News:

Unnecessarily argumentative

Main Menu

Moral Equivalence?

Started by Chris Johnston, January 02, 2008, 04:13:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Big Mac

#30
Quote from: "Willravel"Liberals aren't "America-haters", we're just critical thinkers who are capable of constructive descent in order to improve the problems in our country. I'm sure that many conservatives had constructive criticisms when Clinton was in office. That didn't make them America-haters, did it?

Liberals are what makes Mann Coulter very wealthy. That's a lot, assholes! :wink:
Quote from: "PoopShoot"And what if pigs shit candy?

donkeyhoty

#31
Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"And yet you somehow come to the conclusion that they aren't dangerous. Is it no big deal that 3000 Americans die, say once in a decade and countless Shias, Sunnis, Christians and Hindus die in the "home" countries like the ones you mentioned?
Where did I say terrorists aren't dangerous?


For clarity sake here's what i'm saying:  
1.Al-Qaeda as an "umbrella" organization doesn't exist in the way many people say it does.  Does it exist? Yes, but it's no more dangerous than Hezbollah or Abu Sayyaf, and probably much less so than those two.  When fighting terrorism there is no singular organization and to assume so hamstrings the entire fight.
2. The War in Iraq has done more to perpetuate muslim extremism than OBL ever did.
3. You might think the Islamic Golden age a myth, but advances made by Arab/Muslim scholars to the Greco-Roman tradition were transferred back to the "West" because of religious freedom in Muslim controlled Spain.
4. The War on Terror has been a complete failure because of its mismanagement.  There could have been advances made in Afghanistan, but the Bush Admin. decided to fight a war in a country with little, or nothing, to do with terrorists and 9/11.  
5. If there is to be a War on Terror, and not the attempt at economic imperialism which is at hand, it cannot be fought based upon nations or megalithic boogeymen like Al-Qaeda.  Every situation and organization is different and must be approached as such. - The US should have learned this lesson with the Cold War.  The Communists were not all working together to take over the world, and treating every situation where a government wanted to become more "socialized" led to countless problems, unnecessary deaths.  And it shouldn't be ignored that most of the "communist" countries today exist where the US opposed communism the most heavily, e.g. North Korea, Vietnam, China, and Cuba(although the last two were mostly support not direct action).


Quote from: "SteveS"I think a more fair comparison would be Adam Curtis vs. Rush Limbaugh or some other ridiculously partisan source.

My problem is that I can't really trust partisan sources. They tend to be so transparently biased that I find a hard time drawing anything meaningful from their commentary. Whether it appears in a documentary film or not.
A. What's the difference between Bush and Limbaugh?
B. Have you seen it?  If yes then I'll accept your criticism.  If not, then watch it(it's long) and make up your own mind.
C. Show me a true "bipartisan/non-partisan" source that proves Al-Qaeda exists in a way approximating the Bush Administrations contention.
C-2. What is a non-partisan/bipartisan source?
D.You already agree that Al-Qaeda doesn't exist as the boogeyman it's portrayed as making your opinion nearer to Curtis than you may know(unless you've seen the doc already)


Quote from: "SteveS"2 in 1993
1 in 1994
1 in 1999
1 in 2001
I'd say that's 2 attacks and 3 plots, one of which morphed into the 9/11 attacks. So, that's a roughly 50% success rate.  There was also two bomb attacks by non-muslim extremists in that time period: the Ok. City Bombing and the Atlanta Olympics bombing.  Al-Qaeda is no more dangerous than any other group, or person, determined to carry out an attack.  How has the War in Iraq affected "domestic" terrorists?


If, as you've decided to say, Al-Qaeda isn't as dangerous as any thing else, and the efforts against terrorism have been effective as you also contend, then how can you say that Al-Qaeda is still a clear and present danger?

To me, if the anti-terror efforts have been effective, and taking into account the 50% success rate of Al-Qaeda in the US, and their propensity for attacks in the "muslim world" it seems fairly clear that Al-Qaeda is not a clear and present danger to the US in the US. This supports no. 5 above.  

We are going about the War on Terror in completely the wrong way.  Any success in Afghanistan was erased by Iraq.  The War on Drugs also stops a lot of cocaine from coming into the US.  Some people would call that effective, I wouldn't.  What both these "wars" don't do is proactively reduce the causes for terrorism or drug use/cultivation.  If we are going to continue to fight the War on Terror the way we are, we will lose the same as the War on Drugs was lost.  Although, the War on Drugs was a mistake in the first place, unlike the War on Terror, it could have had success if fought correctly.  A lot of the same people were responsible for waging both "wars", so take that for what it's worth.


