I think I'd be a suicide bomber because I think that Western capitalism, if unchecked, has the qualities of an disease which degrades culture, and culture is worth dying and worth killing for.[edit]
If done without care, cultivating business communities by opening fragile markets to international competiton is cultural genocide. Sending over Chevron or Haliburton is not the same giving the indians blankets with pox on them, but economics is a muscular force that can easily destroy the simple things, the beautiful things, that are tied to religion and community. If I thought that these things were threatened, I think I may become a suicide bomber.
Why would you be a suicide bomber?
[ April 30, 2006, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
*Thinks this thread is kind of sick* Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I actually appreciate this thread.
You don't actually really believe that suicide bombers ( and other terrorists) hate America for no reason or for our "freedom," do you?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I can't think of any circumstances in which I'd be a suicide bomber. If something is worth fighting for, then I prefer to fight for it, with hope. I don't think killing people because of ideas or ideology is ever justified. If I were to die for a cause, it would definitely be because the other side killed me, or because I died doing something dangerous that was intended to accomplish something good that seemed worth the risk.
Killing to defend or protect is something I would do, but in that case I wouldn't want to die too. I'd want to try to stay alive to keep defending.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think suicide bombers must have three things, hopelessness and sense of helplessness about their lives, burning anger at someone they think is responsible, and a feeling that their death will accomplish something good and bring them honor, bring safety to their families, and hope of better things after death.
I don't know that for sure, but that is what I feel when I try to understand what it must be like to be a suicide bomber.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
That seems a fair evaluation. I know that I feel very strongly about a number of things (so strongly that I could see myself going to jail over them - though maybe I'm just falsely "boasting"). But I don't think I could see myself ending my own life unless I had that utter hopelessness.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: I don't think I could see myself ending my own life unless I had that utter hopelessness.
The point of being a suicide bomber is almost always about killing other people, as well as yourself. Otherwise, what has your death 'achieved'? Usually, such victims end up being civilians who happen to be passing by. So it's not just about being a suicide. It's also about being a murderer.
No. Just...no.
And just because you would kill yourself in the process does not make it any more noble. Killing the innocent is a stupid, wretched way of dealing with a percieved injustice.
But yeah, Tatiana, that's pretty much what I'd imagine it would be like.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: It's a good exercise.
I think I'd be a suicide bomber because I think that Western capitalism, if unchecked, has the qualities of an disease which degrades culture, and culture is worth dying for.
Being a suicide bomber isn't about what you're willing to die for. It's about making other people die for it. And the vile self-centeredness that would let you come up with reasons for being a suicide bomber without even considering the victims makes me want to puke.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I should have amended the statement to say worth dying for and killing for.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Fine. So who would your victims be, when you kill yourself to prevent 'cultural genocide'? How would you decide who deserved to be blown to bits for your cause, and how would you make sure that no-one else got hurt? Or would that not be an issue?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It strikes me as very Godwin-like to say, but I think it's really appropriate here: the Klan in the 60s thought culture was worth killing for, too.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
A cultural genocide is an awful thing. The killing of an innocent is an awful thing.
They are incomparable. If the company in question refuses to answer my phone calls, driving a truck of explosives through the front door may make them reconsider. It's a tragic choice, but that's the human condition.
Dag,
The clan and the nazies, and they weren't wrong. They just picked the wrong cultures. Our ideas of freedom and the rectitude of democracy are all part of the cultural fabric, and we are proudly training hundreds of thousands of people to kill for them.
____________
Unless you all know something that I don't, everyone here is going to die and knows that everyone else is going to die, so the most pressing question concerns how we live, not how to avoiding death, and to a large extent, the quality of our life involves the maintenaince of those sacred and revered aspects of our culture.
If those come under attack. *shrugs* I wonder what was going through Marvin Gaye's dad's head when he shot him.
[ April 30, 2006, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Why I'd be a suicide bomber.
There are really two ideas that need to be expressed.
Why I'd be a suicide bomber. and Why I would support, recruit, or send out suicide bombers.
I think most suicide bombers are, to a degree, {I still consider them responsible for their actions} victims of propaganda, poverty, and desperation. If someone blows himself or herself up in Israel, s/he get virgins in heaven and their family gets a nice paycheck. I really don't think ideology or politics is as much of a factor as is being presented in this thread.
Some suicide bombers are just kids (teens) or mentally ill.
Those who encourage and fund suicide bombers are probably more motivated by political agendas and religion. Actually, I suspect they use religion rile up the "lower class."
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
I'm not so sure I'd post this sort of thing on a public forum. I'm not overly paranoid, but a lot of people/the government takes statements such as your thread title seriously.
Are kamikazes considered suicide bombers? They are giving up their lives, vis-a-vis an explosion or their suicide, to kill the lives of their enemy for a cause. Granted their enemies were actually engaging them in battle, so maybe that's where the difference lies. I think Americans often tend to them of them as being sworn by duty and devoted to the ideals of Japan rather than delusional, hateful, psychopaths, which is usually the perception of the Islamic ones--seems like to our culture, the distinction is how your enemies are behaving (the context) rather than the action in and of itself.
My opinion is that anyone who participates in suicide bombing is beneath contempt for the same reasons as Tatiana, starLisa, and Bella stated.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Irami, what you're saying is "unchecked capitalism is a enemy I would coldly and deliberately kill innocent people to defeat."
The only groups I consider serious enough enemies to even consider the possibility are ones that coldly and deliberately kill innocent people.
You've got to get out of your little brain-bubble, man. It's eating your head. For someone who's so incredibly concerned about figuring out the moral thing to do, I think you'd do well to avoid arguments that lead to sociopathy.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
I think this thread should be edited to read: "Why I'd be a murderer of innocent people."
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: For someone who's so incredibly concerned about figuring out the moral thing to do, I think you'd do well to avoid arguments that lead to sociopathy.
Well said.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Are kamikazes considered suicide bombers? They are giving up their lives, vis-a-vis an explosion or their suicide, to kill the lives of their enemy for a cause. Granted their enemies were actually engaging them in battle, so maybe that's where the difference lies. I think Americans often tend to them of them as being sworn by duty and devoted to the ideals of Japan rather than delusional, hateful, psychopaths, which is usually the perception of the Islamic ones--seems like to our culture, the distinction is how your enemies are behaving (the context) rather than the action in and of itself.
I think most people hold a very, very different opinion of people who are willing to get themselves killed attacking a military target (e.g. kamikaze pilots, U.S. soldiers [in most situations]) than people who get themselves killed trying to kill civilians (e.g. suicide bombers).
It's important, though, to distinguish between "civilians" and "innocents," as I'd imagine many suicide bombers think their targets are guilty enough to warrant death simply by existing and contributing to an ideal they wholeheartedly disagree with. This thread's title reads more to me like "I'm willing to kill both civilians and myself in order to achieve a goal," in a more sensationalist way.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
Or how about: "Why I'd fly airplanes into office buildings and blow up teenagers in a night club."
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
--Enigmatic
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
How I am, and how I was raised I would not become a suicide bomber. But, if I was raised under the right conditions I am sure it is possible I would think it was alright. I think people can do more good for their cause whatever it be if they stay alive.
I do not think suicide bombers are in any way brave. They are so cowardly that they kill themselves and avoid all consequences of their actions. Then they go off to heaven and get 72 virgins or whatever the number is. Suicide bombing s cowardly and disgusting and I would never do it. It is the action of a weak person.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Language warning on the following link, but please see the 3rd, 4th, and 5th comics for Get Your War On's take on this thread's question.
