only because that's the way most people think of it these days, so I'm guessing you understand what I mean. )
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote: First of all, no Bush administration official has yet encouraged americans to go do Jihad in Iraq. Nothing even slightly analogous to that has occurred.
I disagree..I think that the War on Terror is exactally that. We only target combatants, but there is a lot of "collateral damage". We ARE sending people into Iraq to kill, and a lot of civillians ARE gettign killed in the crossfire....and this is due to the Bush White House and a lack of a decent plan for occupation.
That's not an assertion that the existence of civilian casualties indicates we're conducting a jihad?
Well, whether it was or it wasn't, I still think that the mere fact that civilians have died is not a valid argument against any war. If we were deliberately targeting civilians, yes. If we were being so careless about our conduct that vast numbers of avoidable civilian deaths were occurring, yes. Then there would be an argument. But when we've done our level best to avoid civilian casualties, and done a better job of avoiding it than any nation in any other war, then it's meaningless to point at the relatively small numbers of civilian deaths and say that that, in and of itself, proves that what we're doing is wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Innocents die in every war, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as a just and necessary war.
Why not?
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Because there are things worth fighting for. While it is horrible that innocent civilians were killed by Allied forces in World War II, that doesn't mean we should have just sat back and given Hitler whatever he wanted. That was a just and necessary war.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)