Quote from: "SteveS"Indeed - and people died of the flu before anyone heard of a virus.
This has nothing to do with anything, unless you want to continue using Al-Qeada as synonymous with terrorism.  And, since you are no longer using Al-Qaeda as a synonym with terrorism, what's your point?



Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"not that Muslim terrorist organizations are not a threat to the world and also not that a terrorist is morally equivalent to a soldier..
Once again, I never said terrorists weren't dangerous, only that Al-Qaeda isn't as dangerous as its made out to be, and that terrorist organizations aren't as much of a threat to the US in the US as imagined.  And I use the "US in the US" because, unfortunately, that's what the War on Terror is about; making the USA safe from terrorism.  Helping the rest of the world is secondary to protecting American interests.  Saving the world only happens when there are American intersests at stake, or enough public outcry where there are no American interests.

Warfare is not a moral act.  You fight with whatever tactics serve you best(as I've said before).  It is more advantageous for the US armed forces to be selective in their use of lethal force, both for morale(of troops and citizens) and to accomplish the "mission" they were assigned.  The terrorists are using a different set of tactics to accomplish their "mission".  

You may support one side or the other, but chances are both sides will use "immoral/amoral" acts to win. e.g. torture.  Morality has nothing to do with war, but you at least hope there are applied ethics involved, i.e. no torture.


And since we've used the words Al-Qaeda and terrorism so much in this thread, let me be the first to say G.W. Bush for Emperor.
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

bitter_sweet_symphony

#32
QuoteOnce again, I never said terrorists weren't dangerous, only that Al-Qaeda isn't as dangerous as its made out to be, and that terrorist organizations aren't as much of a threat to the US in the US as imagined. And I use the "US in the US" because, unfortunately, that's what the War on Terror is about; making the USA safe from terrorism. Helping the rest of the world is secondary to protecting American interests. Saving the world only happens when there are American intersests at stake, or enough public outcry where there are no American interests.

I partially agree with you here. I have always maintained that the Iraq war was absolutely unnecessary in safeguarding American interests and the only end it achieved was destabilizing a country. But I don't think this has much bearing on the topic is terrorists are morally equivalent to a soldier.

Secondly, since we are speaking about the "mission" of terrorists, let me point out that most unfortunately the "mission" of terrorists isn't just ending Western occupation in Palestine or Kashmir. It is the establishment of a state according to their interpretation of Shariat where all kinds of human right abuses take place. So it isn't just killing civilians, but many other factors too because of which I feel that terrorists with a religious agenda are the worst people on this earth.

Quote3. You might think the Islamic Golden age a myth, but advances made by Arab/Muslim scholars to the Greco-Roman tradition were transferred back to the "West" because of religious freedom in Muslim controlled Spain.

Religious freedom doesn't have much to do with the advancement of chemistry or medicine because nothing in Chemistry or Medicine contradicted the Quran in any way. I suggest you look up a few stuff about the status of the "people of the book" that is, the Xtians and Jews in an Islamic state and the rights of a dhimmi during the "Golden Age of Islam". The punishment for an apostate has always been death, unless he repents. I really can't see how you can credit the Islamic states with religious freedom.

Smarmy Of One

#33
QuoteCan you give me some reason for why you hold this opinion? The reason I ask is that the United States, as a nation, has some truly impressive weaponry --- and yet I don't see the nation employing these weapons in an "indiscriminate fashion". Perhaps we're going to argue over what a "perfect" weapon is,  .

Don't get me wrong, I think that ANY country would use this hypothetical 'perfect weapon' if they had it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In 1945 the atom bomb was close to what could be considered a perfect weapon at the time. A couple of pilots could bring an entire country to it's knees. The US used that weapon twice and both times on civilian targets.

So there is a history there.

There has very recently been discussion by various political pundits of tactical nuclear weapons being used in the middle east. I think the only thing that stops this is fear of repercussions. If the US was the only country in the world to have nuclear weapon technology, I have no doubt that they would use it. Again, I think this is true for any country.

Smarmy Of One

#34
QuoteLiberals are what makes Mann Coulter very wealthy. That's a lot, assholes!

The people buying her shit are the ones who are making her wealthy. And that IS a lot of assholes.