--Enigmatic
LOL.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't think there is any cause such that I would deliberately sacrifice myself for it, with a 100% chance of dying. There are many causes for which I'd take a risk, even a considerable one, and even more causes for which I'd kill, but cold-bloodedly killing myself? Nah. I don't care how many theists I take with me.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why the hell would you want to be a suicide bomber? Do you value your life, the lives of other people and your family that would ache for you when you are gone? There's nothing worth dying for like that, nothing. If a person is so concerned with the spread of captilism why not first of all, use their BRAINS. And I don't mean listening to idiots and hypocrits like Mao who could care less about his people starving if he could build an atomic bomb, I mean thinking of a solution that works, that really works and doesn't destroy lives and other people! Are you out your damn mind? How the hell are you supposed to effect things when you have people angry and enraged and crying from senseless acts of violence? Why the hell don't people THINK about these things? No one will sympathize with a cause regardless of how noble it is if it's stained in blood!
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think it's an interesting topic, Irami. I'm not appalled by the attempt to think about it, as some people seem to be. I think it's only wise to try and understand them as much as we can.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I forgot to do it in my previous post, but I'd like to offer a warm Hello to all of our friends at the Dept of Homeland Security. Welcome to Hatrack! Feel free to lurk around a bit before posting, and you may want to check out this Newbie Guide Thread, which will help you become active and respected members of the community.
--Enigmatic
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
There are no circumstances under which I'd be a suicide bomber.
Enigmatic- good one.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Irami, this thread is causing me to lose respect for you. I find the idea of the slaughter of innocents to be abhorrent and unjustifiable. I do not believe that if you are not a part of the solution that you are a part of the problem. I do believe that there are people who are innocent and uninvolved, and that indiscriminate killing will necessarily put these people at risk.
I believe that there is evil in the world. I believe that suicide bombers are a part of the evil, not a solution to it. I am having difficulty mustering sympathy for your point of view.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not appalled by the attempt to think about it. I'm appalled by the thought that Irami would blow up a schoolbus because he thought capitalism was harshing his cultural appreciation.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Sending over Chevron or Haliburton is not the same giving the indians blankets with pox on them, but economics is a muscular force that can easily destroy the simple things, the beautiful things, that are tied to religion and community. If I thought that these things were threatened, I think I may become a suicide bomber.
Clearly, by your lights, these things are threatened. So why aren't you a suicide bomber?
quote:Unless you all know something that I don't, everyone here is going to die and knows that everyone else is going to die, so the most pressing question concerns how we live, not how to avoiding death, and to a large extent, the quality of our life involves the maintenaince of those sacred and revered aspects of our culture.
This is retarded. I can and do exert great effort to avoid death, not in the sense of avoiding it altogether but in the sense of putting it off. And I would sacrifice quite a lot of quality-of-life in order to do so.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Right on, Tom.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: The clan and the nazies, and they weren't wrong. They just picked the wrong cultures.
You're disgusting.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Well, I thought this topic had some potential, but it seems it is too much of a touchy subject for a lot of people.
It's a shame that this has turned into a name calling thread.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If by "suicide bomber" you mean someone who intentionally targets innocents -- unlike, say, someone out to throw themselves into an enemy military base or something during wartime -- then there is no justifiable reason at all. Not only is it an unconscionable act, but I believe you would be damaging your own message. Why would anyone want to embrace your culture if it encourages harm to the innocent? Let's see, which culture should I go with. The one that brings me movies, or the one that blows up kids? It's not an act of honor, glory, or patriotism. It's an act of fear and blind hatred, and that's not the sort of representative I'd want.
If you're defending a culture, you should make it look worth defending.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Hi Homeland Security, welcome to the forums! Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
As a reader of the Old Testament, I must say that it has set forth certain conditions when killing a nation is justified, because the "good guys" kill a few nations. And God himself wipes out a few cities, and even once killed off everyone except the contents of a boat.
However, do the Old Testament justifications hold weight for modern day suicide bombing? Is God really commanding people to blow themselves up to kill capitalists for the same reasons he killed in the past?
The capitalist culture that encourages and even protects evils also protect more righteousness and freedom than cultures that seek to enforce righteousness with the constant threat of extreme punishment. Without the ability to choose right and wrong, nobody gets credit for choosing right. If you are under the constant threat of imminent death or pain, that, my friend, is slavery.
[ April 30, 2006, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: human_2.0 ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
What Chris Bridges said.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Clearly, by your lights, these things are threatened. So why aren't you a suicide bomber?
It's not my religion or community at stake. I'm not metaphysically invested 4th century Islam, in fact, my ontology sets me dead set against some of the cultural practices. ___
To draw a benign parallel, think about the Last Samurai. There is an extent to which aggressive global economy makes unescapable demands on politics, religion, and community. If these demands make it impossible, or even unlikely, to obtain a sense of self-respect for an individual, and for the way of life that makes sense to that individual, then I can see the attraction of suicide bombing, even as an act of compassion, if that action is going to some how stave off the desolation suffered by ones fellow dispossessed.
quote:You're disgusting.
If you read the Eichmann transcripts, or even Himmler's later expectations of life after the war, or the run up into the war, these guys were living in another world. They weren't hot blooded, malicious, or crazy, they were, however, firmly ensconced in a myth I find despicable.
They weren't insane or malicious. They were, however, deeply otherly sane. I think the same can be said about Ken Lay.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Hate to break it to you two, but Homeland Security was aware of Hatrack LONG before this thread. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
And God himself wipes out a few cities, and even once killed off everyone except the contents of a boat.
As this is one of the many reasons I am not a Christian, probably not a defense that will work well... Posted by monteverdi (Member # 2896) on :
You should save this note, Irami, and show it to your children.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:then I can see the attraction of suicide bombing, even as an act of compassion, if that action is going to some how stave off the desolation suffered by ones fellow dispossessed.
Irami, I'm curious. Is the suicide bomber in your hypothetical example not actually blowing anything but himself up? Because you keep speaking of this as a symbolic act -- like, say, the old Buddhist monk "tradition" of self-immolation -- and ignoring the possibility that someone else might be injured.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
No, this bomber is taking out the WTC.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
For me to be a suicide bomber, it'd have to be a seriously out of this world situation. As in aliens coming to Earth or something. Like in Independence Day, when the crop duster pilot guy has to fly his plane into the alien's anti-monument gun.
But short of that, I'm kinda drawing a blank.
-----------------------------
For those of you who equate "suicide bombing" with "willfully killing myself and civilians to achieve a goal," (or something similar), how does that play out with suicide attacks against military targets?
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: And God himself wipes out a few cities, and even once killed off everyone except the contents of a boat.
As this is one of the many reasons I am not a Christian, probably not a defense that will work well...
I mention it because even within the religious context where killing is allowed, suicide bombing as it is practiced today is clearly evil because it is done in the name of cleansing and making people righteous. And my point is that it does no such thing and never can but rather enslaves people.
I was assuming Irami was coming at this with a foundation of religion. But it seems to me he isn't, which to me, is worse as it means he has no respect for life. What is culture that it is more important that life? Without life, there is no culture. Killing innocent people to save a culture puts such a burden of guilt on that culture, I can't imagine it surviving at all.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Even with the Dresden firebomb in our history, I think that most Americans do okay suffering the guilt.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No, this bomber is taking out the WTC.
Which definition of "compassion" are you using, then?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Perhaps he'd say that without culture, there is no meaningful life? And he'd have a point, at that, but I do think suicide bombings against civilians are the worst possible means of protecting our culture. Now, if you had an oppressive government whose leaders reached for their pistols when they heard the word 'culture', then sure, you might accomplish something by blowing up military bases. (Not civilians; that just feeds the propaganda machine, and quite rightly so.) But against capitalism? Pff.
