as far as Iraq...the people doing the suicide bombing have one mission...kill the infidels. They pervert the teachings of the Koran to justify their actions. They want to kill as many as possible whether it is by rock, dynamite or RPG. They see fellow muslims who do not agree with them as conniving (sp?) with the infidel so they are just as bad.
Good examples with the Atom bombs. It could be played off as "attacking a military target with acceptable collateral damage" but with an atomic bomb, I don't think that excuse washes. To that point no one knew for sure what would happen to those people though. (not an excuse) I mean, there were '40's and 50's era Army training films showing soldiers in foxholes, letting the nuclear blast go by and then charging on without suits or anything.
What really strikes me is ironic, is when people go into the thread about the train derailment and state that Juan Alvarez should have to suffer the consequences of his actions killing innocent people even though it wasn't his intent.
Yet, go into a thread where US collateral damage is talked about, and some of those same people rush to flip their view, and justify it.
Yes, Manny, the direct implication from what you said is that the US military would do such a thing.
If the only thing that keeps the "insurgents" from targeting only legitimate military targets is resources, then the case can be made that given similar resources, the US military would target civilians in the same manner as the insurgents.
That's not putting words in your mouth, that's taking your thesis to a logical conclusion.
I can partially give you Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But what would you have us do? Fold up our country because once or twice we made a decision that looked right at the time but maybe doesn't pass muster today?
And what's your point in bringing that up anyway? Your initial thesis seemed to be that "nothing is black and white" (basically). Yet, you seem to be more than willing to judge US actions as black or white. I don't understand that dichotomy at all.
I don't think the nuclear bombing of Japan is a valid example. Those cities did have some military value and both the power and after effects of the blasts were greater and more leathal than predicted. It is also very important to note that without the use of these devastating weapons, an all out invasion of the Japanese mainland would most likely have lead to the slaughter of hundreds if not millions of civilians and military personel on both sides. The ends justifies the means in my opinion.
Last edited by Useruser666; 02-01-2005 at 03:19 PM.
Travis, I even said I thought they made the right decisions at Hiroshima, how the is that looking at things as black and white?
If you want to go further back fron WW2 Travis, we can take a look at the way the US government fought the Indian tribes. There WAS targeting of civilians there.
My point in using the United States as an example is not to point out that it is evil. I don't believe it is. My point is to show a similarity to the tactics used in Iraq by the insurgents to prove my initial idea that they are not evil.
NOTE - I'm not calling Chris a terrorist.
AND THAT MY FRIEND, IS THE EXACT SAME MINDSET TERRORISTS HAVE.
They feel the end result they are trying to achieve, justifes the means they use.
I would agree w/Chris. Japan, even though militarily devastated, was still a threat and an invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives. Manny's example was technically correct, civilian population centers were targeted. Then again, when you put military targets in those population centers, that will happen. I do not have an issue with what happened.
Manny,
I just don't see how you can compare these two very different sides in this way. The people doing these awful acts are no better than the Klu Klan bombing black churches or threatening voters at poll stations. They want the power to themselves and at the cost of others' freedoms and even their lives. The US troops there are only protecting the majority of people and help them establish a goverment that can actually represent them fairly.
Seriously, can I get you guys to do at least this...
Put the actions of terrorists in the context that they are trying to accomplish a goal, and they feel that the end result they are trying to achieve justifies the means.
does that change anything you think about them?
Manny that is a very badly taken out of context quote. That was in reference to the US war with Japan. It was also in hindsight which is a whole other reason you can not make that comparrisson.
Then we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
In most cases I have a problem judging actions through the lens of history. Even actions that today I would judge as intrinsically evil are harder to judge when having to account for the mores of society in general at the time.
I can say that I think the Indian wars were NOT handled well. I also know there is a lot of confusion on both sides of that history. I don't dare justify actions that were targeted against women and children...but in those days, such an outlook was not very prevalent. It really wasn't until the late 1800 and the Hague and Geneva conventions that such an outlook was really made prevalent.
But now we are 125 years (+/-) from those conventions (the first ones). In light of all that has gone on before, there is no way to bring the actions of the terrorists into viability. The reason they do what they do is to bring revulsion and horror to us. They have the moral and tactical equivalent of kidnappers threatening their hostages for money...with often no intention of releasing their hostages once their demands are met.
I count that as evil.
I can't buy that bro. It is way too simplistic to justify terrorism by "trying to accomplish a goal" Its not that simple. When your goal is murder, I don't think it can be justified. Hitler had a goal too and thought the end result justified the means. The US Government had a similar goal with the Native Americans and justified it to themselves by placing them on reservations. It was still wrong even if it was deemed humane. Native Americans didn't do anything wrong. They didn't have a cruel dictator running a regime that would cut your throat if you said a dissenting word.Seriously, can I get you guys to do at least this...
Put the actions of terrorists in the context that they are trying to accomplish a goal, and they feel that the end result they are trying to achieve justifies the means.
does that change anything you think about them?
But it's not Chris. People do justify the means by the ends all the time. That's a pretty central idea to what I'm trying to say.
Is it that hard to imagine that these people are evil? Is it that hard to imagine that they have a level of desperation and have a poor view of what is actually going on?
Look, the bottom line is that if you guys want to write it off as evil acts done by evil people, then I can't stop you.
I feel like a broken record, so this will be my last post in this thread. I don't know what else I can say anyhow.
I feel these people are motivated by what they feel is right, and that is no different than what motivates anyone. I'm not saying that they haven't been misled or misinformed, but that doesn't make it them evil.
Uh no! So person "A" kills person "B" for their wallet. You can't call person "A" evil because he was just trying to accomplish his goal? Damn Manny!
No it doesn't.
Kidnappers have a goal...get money. The means they use are the taking (and often killing) of hostages. They feel the end result (them getting the money) justifies the means.
Goal, means, ends.
That still makes them evil.
I know I said I wans't going to post..but..
Mike, you brought up Hitler. Were all the germans fighting under him evil? No right?
Ok.
I've kept every example in the context of war. None of those examples you guys brought up were in the context of war.
Manny, your argument is sliding down a slippery slope now. Are you saying terrorists are right to commit the acts they do because they do those things to accomplish their goals? Since they believe it will bring the outcome they seek, it's ok to do those things? If that were the case then the only people who could be called evil were people who just did things for the of doing them.
were some of the Germans fighting under him evil? yes right?Mike, you brought up Hitler. Were all the germans fighting under him evil? No right?
Hitler was in the context of war.
But that's just the point. Even under the context of war, specific targeting of civilians is evil. This is not the period of 150 years ago when society thought differently about such things. There is absolutely no excuse for targeting civilians.
I think the people on this thread that were first using the term "evil" meant it mostly towards the people who actually USED A DISABLED CHILD AS A BOMB TO KILL INNOCENT CIVILIANS who were trying to vote. You could argue that any person purposely targeting civilians is evil.
who's society travis? Yours or theirs? Is it possible their society has not evolved in the same manner asours?
heehee. im not middle aged dumbo.
You sure did look it the time I met you. I guess not everyone ages well. My bad.
Sorry, Manny, I don't accept that excuse anymore. Prior to the "global electronic community", that explanation held some water. Not anymore.
I categorically deny the validity of that outlook.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