SteveS

#35
Hey Smarmy,

Quote from: "Smarmy Of One"Don't get me wrong, I think that ANY country would use this hypothetical 'perfect weapon' if they had it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
(and the rest that followed)

Fair enough, dude.  I catch your drift and take your meaning.

donkeyhoty - cheers on the excellent response - It'll take me a bit to answer.  I am, regrettably, mired in "real world" concerns (i.e. work) over this weekend.

donkeyhoty

#36
Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"I really can't see how you can credit the Islamic states with religious freedom.
I'm not crediting them all with "religious freedom", and freedom is probably the wrong word, "tolerance" is a better one.  Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and other "thinkers" gathered in the muslim world during the "golden age" with many examining ideas that could be considered "secular" e.g. Al-farabi and Averroes.  Also, plenty of things in science contradict religion, i.e. logic.  All that is needed to ignore it is compartmentalization.  

Also, I've heard of dhimmi and it is religious tolerance.  And, during the "golden age" it is a much more tolerant practive than any in Christian society of the same time period.  And, the real discrimination of dhimmi didn't start until the Crusades started, and forced conversions took place about as much as christian society.

I think the reason for lack of acceptance of the Islamic Golden Age is a, well-earned, prejudice due to the actions of Islamic societies since then.  In essence, Islamic societies have gone backwards in terms of "enlightenment" and the Christian West has gone forwards(although were idling in neutral at the moment).  Christianity expanded and persecuted "pagan" religions.  But, that does not mean the Renaissance didn't take place or wasn't important just as the "golden age" is not erased by the actions of Muslim theocracies of today.  "Golden Age" is a relative term anyway meaning it was the best it ever was under Muslim rule, which historically is correct.
"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."  - Pat Robertson

bitter_sweet_symphony

#37
QuoteI'm not crediting them all with "religious freedom", and freedom is probably the wrong word, "tolerance" is a better one. Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and other "thinkers" gathered in the muslim world during the "golden age" with many examining ideas that could be considered "secular" e.g. Al-farabi and Averroes. Also, plenty of things in science contradict religion, i.e. logic. All that is needed to ignore it is compartmentalization.
I don't believe that saying that "I won't kill you if you admit you are inferior to me", which is what an Islamic state demands of a Christian or a Jew, is religious tolerance. It isn't just about the jizya, but the various other restrictions placed on them.

And we haven't even discussed the rights of a person following a non-Abrahamic religion.

I do agree that Islamic society at that time was better than many other contemporary societies, but that doesn't mean much. Just like it doesn't matter much if Saddam was a better dictator than Hitler.

QuoteI think the reason for lack of acceptance of the Islamic Golden Age is a, well-earned, prejudice due to the actions of Islamic societies since then. In essence, Islamic societies have gone backwards in terms of "enlightenment" and the Christian West has gone forwards(although were idling in neutral at the moment). Christianity expanded and persecuted "pagan" religions. But, that does not mean the Renaissance didn't take place or wasn't important just as the "golden age" is not erased by the actions of Muslim theocracies of today. "Golden Age" is a relative term anyway meaning it was the best it ever was under Muslim rule, which historically is correct.

Perhaps, but it isn't the case with me. It isn't that I don't accept the existence of the Islamic Golden Age. I just disagree that there was religious tolerance.


Peace.

SteveS

#38
Hey donkeyhoty, I've had a chance to digest your last response to me.  There is a lot I agree with, but some I disagree with.

About the 5 points:

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"1.Al-Qaeda as an "umbrella" organization doesn't exist in the way many people say it does. Does it exist? Yes, but it's no more dangerous than Hezbollah or Abu Sayyaf, and probably much less so than those two. When fighting terrorism there is no singular organization and to assume so hamstrings the entire fight.
You agree that Al Qaeda exists, but draw objection to the exact definition.  My point was that I agree that Al Qaeda is not a vast network of 1000's of sleeper cells with organized trained troops etc.  For example, when the news says that US planes bombed an encamped of "Al Qaeda troops", I find this hard to believe.  I don't think of Al Qaeda as having "troops".  Also, I think any so-called "insurgents" in Iraq are being lumped under the Al Qaeda umbrella, which also seems clearly wrong to me.