The thing about a marketplace of ideas is that, if your idea is not up to snuff, it snuffs it. Art that cannot support itself is not art, but elitist snobbery; if it needs subsidies - whether of public money, or of dedicated martyrs - then it has already lost its life. Personally I'm willing to do without ballerinas and opera; not that I object if Irami wants to pay for them, but I do object most strongly if he tears down the current economic system to make me listen to his particular favourites. I have the freedom to make my own culture, and what do I care whether some inner-city child never gets any further than "See Spot run"? Let 'em eat Big Macs.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: I think suicide bombers must have three things, hopelessness and sense of helplessness about their lives, burning anger at someone they think is responsible, and a feeling that their death will accomplish something good and bring them honor, bring safety to their families, and hope of better things after death.
Suicide bombers dont become them because they are hopeless nor do they need a burning anger within to accomplish something. Most of the time, a suicide bomber is someone who believes in a cause and misguidedly believes that his suicide, and subsequent murders, will lead to a victory in the war they fought. Cultural relativism tends to play a major role here too, we hear mothers all the time on television who hope that one day their son or daughter will become a suicide bomber because they see it as a noble death in the service of a cause. And while I do think that hopelessness and the promise of an amazing afterlife play parts in some, in many, its simply about an ideolgy that allows this type of warring device. Think of Japanese Kamikaze pilots, they were suicide bombers, technically, and they didnt fight for virgins, the afterlife, or anything like that. They simply fought for an ideology, they fought for Japan, and they fought for what was really important to them, family. In that sense, you are never going to stop suicide bombers who fight for an ideology, you are never going to stop people who fight for a cause because that cause is more powerful than any bomb or leaflet we can drop. Moreover, its never as simple as "they are murderers", its never as simple as they are uneducated or desperate. Some of the smartest people in the world are members of Al Qaeda, but in that, lies where the suicide bomber truly resides. Its where their ideology leads them, its what they seek, and though disgusting to even consider, the answer here is freedom. Oppression will always lead to ideology, and that will always lead to violent resistence.
I know that sounds like I am defending a suicide bomber, but trust me, that is not my intention. My intention is to simply point out that its never black/white, its never absolute, there is always a shade of grey. And only by understanding the mechanics behind the suicide bomber, can we learn how to show people that they do not need to perpetrate these attacks. We will never stop someone who is determined to die for a cause, but we CAN stop people from WANTING too, and in that lies both knowledge and understanding.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: Even with the Dresden firebomb in our history, I think that most Americans do okay suffering the guilt.
I don't feel guilty that we fought Hitler, a cold blooded mass murderer. As I've already said, I'm religious and there are religious justifications for killing an entire nation, if that nation threatens to take away your ability to be righteous and follow God.
If American capitalism (American businesses) have become the new Hitler, there are other ways of stopping them rather than destroying the country.
My guess is someone pissed you off. Its natrual to want vengance. But what you are talking about is something else.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:murderer. As I've already said, I'm religious and there are religious justifications for killing an entire nation, if that nation threatens to take away your ability to be righteous and follow God.
Quoted for emphasis. Gentlemen, I give you my reason for wanting re-education camps for theists. By the way, just how does this differ from comrade bin Laden's justification for attacking the US?
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
Hate to brake it to you Irami, but globalization ain't gonna stop because you blow yourself up.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:murderer. As I've already said, I'm religious and there are religious justifications for killing an entire nation, if that nation threatens to take away your ability to be righteous and follow God.
Quoted for emphasis. Gentlemen, I give you my reason for wanting re-education camps for theists. By the way, just how does this differ from comrade bin Laden's justification for attacking the US?
I'm sure our justifications are the same, I'm just using a religious argument. If Canada all of a sudden tries to invade us and make us slaves or kill off our minority populate, and there is a religious and a non-religious argument for going to war, and destroying Canada if that is the ONLY way to protect ourselves and our freedoms.
Bin Laden is rich and is coming AFTER us.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:destroying Canada if that is the ONLY way to protect ourselves and our freedoms
Omelas.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think there is a difference between defense against an aggressor, and yourself being the aggressor.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:destroying Canada if that is the ONLY way to protect ourselves and our freedoms
Omelas.
Ok, what about Native Americans? Irami's argument could be used to eradicate all Euro Americans and in both North and South America in order to preserve and try to re-establish the Native American culture on this continent? Should I feel guilty our nation is built on that cultures near demise?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by monteverdi: You should save this note, Irami, and show it to your children.
Or tape it to their headstones when someone, inspired by Irami's words of wisdom on the topic of suicide bombings, blows up a bus that they were on.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: My intention is to simply point out that its never black/white, its never absolute, there is always a shade of grey.
People who say there are no blacks and whites are as deluded and as destructive as those who say there are only blacks and whites.
There isn't always a shade of gray.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:murderer. As I've already said, I'm religious and there are religious justifications for killing an entire nation, if that nation threatens to take away your ability to be righteous and follow God.
Quoted for emphasis. Gentlemen, I give you my reason for wanting re-education camps for theists. By the way, just how does this differ from comrade bin Laden's justification for attacking the US?
I'm sure our justifications are the same, I'm just using a religious argument. If Canada all of a sudden tries to invade us and make us slaves or kill off our minority populate, and there is a religious and a non-religious argument for going to war, and destroying Canada if that is the ONLY way to protect ourselves and our freedoms.
Bin Laden is rich and is coming AFTER us.
I don't see your point. He believes that the USA is preventing his family and nation from following God and being righteous; and, defining 'righteous' as his version of Islam, he is absolutely right. So is he justified in blowing up people, or not? And if not, do you have an argument for why that isn't "his god isn't real"?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Wow, I'm so glad I'm an atheist.
Suicide Bomber?
I'd have to say, "No," on so many levels. No to kiling myself; no to killing others; no to finding some sort of religious justification for doing whatever the hell it was I wanted to do, anyway.
Irami, I don't know if you're kidding or not; if in another day or two, you'll say, "Just kidding." But something tells me you'll probably be saying it in one of the US's lovely re-education camps in beautiful Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
BTW, I think StarLisa is one of those who only sees things as Black and White Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I don't see your point. He believes that the USA is preventing his family and nation from following God and being righteous; and, defining 'righteous' as his version of Islam, he is absolutely right. So is he justified in blowing up people, or not? And if not, do you have an argument for why that isn't "his god isn't real"?
So I gave the religious argument because my point is that the US *isn't* preventing his family and nation from following God and being righteous. The people who are supporting suicide bombing are thugs who want to enslave people, not give them relgious freedom.
Say one day they succeed and destroy Western culture from off the face of the Earth and wash the Earth clean of all of Western civilization's evils from the days of the crusades to the meltdown of Chernobyl. What next?
They aren't going to all of a sudden be a peace loving people. They are going to turn on each other and destroy each other until eventually, nobody is left or they will be the ones who finally create the 1984 Big Brother that watches everybody to make sure nobody "sins".
Which is another way of saying your God isn't real, yeah... But you are saying the same, no?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
People who see things in black and white scare me. Things are so much more complicated than that.... This is what causes this sort of thing, or a factor. Not realizing how truely complex and involved everything is.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: I know that sounds like I am defending a suicide bomber, but trust me, that is not my intention. My intention is to simply point out that its never black/white, its never absolute, there is always a shade of grey.