However Al Qaeda exists, though, it seems reasonable to me that they were instrumental in carrying out several terrorists actions over the past decade, and some of these were definitely on US soil.  Does Al Qaeda still represent a clear and present danger to the US in the US?  Maybe no longer to the same extent as they did.  But, I believe that they most certainly did, as evidenced by history.  So - if this has changed, why?  I have to accept that some of the actions of the war on terror have had an effect.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"2. The War in Iraq has done more to perpetuate muslim extremism than OBL ever did.
And yet, before the war in Iraq there were streets full of happy people shouting (or whatever that tongue-waggling thing is :wink: ) after the 9/11 attack.  And OBL seems to enjoy near folk-hero status in nations like Saudi Arabia.  While I certainly don't doubt that the war in Iraq has engendered animosity against the US, I think saying this war has done more than OBL is at best inconclusive, at worst exaggerated.  On the other hand, I don't know how much OBL "did" to "perpetuate muslim extremism" depending on how we read this.  I think a lot of extremism existed - perhaps OBL just gave it some practical application.  In which case he surely has done a damaging thing - he's inspired the extremists to believe that they can be successful - that they can kill Americans effectively with terror tactics.  So - did he "perpetuate muslim extremism" or just "encourage" it?  I guess I don't really know.  

Getting back to the "moral equivalence" point of this thread, I think it is foolish to view men such as OBL as anything other than tremendous threats.  Keep in mind that when the terrorists blow things up they don't really ask what your politics or religion are - they kill everyone within the blast radius.  How can this tactic be viewed as anything other than morally and/or ethically atrocious?  Surely none of us are ever going to agree on everything.  We can either find peaceful means of co-existing or working out our differences, or we can blow each other up until only one ideology remains.  I can't speak strongly enough against the terror tactics as moral outrages that endanger all civilized nations.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"3. You might think the Islamic Golden age a myth, but advances made by Arab/Muslim scholars to the Greco-Roman tradition were transferred back to the "West" because of religious freedom in Muslim controlled Spain.
Meh.  Sorry - I don't really care about this one.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"4. The War on Terror has been a complete failure because of its mismanagement. There could have been advances made in Afghanistan, but the Bush Admin. decided to fight a war in a country with little, or nothing, to do with terrorists and 9/11.
Agree and disagree.  I don't think the war on Terror has been a complete failure.  I think there was early success if Afghanistan, and I think the prevention of further mass murder plots speaks to the effectiveness of heightened awareness and proper respect of the threat of terrorism.

I agree that the connection between terrorism and the political leadership of Iraq (i.e. Saddam Hussein) was either very weak or non-existent, and that invading Iraq to combat terrorism seems absurd.  Whatever the "real" reason for invading Iraq, it seems clear that the invasion was not conducted in accord with the stated reasons, and cannot possibly have a level of effect against terrorism to justify the tremendous consequences of the action.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"5. If there is to be a War on Terror, and not the attempt at economic imperialism which is at hand, it cannot be fought based upon nations or megalithic boogeymen like Al-Qaeda. Every situation and organization is different and must be approached as such. - The US should have learned this lesson with the Cold War. The Communists were not all working together to take over the world, and treating every situation where a government wanted to become more "socialized" led to countless problems, unnecessary deaths. And it shouldn't be ignored that most of the "communist" countries today exist where the US opposed communism the most heavily, e.g. North Korea, Vietnam, China, and Cuba(although the last two were mostly support not direct action).
I agree with the bulk of this block.  There are excellent points in here, and I take them to heart.  

I don't know how to feel about the accusation of "economic imperialism".  Certainly it doesn't help to have the Halliburton corporation so heavily involved in the Iraqi oil fields.  This seems either shameful or idiotic to me.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"A. What's the difference between Bush and Limbaugh?
B. Have you seen it? If yes then I'll accept your criticism. If not, then watch it(it's long) and make up your own mind.
C. Show me a true "bipartisan/non-partisan" source that proves Al-Qaeda exists in a way approximating the Bush Administrations contention.
C-2. What is a non-partisan/bipartisan source?
D.You already agree that Al-Qaeda doesn't exist as the boogeyman it's portrayed as making your opinion nearer to Curtis than you may know(unless you've seen the doc already)
The difference between Bush and Limbaugh is the same as between somebody like James Carville and Pres. Clinton.

The president has to make his case to the public (and world) at large.  If there are problems with what he says the opposition will be sure to call him out.

People like Limbaugh and Carville are primarily addressing people who are already biased.  They can say whatever these people want to hear without fear of assertive scrutiny.  The other side will bash them, but they'd bash them anyway, so they simply write the criticism off as biased criticism!  I find this entire process ridiculous.