Which is why I try to distiguish between bombers and the people supporting it. I don't believe the bombers are evil people. That culture is so oppresive, it has convinced its own people to give up their most precious possesion, their lives, for any cause. The innocent Iraqis who are already the victims of suicide bombings is evidence that suicide bombing is just another form of munition.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I'm not defending bin Laden; his god is a figment of his imagination. So is yours. That's not the point. The point is, if you allow that killing on grounds of 'they are preventing me from being righteous' can be proper, how can you condemn bin Laden? That is precisely his argument! What you or I think of his version of righteousness is totally irrelevant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The point is, if you allow that killing on grounds of 'they are preventing me from being righteous' can be proper, how can you condemn bin Laden? That is precisely his argument! What you or I think of his version of righteousness is totally irrelevant.
That's not really true, now is it? If OBL isn't actually being prevented from being righteous, then his justification is false. And if his version of righteousness is incorrect, then he's not being prevented from being it.
I'm not particularly defending "killing on grounds of 'they are preventing me from being righteous'." I'm just saying your objection doesn't necessarily follow.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't see a difference, so far as the english language goes, between suicide bombers who attack military targets and suicide bombers who attack a military outpost. The METHOD is the same, the question is the target, and for that you need a different name altogether.
I can see myself doing something like that maybe if America had been invaded, but I think I'd be better served by making it my mission to kill one enemy soldier every day. I can do more damage over the long term, and if it looks like I'll be captured or killed, then maybe I take out as many enemy as I can with me. But I think guerilla fighting is more effective.
The only reason I could see myself being a suicide bomber who attacks civilians, and I'm not saying I'd ever do this, because I can't imagine a world where this would ever be a possibility, but...
Let's consider the hypothetical, something along the lines of America being taken over by a foreign power who sets up a puppet government here, but there is no opposition from the people. Given that situation, an American populace sitting idle while a foreign power runs everything, I'd consider striking at a stagnant population to piss them off and energize them, and maybe even attack the enemy AND the American population to force the government into making retaliatory action against the people. Even then, I highly doubt I'd kill myself. It worked in Russia's revolution. Not that that's the best example, but the failings that followed were because of the fault in the cause, not the methods. Still, that's wildly hypothetical.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The point is, if you allow that killing on grounds of 'they are preventing me from being righteous' can be proper, how can you condemn bin Laden? That is precisely his argument! What you or I think of his version of righteousness is totally irrelevant.
Sure, for you the definition of righteousness is irrelevant. But for someone who kills in the name of creating righteousness, it is of utmost importance if their behavior is doing the exact opposite.
The only religion I can imagine where being forced to be good is a virtue is a religion so insecure in god and his ability to rule that men feel they must kill everyone who offends him.
Do you look at these issues from a religious person's point of view and try to understand why they are doing what they are doing? Religions with an Old Testament background believe that killing nations is ok if God commands it. BUT, within that same background suicide bombings is not ok!
(Unless god commanded it, and I'm saying the only god who would condone suicide bombing and the resulting forced righteousness is one so insecure in his ability to rule men that he has to kill everyone who offends him, a god not worth worshiping) This is very similar to other arguments brought up, but from a religious point of view.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Do you look at these issues from a religious person's point of view and try to understand why they are doing what they are doing? Religions with an Old Testament background believe that killing nations is ok if God commands it. BUT, within that same background suicide bombings is not ok!
Sez you. Since you and bin Laden are both arguing from your own imaginations, why should I take your word over his? He's just as much a 'religious person' as you are.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:That's not really true, now is it? If OBL isn't actually being prevented from being righteous, then his justification is false. And if his version of righteousness is incorrect, then he's not being prevented from being it.
Yes, yes, but how can I judge one religion against another? They are all equally righteous, or un-righteous, as far as I'm concerned. So bin Laden's judgment of his righteousness is on precisely the same footing as yours or human's : He quotes the Koran, you quote the Bible, what's the difference?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes, yes, but how can I judge one religion against another? They are all equally righteous, or un-righteous, as far as I'm concerned. So bin Laden's judgment of his righteousness is on precisely the same footing as yours or human's : He quotes the Koran, you quote the Bible, what's the difference?
Yes, but you asked how "you" (meaning specifically human_2.0 but I'm guessing also any theist) could condemn OBL. Not how "I" (meaning you, KoM) could condemn OBL.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Let's consider the hypothetical, something along the lines of America being taken over by a foreign power who sets up a puppet government here, but there is no opposition from the people.
Call me a bigger monster than Irami... but if this were our situation, I would join the enemy and kill innocent Americans to gain favor with the enemy until I was 2nd in command. Then I would kill the 1st in command. Then I would rule in his place, and continue to remove any challengers until no one challenged my rule. And then hopefully I would not be completely corrupted by the moster I had become and I would remember my mission and I would turn the government over to the rightful rulers and hope they have mercy on me.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Do you look at these issues from a religious person's point of view and try to understand why they are doing what they are doing? Religions with an Old Testament background believe that killing nations is ok if God commands it. BUT, within that same background suicide bombings is not ok!
Sez you. Since you and bin Laden are both arguing from your own imaginations, why should I take your word over his? He's just as much a 'religious person' as you are.
Then is your position is that religion is hogwash and can't be a part of any rational discussion? What exactly are you saying if this isn't it?
I'm saying that suicide bombers are doing what they do because of religion (ideals as Humean said). If you are going to convince them to quit, you don't start by saying they need to quit being religious. It is positions like that that give them more motivation for doing what they do. Where I'm trying to say, look, your goals are noble (righteousness), but your methods are counter productive (they don't produce righteousness).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Let's consider the hypothetical, something along the lines of America being taken over by a foreign power who sets up a puppet government here, but there is no opposition from the people.
Call me a bigger monster than Irami... but if this were our situation, I would join the enemy and kill innocent Americans to gain favor with the enemy until I was 2nd in command. Then I would kill the 1st in command. Then I would rule in his place, and continue to remove any challengers until no one challenged my rule. And then hopefully I would not be completely corrupted by the moster I had become and I would remember my mission and I would turn the government over to the rightful rulers and hope they have mercy on me.
Ballsy...
What were you planning to do with the occupying army?
Posted by Dasa (Member # 8968) on :
Wait..are those who are offended by suicide bombers, offended because the bombers kill civilans or because they choose to commit suicide in the process?
I ask because many posts seem to emphasize the suicide rather than the bombing part. I see this a lot in the media too: emphasizing suicide, as if the suicide part which is immoral!
I don't see how killing civilians and children becomes noble all of a sudden if the bomber is clever enough to bomb remotely or manages to escape. If the American military were to bomb civilian regions deliberately because they have the means to do so, they would in fact be *worse* than suicide bombers. That they do not, is what gives them the moral high ground
Suicide bombers at least get rid of themselves in the process. One less crazy person to deal with, as far as I am concerned. If they were blowing only themselves up, I would be all for it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Then is your position is that religion is hogwash and can't be a part of any rational discussion?
In a word, yes. And I have yet to see you argue for why your religion is any better than bin Laden's.
quote:Yes, but you asked how "you" (meaning specifically human_2.0 but I'm guessing also any theist) could condemn OBL. Not how "I" (meaning you, KoM) could condemn OBL.
Ok, fair enough, but are you really going to argue "because my religion is better than his"? I mean, seriously? Because I don't see what else you are saying, here. And if that's really going to be your argument - then I trust you see why I feel that you will have to go just as much as bin Laden does.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What were you planning to do with the occupying army?
Give them luxuries and intermarry them. It all hinges on the ability to destroy ambitious challengers and softening up the army until they don't want to fight anymore. I've always believed the only way to take down an organization is from the inside. So you either find betrayers, double agents, or you put yourself in the position to be one. Which is why sleepers are so scary.
But you know what? Last night I watched part of Panic in the City and geeze it sounded just like today except with Soviet sleepers on hand ready to build A bombs to blow up America.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Then is your position is that religion is hogwash and can't be a part of any rational discussion?
In a word, yes. And I have yet to see you argue for why your religion is any better than bin Laden's.
I'm not trying. My religion and its correctness is irrelevent other than what I know it shares with suicide bombers, which is the mentality of the Old Testament that it is ok to kill when God commands it. I'm trying to argue that their own actions are flawed in their own religion. Unless their religion is so insecure that they feel they have to kill anyone who disagrees. And maybe they are ok with that. I don't know. I would hope not.
I think the leaders, like bin Laden, use religion as a tool. They can't be convinced of anything. Maybe they really believe what they say. I can't know. But I don't think they do. They just have an agenda and will do whatever they can to get it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You may find it useful in this context to know that I find it hard to believe that you really, really believe the stuff American churches spout forth. As for being flawed in their own religion, that's obvious nonsense. If I claimed that according to your religion there are no circumstances where it is correct to kill a nation, you would very rightly dismiss me. There is only one judge of what a given person's religion allows or doesn't.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What were you planning to do with the occupying army?
Give them luxuries and intermarry them. It all hinges on the ability to destroy ambitious challengers and softening up the army until they don't want to fight anymore. I've always believed the only way to take down an organization is from the inside. So you either find betrayers, double agents, or you put yourself in the position to be one. Which is why sleepers are so scary.
Depends entirely on who takes us over then. I think most anyone out there who is ever going to get the kind of power necessary to invade us is never going to give an American any sort of position of power or authority, certainly not the kind of power necessary to effect any sort of widesweeping change in policy, and the militaristic home government would never allow the military to become that lax.
It strikes me as a rather high unlikelihood that any nation that ever gets that kind of power is going to have a real weakness, or allow a weakness to fester in its military ranks, or in its government oversight of the military (assuming the government isn't already owned by the military).
I think a popular uprising would be the only way to get rid of that sort of occupying power. But it's a moot point. There will never be another power on earth strong enough to occupy and hold America. Unless the entire world gangs up on us, and even then we'd nuke them all to hell before the got the chance probably. But assuming it's some sort of post nuclear age, America is too big, its population too spread out, and it's people too used to having their way/too independently minded to be held like that. If every American made it his/her mission to kill one invader a week, the foriegn power would lose from attrition inside a month. And that would certainly be what I'd be advocating, regardless of consequence.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by human_2.0: I'm not trying. My religion and its correctness is irrelevent other than what I know it shares with suicide bombers, which is the mentality of the Old Testament that it is ok to kill when God commands it. I'm trying to argue that their own actions are flawed in their own religion. Unless their religion is so insecure that they feel they have to kill anyone who disagrees. And maybe they are ok with that. I don't know. I would hope not.
Okay, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think want to kill us because we disagree with their religion. I was given to understand (very briefly) that Islamic doctrine views areas of the world as being Islamic or non-Islamic, with "Damascus, Palestine, and a bit of Jordan," as even more holy. The fundamentalists want to kill us because we have military forces occupying Islamic land, which makes us infidels and blasphemers, and is just cause for a Jyhad.
This is what I understand KoM to be arguing, and I think his comparisons are valid.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I think a popular uprising would be the only way to get rid of that sort of occupying power. But it's a moot point. There will never be another power on earth strong enough to occupy and hold America.
I'm not so sure. China's spooky.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: BTW, I think StarLisa is one of those who only sees things as Black and White
See, you live and learn. Because I see blacks and whites and greys. And have much contempt for those who see only greys or only black and white.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: People who see things in black and white scare me. Things are so much more complicated than that.... This is what causes this sort of thing, or a factor. Not realizing how truely complex and involved everything is.
People who are blind to black and white and don't realize that grey isn't all there is scare me even more.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dasa: Wait..are those who are offended by suicide bombers, offended because the bombers kill civilans or because they choose to commit suicide in the process?
I ask because many posts seem to emphasize the suicide rather than the bombing part. I see this a lot in the media too: emphasizing suicide, as if the suicide part which is immoral!
I don't see how killing civilians and children becomes noble all of a sudden if the bomber is clever enough to bomb remotely or manages to escape. If the American military were to bomb civilian regions deliberately because they have the means to do so, they would in fact be *worse* than suicide bombers. That they do not, is what gives them the moral high ground
Suicide bombers at least get rid of themselves in the process. One less crazy person to deal with, as far as I am concerned. If they were blowing only themselves up, I would be all for it.
Me too. In fact, I would like to encourage Irami in his dream to be a suicide bomber. So long as he takes care not to harm anyone else, I think he should definitely stick to his principles and blow himself up.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I wouldn't be a suicide bomber because it combines two things I wouldn't want to do: suicide (because I happen to think living is good) and murder (which I happen to think is wrong.) I certainly wouldn't do one bad thing just to accomplish another bad thing!
Beyond that, however, I also think suicide bombing would be a real waste of my life and efforts. I cannot think of any examples in which suicide bombing ultimately achieved the greater goal of those engaged in the bombing. But I can think of many examples where suicide bombers thought it would, and killed many people only to end up causing even more unhappiness in the long term for those they thought they were helping. If you want to enact meaningful, effective change in the world, you will have to find a more effective means. As Gandhi suggested, be the change you want to see in the wrold. Don't blow something up instead! If you do that, then not only will you likely fail to accomplish anything other than creating conflict, but you will be dead too, and thus unable to accomplish anything further after that.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:point is, if you allow that killing on grounds of 'they are preventing me from being righteous' can be proper, how can you condemn bin Laden?
You can condemn him by suggesting he is wrong to think that killing is righteous in this situation.
quote:Yes, yes, but how can I judge one religion against another?
The same way you judged your atheistic belief system to be better than Osama bin Laden's religion - by using evidence, reasoning, and faith.
Posted by krynn (Member # 524) on :
i used to think that suicide bombers did such things because they have had such a bad life. and for anyone that has had a tough and troubled life, religion usually is the main focal point of people's hope. and then to have being a suicide bomber be portrayed as religious martyrdom, and believing that by killing yourself others will remember you for your actions and you will go to the next life. hmm, it's in essence, "the easy way out." they dont want to keep living their crap life, and with everyone telling them that the next "perfect" life can be obtained through martyrdom, then why not? how long is too long of a rough life, until it pushes someone far enough to such a thing. whats worse is that people hide their ill-intentioned agenda behind the mask of religion. so now instead of an evil act of violence, its a righteous act to save one's soul.
okies, thats about all i feel like writing about right now. ive just handed in all my research papers for this semester and talking about this now makes me want to write a persuassive essay about all the reasons i think people might choose to become suicide bombers. bleh...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What bothers me is the implicit assumption that understanding what might cause someone to be a suicide bomber is in some way equivalent to enumerating the things which might cause YOU to become a suicide bomber.
I feel that I understand the motivations of a suicide bomber fairly well, but I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I'd engage in cold-blooded murder.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:these demands make it impossible, or even unlikely, to obtain a sense of self-respect for an individual, and for the way of life that makes sense to that individual, then I can see the attraction of suicide bombing
I can understand the attraction of sacrificing one's life for the sake of a person's loved ones. I can understand the attraction of sacrificing one's life to defeat enemy soldiers. But killing innocent people in an attempt to garner self-respect just doesn't make any sense. You would be demanding the right to self-respsect while whithholding from others the right to life itself. Seems a bit hypocritical.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I want to comment on the discussion that KingofMen and Human2.0 are having. I can see both points clearly...well, I think I can.