The popular press has categorized this film as partisan film making and have drawn comparisons between it and the work of Michael Moore (although it appears the film maker is highly annoyed by this).  There has been strong critical reaction debunking the claims.  And, my problem with all these conspiracy-theory-type films is that they don't seem to obey rational sense - if a strong and compelling case, that stands to scrutiny and critical analysis, can be made that Al Qaeda either doesn't exist or isn't dangerous, then why isn't the powerful and well-funded political opposition to the Bush administration (i.e. the Democrats) using these facts to shred him?  Why is it coming from a documentary film maker?

I don't have any stronger desire to watch these films than I have a desire to read a book written by Bill O'Reilly.

I find the findings of the so-called 9/11 Commission far more credible.  For one, the Reps accused the Dems of exaggerating the mistakes made by the Bush administration while downplaying the mistakes made by the Clinton administration.  The Dems level the exact opposite charge.  Nobody really denied the mistakes were real.  If the commission was set-up to be biased by Bush, why so many accusations of lack of cooperation between the White House and the commission?  Why the hanky-panky over the White House withholding information?  Why would they do that if they had stacked the commission?  I find this sort of "controversy" normal and healthy, and far more likely to belie truth somewhere at the bottom of it all.

If you want to level the criticism that I haven't seen the film and therefore can't offer up any meaningful opinion - then I'll just have to accept that.

I would observe that this is not the first charge of this kind to be leveled - Michael Crichton and John Stossel argue that global warming isn't real, and that the environmental movement is either making the whole thing up or vastly exaggerating it for the same reason - control and power through fear.  

And no, I don't have any desire to attend one of their lectures either.  I find this idea just as ridiculous as the idea that Al Qaeda is nothing but a neo-con fantasy.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"I'd say that's 2 attacks and 3 plots, one of which morphed into the 9/11 attacks. So, that's a roughly 50% success rate. There was also two bomb attacks by non-muslim extremists in that time period: the Ok. City Bombing and the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Al-Qaeda is no more dangerous than any other group, or person, determined to carry out an attack. How has the War in Iraq affected "domestic" terrorists?
Who ever suggested the war in Iraq would have an effect on domestic terrorism?  I don't mean any offense, but why would you expect me to argue that point?  I have no desire to do so.  Nor do I believe the war in Iraq would have any effect on domestic terrorism (sort of goes without saying - but I felt it best to be clear  :wink:  ).  Nor do I believe the war in Iraq has been particularly effective at combating/preventing terrorist attacks.  There is a difference, is there not, between the war on Terror at large and the invasion of Iraq?

I agree that "terrorism" and "Al Qaeda" are not synonymous.  Do you agree that the "war on Terror" and the "war in Iraq" are not synonymous?

Back to it, I think there are surely other dangerous groups besides Al Qaeda, and the ultimate danger is the source thinking that creates these sorts of actions (I'm not at all sure how to combat that  :wink:  ).  However, I think that there are credible ties between Al Qaeda and both attempted and successful attacks on US soil.  I think this demonstrates that they were a large danger - are they still?  I can't believe they've been destroyed, particularly given the continuance of attacks in other nations.  But, if they're less of a risk now, surely forgetting about them and calling them vanquished, even denying that they are a threat, is a tragic mistake?

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"We are going about the War on Terror in completely the wrong way. Any success in Afghanistan was erased by Iraq. The War on Drugs also stops a lot of cocaine from coming into the US. Some people would call that effective, I wouldn't. What both these "wars" don't do is proactively reduce the causes for terrorism or drug use/cultivation. If we are going to continue to fight the War on Terror the way we are, we will lose the same as the War on Drugs was lost. Although, the War on Drugs was a mistake in the first place, unlike the War on Terror, it could have had success if fought correctly. A lot of the same people were responsible for waging both "wars", so take that for what it's worth.
I don't think the success in Afghanistan is totally "erased" by Iraq.  I don't think Iraq was a good idea, and I don't see it as helpful.  But I think some of the efforts in the war on Terror have been solid.  For example, I find it unlikely that US government officials will write off identified threats in the manner they did before 9/11.  I think other nations are the same.  I think the awareness of the world's nations, and the cooperation of intelligence and law enforcement to stop attacks, is a strong positive and is having the most useful impact.

The war on Drugs was a bust.  You know my feeling on drugs from our discussion on the Illegal Drugs thread.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"This has nothing to do with anything, unless you want to continue using Al-Qeada as synonymous with terrorism. And, since you are no longer using Al-Qaeda as a synonym with terrorism, what's your point?
My point was trying to humorously illustrate that just because nobody heard of the group before an action later linked to them doesn't mean that the group doesn't exist.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Once again, I never said terrorists weren't dangerous, only that Al-Qaeda isn't as dangerous as its made out to be, and that terrorist organizations aren't as much of a threat to the US in the US as imagined. And I use the "US in the US" because, unfortunately, that's what the War on Terror is about; making the USA safe from terrorism. Helping the rest of the world is secondary to protecting American interests. Saving the world only happens when there are American intersests at stake, or enough public outcry where there are no American interests.
The reason I believe in the threat of Al Qaeda is because I believe the link between the organization and some of the terrorist attacks that have occurred in the US and abroad is real.