The argument goes something like this. "Killing an entire nation is acceptable if they are trying to take away your religious freedom."
"We need re-education camps because that type of reasoning leads Islamic nations (and religious nations) to wipe out people who are not Islamic because it is a part of their religion."
I think OSC current essay does a good job of explaining why Human2.0's position is not compatible with KoM's scenario.
quote: Freedom of conversion is at the core of freedom of religion -- indeed, at the core of freedom of any kind. If you cannot change your mind, your stated beliefs, and the religious community you choose to associate with, you are not free.
What I find most amusing is the widespread belief among Muslims that this Sharia law is essential in order to preserve Islam.
Don't they see that it is exactly this law that destroys Islam wherever it is enforced?
quote: There is no faith under compulsion. Any nation where Sharia is enforced is not a Muslim nation, and none of its people are Muslims. If they cannot choose not to be Muslim, then they have not chosen to be Muslim. Without freedom not to believe, faith is a sham even if you think you are sincere.
I think KoM is not grasping that there are religious people who define religion as only being possible if people are free to convert away from the religion. If a religion/cult is focused on death and compulsion, then it is not a religion--at least not one that needs protected.
If someone tries to take away the freedom of my child, then I have a moral right and obligation to defend my family’s freedom. I obviously don't have the right to infringe on someone else’s freedom--unless their version of freedom is freedom to kill me.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote: I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I'd engage in cold-blooded murder.
...really? Maybe I'm just an immoral person, but I can imagine many circumstances in which I'd murder someone in cold blood.
Did you mean you can't imagine a circumstance in which you'd murder an innocent in cold blood?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No. I can't imagine any circumstances in which I'd murder someone in cold blood. Period.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Maybe the key word in that statement isn't cold, but murder?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Maybe the key word in that statement isn't cold, but murder?
I guess it could be a variance in definition. I'm working off the idea that if you kill someone, on purpose, for any reason, it's murder.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I believe the word for what you're describing is "killing."
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I believe the word for what you're describing is "killing."
Then what distinguishes murder? Further, what distinguishes between what I described and, say, hitting a jaywalker with your car?
Edit: To clarify why I said what I said, I'll give an example: if someone were to hurt someone in my family - say if one of my children were kidnapped/molested, my wife raped, or any of them murdered - I would plan and execute the killing of the perpetrator. To me, that's murder - and I would have no qualms about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm actually baffled that you're equating cold-blooded murder with accidental manslaughter. What parallel do you think can be drawn?
(As a side note, by the way, I can't imagine a situation in which I'd KILL anyone in cold blood, either. But that's another issue.)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
What you described would include killing in self-defense. That's not murder.
Murder is the wrongful taking of a life. Which begs the question, obviously.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I'm actually baffled that you're equating cold-blooded murder with accidental manslaughter.
You're the one equating them. I define murder as killing someone on purpose. I define accidental manslaughter as killing, not murder. You define both as killing. This is why I asked what differentiates them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I define murder as killing someone on purpose.
Ah. That would probably be the problem. Like I said, though, I can't really think of a situation in which I'd kill someone in cold blood, either, for what it's worth.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
Murder is killing, accidental manslaughter is killing. Accidental manslaughter is not murder. Killing is not always murder. Killing is not always accidental manslaughter.
This is really very simple.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Ah. That would probably be the problem. Like I said, though, I can't really think of a situation in which I'd kill someone in cold blood, either, for what it's worth.
Ok. That's what I wanted to clarify.
I can't really say whether or not I'd be prepared to kill someone in cold blood either, even for the reasons I mentioned; hard to know whether you're capable of that sort of thing until the situation presents itself. I can definitely see myself doing it, though.
quote:Murder is killing, accidental manslaughter is killing. Accidental manslaughter is not murder. Killing is not always murder. Killing is not always accidental manslaughter.
This is really very simple.
I think you're misunderstanding the point.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, the point is that murder is by most definitions wrongful killing, and thus not a synonym for "killing."
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
StarLisa,
quote:And have much contempt for those who see only greys or only black and white
If I had a lot of time to waste, I'd actually try to parse that last phrase out. But there are other things more pressing in my life; like getting new laces for my sneakers.
However, I do agree with you on this:
quote:Me too. In fact, I would like to encourage Irami in his dream to be a suicide bomber. So long as he takes care not to harm anyone else, I think he should definitely stick to his principles and blow himself up.
Not that I really had anything personal against Irami.
BTW, I think there should be training schools for suicide bombers. But they should take their finals on campus.
I can picture one big, crater-strewn soccer field with a reviewing stand:
<BOOM> Teacher: "Aced it! Great work"
<BOOM> "Excellent, you get an 'A'!"
<BOOM> (And so on)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I think KoM is not grasping that there are religious people who define religion as only being possible if people are free to convert away from the religion. If a religion/cult is focused on death and compulsion, then it is not a religion--at least not one that needs protected.
Again, sez you. Again, why should I take your word over bin Laden's? You believe in equally irrational things.
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
Irami, can you give any examples of where such behavior led to the accomplishment of the suicide bomber/murderers goals? It seems to me that it accomplishes nothing, and costs the lives of many innocent people who have no bearing on the situation whatsoever.
No matter how noble the goal. I could be vehemently opposed to over fishing oceans or pollution, but strapping a bomb to my chest and attacking a bait shop or a gas station is not going to accomplish anything.
Furthermore, I don't believe that a culture is threatened by capitalism. Mexico has retained its culture since embracing free markets. So has India. Where are these cultures that have gone extinct due to the influx of capitalism and free markets?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I wouldn't. Ever. Any war in which we're so desperate we have to send suicide bombers is already lost. (Yes, I include kamikazes in that.) The only effect is to cause more death.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Well, the point is that murder is by most definitions wrongful killing, and thus not a synonym for "killing."
I never said the two were synonymous: I said purposeful killing and murder were synonymous which, to me, they are. I think the confusion came from you missing the phrase "on purpose" in my original reply.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Again, sez you. Again, why should I take your word over bin Laden's? You believe in equally irrational things.
Sez you. I call it like I see it. I don't expect you to get "it," but I am sure other's will. I am sure you don't know what I believe, so your comment is a pretty ignorant statement. I guess when you are used to lashing at religion/spirituality you get used to spewing your own rhetoric and it just slips out naturally.
[ May 01, 2006, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: I wouldn't. Ever. Any war in which we're so desperate we have to send suicide bombers is already lost. (Yes, I include kamikazes in that.) The only effect is to cause more death.
That remains to be seen. If Japan had started the war with suicide bombers instead of waiting until the end, the Battle of Midway would have been very different.
But you're talking about it in the context of a last ditch effort. That's war specific though. It depends entirely on what we're fighting for, and what the enemy is fighting for. You don't think that after another decade of suicide bombings in Iraq, if the situation doesn't change, eventually we'll just give up and go home? I see it as a very real possibility.
You're talking about it perhaps from a moral viewpoint, such as to say that if we have to resort to that sort of method then we've already lost the war, because we've lost ourselves...America was born of actions that would today be considered terrorist, and many that at the time were considered terrorist. In many ways we invented some of the modern ideas of guerilla combat and dispatched the idea of fighting in straight rank and file lines. The British thought that was a form of terrorism, if they'd had had the word back then it would have been used to describe American militia.
You do what you have to do to win. For some, that means violating their own morality for the sake of a higher cause. For some it means altering their idea of morality entirely, for whatever rationalizations necessary to accomplish it. Though for some it means just giving up and letting the enemy win for the sake of morality. For my part, if I was defending my country from foreign oppression, I wouldn't let the majority of my morality get in the way. Chances are I wouldn't murder women and children just for the heck of it, but I'm sure I'd do some fairly shady things for the cause of freedom. I'm fairly sure many of you would too, if it really came down to it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:In many ways we invented some of the modern ideas of guerilla combat and dispatched the idea of fighting in straight rank and file lines.
Come on, a bit of patriotic history is ok, but this is just ridiculous. I suggest you inform yourself a bit about the various European wars before you make any statements about who invented what. (Not that I'm particularly claiming it for the Europeans either, guerrilla warfare was old when Sargon of Akkad was building the first centralised empire.) Try googling 'snapphane' for a start.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:To draw a benign parallel, think about the Last Samurai. There is an extent to which aggressive global economy makes unescapable demands on politics, religion, and community. If these demands make it impossible, or even unlikely, to obtain a sense of self-respect for an individual, and for the way of life that makes sense to that individual, then I can see the attraction of suicide bombing, even as an act of compassion, if that action is going to some how stave off the desolation suffered by ones fellow dispossessed.
Someone sure as hell missed the point of that movie. No surprise there, really.
quote:They weren't hot blooded, malicious, or crazy, they were, however, firmly ensconced in a myth I find despicable.
They were frequently hot-blooded and undeniably malicious. That's probably the most foolish thing I've heard you say before, followed only by, "Let's teach black kids to be racist."
quote:They weren't insane or malicious. They were, however, deeply otherly sane. I think the same can be said about Ken Lay.
Ken Lay, if guilty as he is charged (and smart money says he is, I think) was not 'otherly sane'. He was a malicious criminal. Words lose all meaning if you merely redefine any wrongdoing as 'otherly sane'.
Suicide bombers are fools. They do not accomplish their goals by their actions. They do not advance their goals by their actions. To use the most common example, the plight of Palestinians is much worse than it would otherwise be, due to the presence and frequent attacks by suicide bombers.
You'd fit right in, Irami.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I dunno. Would the Israelis have withdrawn from those areas if not for the suicide bombers? Hamas would presumably see that as progress. Sure, the ordinary Palestinian is probably worse off, but there again, it's a war. The ordinary American was probably worse off because of all the resources being burnt in WWII, too, but that's doesn't mean it was a wrong thing for the nation to do. (You can fill in another war here if you like, it doesn't have to be a righteous one - just one that advances national security goals.)
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: there are religious people who define religion as only being possible if people are free to convert away from the religion.
Yes, that is what I'm saying exactly. KoM, I can't even begin to understand why you keeps asking for proof this is better than compulsory belief because your very unbelief is not challenged by a religion that allows freedom of choice.
I see 3 options. Compulsory belief, aka OBL, freedom to choose belief, what I'm talking about, or compulsory non-belief. Are you suggesting that compulsory non-belief should be the rule of the land? So instead of the choice being between religious or non-religious, the only choice is to be non-religious?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:In many ways we invented some of the modern ideas of guerilla combat and dispatched the idea of fighting in straight rank and file lines.
Come on, a bit of patriotic history is ok, but this is just ridiculous. I suggest you inform yourself a bit about the various European wars before you make any statements about who invented what. (Not that I'm particularly claiming it for the Europeans either, guerrilla warfare was old when Sargon of Akkad was building the first centralised empire.) Try googling 'snapphane' for a start.
Two questions for you:
1. What kind of rifles/muskets was Sargon of Akkad using?
2. When was the last time the US jumped someone with scimitars and long spears?
Posted by krynn (Member # 524) on :
tho everyone agrees that killing isnt something that anyone of us wants to ever do, i think im on the side that says they would do it if put in the right situation. if it was me or them. if i knew who i was about to kill wouldnt hesitate to kill many more than myself, then i think i could be convinced. the question is for ppl with this attitude, at what point is too far. there are bound to be situations where its a very difficult decision.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Comrade Sargon was using the kind of musket usually referred to as a 'bow'; which has a longer range, better rate of fire, and more accuracy than the Brown Bess the British regulars used. The weapon is in any case irrelevant; guerrilla warfare is a set of tactics and attitudes. Further, you'll note that Washington actually did fight a fair amount of pitched battles in ranks and files, and the war didn't end until his troops were capable of winning such a battle. Finally, again I refer you to the snapphaner, who used guerrilla techniques with gunpowder weapons a full century before the American Revolution.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
KoM, perhaps you didn't see the "some" in "some of the modern ideas of guerilla." And that's almost irrefutable.
Mosby developed other ideas in the Civil War. That doesn't mean that the centuries of development prior to Mosby didn't happen. It means they didn't stop with Sargon or whichever poster child for guerilla warfare you wish to put forth.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Again, why should I take your word over bin Laden's? You believe in equally irrational things.
Again, for the same reason that you decided your atheistic belief system is better than Osama bin Laden's religion - because of certain evidence, reasoning, and faith.
You too, I suspect, believe in things just as irrational as many of bin Laden's beliefs.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Tres, it is not a question between atheism and theism; that's separate. The question is, given that religious reasoning for killing people is allowed, where can you stop? Once you accept any such commandment at all, you cannot disallow any.
Dag, I think I would dispute it even so; just which developments were unique to the American wars? But in any case I was objecting rather more to the 'rank-and-file' bit.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Comrade Sargon was using the kind of musket usually referred to as a 'bow'; which has a longer range, better rate of fire, and more accuracy than the Brown Bess the British regulars used. The weapon is in any case irrelevant; guerrilla warfare is a set of tactics and attitudes. Further, you'll note that Washington actually did fight a fair amount of pitched battles in ranks and files, and the war didn't end until his troops were capable of winning such a battle. Finally, again I refer you to the snapphaner, who used guerrilla techniques with gunpowder weapons a full century before the American Revolution.
Heh, oh dear.
I never said that Americans pioneered and created guerilla warfare from scratch, which you seem to have somehow inferred. I know that you like to jump on stuff like that, but it seems in your rush to be a stuffy jackass, you didn't stop to read what I actually said, or attempt to understand the context. As Dag said, I see that you seem to have purposely disregarded the word "some" in my previous post. But hey, don't let yourself get tripped up by facts and truths, just go with your gut.
The British thought it was a murderous terrorism that American soldiers would use riflemen hiding in the woods to pick off their officers. And I wouldn't exactly call mass fired arrows shot into the air towards a far off target to be more accurate than the rifles used during the American revolution, which were NOT, by the way, widely used a century earlier, they stuck to the musket. And while the musket was still the primary weapon of the American Revolution, and while Washington, Gage and others still often fought in straight rank and file lines...
The part I was specifically referring to, was the fact that American militia and continental soldiers used rifles much more regularly than previous armies had to specifically target and pick off officers on the field and off, which was not a practice norm, even for guerilla warfare at the time. There were other things too, but this is what I was specifically referring to.
Any other arrogant. smartass, attempted corrections you want to make KoM?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The snapphaner were named for their rifles, which they used to pick off enemy officers from ambush. Not that they were adverse to killing troopers, by any means. The Swedes considered them bandits (that is, not regular troops; the word terrorist had not been invented) and executed them by impalement, with the occasional bit of breaking on the wheel thrown in.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I think I would dispute it even so; just which developments were unique to the American wars? But in any case I was objecting rather more to the 'rank-and-file' bit.
Since you left it so broad, I'd suggest you read up on Mosby. There's no question he came up with new tactics.