If our interest is preventing terrorist attacks from gaining success, even though there are many terrorist groups, I don't understand how denying their existence is going to help.

For example, earlier you cited Hezbollah and Abu Sayyaf - although a clear and directed link may not exist between these groups and attacks that have occurred in the US, I think it would be equally foolish to proclaim them non-dangerous on the grounds that they have yet to accomplish any major attacks against the "US in the US".

One final blurb that goes back to the thread topic in a more direct fashion,

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"Warfare is not a moral act. You fight with whatever tactics serve you best(as I've said before). It is more advantageous for the US armed forces to be selective in their use of lethal force, both for morale(of troops and citizens) and to accomplish the "mission" they were assigned. The terrorists are using a different set of tactics to accomplish their "mission".

You may support one side or the other, but chances are both sides will use "immoral/amoral" acts to win. e.g. torture. Morality has nothing to do with war, but you at least hope there are applied ethics involved, i.e. no torture.
Citing warfare as amoral, and then proclaiming moral equivalence to all the actions that occur under the umbrella of "warfare", is not something I agree with.

I think the attempted military conquest of Europe by the Nazi government in Germany (i.e. WWII) was morally and ethically wrong.  I do not, however, find a moral equivalence between the actions of a solider in the Wehrmacht and an SS officer at Auschwitz.

Flip this around and the point stands equally well - I think it was morally justifiable for the United States to defend itself from the Empire of Japan  after the attack at Pearl Harbor.  However, I do not find a moral equivalence to an American sailor fighting in the navy and an American government official rounding up Japanese civilians into concentration camps.

Quote from: "donkeyhoty"And since we've used the words Al-Qaeda and terrorism so much in this thread, let me be the first to say G.W. Bush for Emperor.
Dude!  Admitting Al Qaeda exists and is dangerous is equivalent to blind support of G.W. Bush?  Admitting terrorism exists and should be combated is equivalent to supporting an authoritarian government?

Chris Johnston

#39
Quote from: "bitter_sweet_symphony"
QuoteI was actually thinking of the 700s more so than the 7th century, where the Muslims were still conquering for no other reason than they thought they should like the US is doing today. But, they actually cared about science and knowledge and education, and a somewhat limited religious freedom that enabled the spread of knowledge to reach Western Europe.

I beg to differ. They cared for science and education as long as it did not contradict the Islamic beliefs. Would they have allowed anyone to teach the theory of evolution in an Islamic state? I am no fan of the Bush administration, but I don't think it can even be compared to any Islamic state.


QuoteIf you consider both sides to be wrong then the actions are morally equivalent. You can lay the blame on George Bush and not the soldiers, but you still see the actions as wrong.

I beg to differ again. Two things which are both wrong need not be morally equivalent. The common civilians of Baghdad or Kabul are not the primary target of the US army. But the common civilians of London and New York are the primary target of the terrorists. IMHO, killing an unarmed civilian is  morally worse than killing an enemy combatant, even if the cause of the war is wrong.

Also IMHO, Muslim terrorists choose their way of life (or death) mainly because of their religion. There are people in all parts of world who have been through worse oppression, but very few have taken up violence in this scale. Cases in point, Jews during the Holocaust, Kashmiri Hindus in Kashmir among others.

These are good thoughts. It wasn't just that science and mathematics didn't contradict their evil book, it's that their religion left them no arts except geometric ones. No representation of a living thing leaves very little but a compass and a straight-edge.

Also, with regards to unarmed civilians. In some cases, the unarmed "civilians" are operating as willing human shields and abettors to those who want to kill Israeli or American children and the aged. In this case those people have forfeited their "civilian" status and even though they should be legitimate targets, the United States puts its own citizen-soldiers at risk by going out of its way to avoid collateral casualties.

Compare that moral stance to blowing up a bus full of babies, old folks, women, etc. Hmmm. Equivalent?

You'd have to have a warped sense of right and wrong to think so.

If we were oppressed, who do you think Americans would fight? Do you think we'd try to murder kids? If you do, you need your head examined.