As to the revolutionary war, I'm not sure which tactics were pioneered there. I do know that a couple of military historians I knew back when I worked for the Navy took a class in the history of guerilla warfare and spent a considerable amount of time on the Revolution.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I've read several links, and sure, they all mention that he used 'daring and innovative tactics'. What I don't see is any actual details. This does suggest to me that possibly they were only innovative in the American context. As for spending considerable time on the Revolution, well, why would they not? It's an American war in which guerrilla tactics were important, and also a founding myth for the country. This does not prove anything one way or the other about how new they were.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you could provide a link to anything that talks about a snapphaner I'd appreciate it. Googling brought up only Scandinavian language sites. Though the one English site I did come across said that the word didn't come from the names of their rifles, but was rather a deragatory term laid upon them which they later took as an honorific of sorts.
Anyway, link please.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So you think guerilla warfare stopped developing with snapphaner?
Do you actually have any knowledge that the Revolutionary guerilla tactics weren't innovative, or are you just denying it out of habit? It seems like you don't actually know anything about it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, actually, I think it stopped developing with Persian resistance to Roman invasion; the snapphaner were only an earlier example of similar techniques in the gunpowder era. Like maneuver warfare, it's re-invented every generation; only the weapons change. As for links, I couldn't find any good English ones either, sorry. I mainly learned about them in school, anyway.
It's true that the Swedes referred to any irregular troops as snapphaner, but they took the word from the Germans, who used it for bandits because a chicken thief could not very well use a matchlock - the light and smell would give him away. It seems the English spelling is 'snaphaunce', so for the weapon type you could search for that instead; it doesn't bring up the guerrilla aspect, though, which is a more Scandinavian thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Uh huh.
What would you classify suicide bombers as?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Guerrillas who strike at the civilian population, much like the Vikings, Huns, and other raiders at the edge of civilisation. Another example is the lightly armed ghazis who took on the Byzantine Empire. The modern explosives are just technology. Come to think of it, the Israelite invasion of the Fertile Crescent matches the description too, if you trust the Bible for history.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Though, come to think of it, maybe the parallel isn't that close. The distinction between 'regular troops' and 'the civilian population' does kind of blur a bit in some eras.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Vikings and Huns murdered en masse, they didn't kill themselves to do it.
It's not just technology, it's methodology and IDEOLOGY. Which believe it or not is a large part of what historians consider to be part of guerilla warfare. Guerilla warfare is not the same thing as commando warfare.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, it is not a question between atheism and theism; that's separate. The question is, given that religious reasoning for killing people is allowed, where can you stop? Once you accept any such commandment at all, you cannot disallow any.
I think the line of distinction is rather obvious: It'd be right to kill based on any true religious beliefs that dictate a need to do so, and wrong to kill based on false religious beliefs. I think Osama bin Laden's religious beliefs are false, hence I think it is wrong to kill based on those beliefs.
Thus your assertion actually is that there is no reason to think any religious belief system is any more true than any other. I'm just pointing out that I think I have as much good reason to believe my religious belief system is better than bin Laden's as you think you have to believe your atheistic belief system is better than my religious beliefs.
Both of us have our reasons, and of course because neither us have any absolute proof that we are right, we both also mix in a healthy dose of faith (or whatever you want to call that which allows you to be confident in the things you can't really prove.) If that is good enough to follow one religious belief system over another, then your question is answered. And if that isn't enough evidence to justify following any given religion over any other, then the same logic should be applied to ALL belief systems, since there is no complete belief system about right and wrong that can be proven objectively. Then your "Why should I take your word over bin Laden's?" becomes "Why should I take ANYBODY'S word over ANYBODY else's?" since everyone believes in "irrational" things of one sort or another.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
OBL is fighting a war against us and so far his best weapons are suicide bombers/pilots who are *fooled* into thinking that they are making a difference. They aren't. Their actions betray their own beliefs. If they win, what have they got?
Anyone (Irami) who actually takes the time to bring this up with a bunch of Westerners like us obviously hasn't decided we are completely worthless and not worth talking to. So I'm going to voice my opinion that suicide bombing is a complete religous sham. It is device created by people at war to sucker real religious people (the bombers) into killing themselves.
I imagine the people in the upper echelons know what they are doing. They are building a society where they are kings over the unwashed and unclean. As since I'm "unwashed", I will violently oppose someone trying to make me a slave to their own lecherous egotistical self esteem.
In fact, I'll jump in and take Irami's side now. American big business is evil. All gigantic company CEO's seem to all suffer from lecherous egotistical self esteem which is fed by their pocket books and they don't know when to say no. They will eat the world dry. Forget destorying culture. The world will get so messed up it will be uninhabitable if things keep going the way they are.
But blowing them up is the wrong way to fight them. There are ways, but it involves building a people who first admits and agrees that these things are bad. Then within a structure of cooperation they come up with rules that dicate what is allowed and what isn't, and they get everyone to live those rules. Note, the key word is agree, not force.
This is EXACTLY what democracy is about and the reason that big business can be fought. Problem is, that America has gotten so corrupt, it is hard to believe anyone is following our own rules. I have my own doubts over whether or not USA will fall like Rome or not.
But blowing America up ISN'T the solution. History after the fall of Rome isn't peaches and cream. Instead, we have to renew what started America, and division isn't it. It is unity and structure.
And call me stupid and unrealisticly idealistic, but I believe forums like this are part of the solution to build communities where eventually, we will have the power to fight big business or whoever is trying to take away our freedom of thought and belief.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:...That remains to be seen. If Japan had started the war with suicide bombers instead of waiting until the end, the Battle of Midway would have been very different.
... You don't think that after another decade of suicide bombings in Iraq, if the situation doesn't change, eventually we'll just give up and go home? ... [/QB]
With respect (because you gave solid arguments, and I do have a lot of respect for that), I'd say:
If Japan had started with suicide bombers, that should have *helped* the USA, because they'd lose their manpower all the more quickly. It would have stopped us if we were so frightened we decided not to fight back, but I can't see *that* happening.
I can't process the Iraq idea as is because it has two ideas built in that I can't believe: that the situation doesn't change (situations always change); and that the US would be in Iraq in 10 years, with or without suicide bombings.
Anyway. I'm not saying that suicide bombings can't possibly turn the tide of a conflict -- it doesn't ever seem to have, but I suppose it could, theoretically -- but that powerful belligerents don't do it, because they have other means that don't reduce their manpower as much.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Between the Battle of the Philippine Sea (400 carrier based/200 land based) and Midway (over 200 carrier based), Japan lost more than 800 aircraft and more than a half dozen carriers. Now I know these battles took place two years apart, but come on, that's EIGHT HUNDRED aircraft lost, and for those attacks, the Japanese Imperial Navy ended up sinking a paltry SINGLE carrier from America, losing seven of their own carriers and taking heavy damage to other ships.
Imagine what 800 kamikaze attacks could have done to the American fleet. Midway and Phillipine Sea could have been victories, and the Battle of the Coral Sea would have been a decisive victory as well. Those two battles were huge nails in Japan's naval coffin. They could have inflicted massive damage on the US fleet with even half that number being successful suicide bombers. It would have been a much more efficient use of personnel, rather than wasting the elite pilots they had in order to sink a single US carrier.
Now, we came up with ways to try and shoot down kamikaze pilots, with massed concentrations of AA fire, and using dergibles with tethers to slice the wings off of kamikaze attacks, but they were never 100% effective. The Japanese could have changed the tide of the war if they had began with that method, rather than using it as a last resort.
As for Iraq, I probably shouldn't have said a decade, but I posed it as a hypothetical. We might just be there in ten years. It depends on the progress of their government, the training of their soldiers, and the patience of the American people. I can't begin to guess how that will go, but it doesn't lool extremely favorable at the moment.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)