Ah, I thought Francy was trying to pull a Constitution. :D
Printable View
Ah, I thought Francy was trying to pull a Constitution. :D
And what's that supposed to mean... uh... guy from... Finland?
They're not freedom fighters. The US wasn't invading them. The Al Qaeda are not evil, now, and I believe that's how the US often portrays them. They don't have reason, they're just attacking because they're evil. End of story. Of course that's bull, they have their reasons. No one acts without reason, even if it is one we consider insane. Understanding that reason instead of just acting with violence would end this better, I think.
However, the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists or whatever asinine policy they've adopted, so that's unlikely. "We don't talk to try to talk to people who use violence, we just invade their country and use violence." Yeah, that's a GREAT policy. Not at all hypocrisy.
Not that the Al Qaeda don't have twisted policies. I really can't think of any that aren't. They may be extremists, but they're not insane. Frenzied, and psychotic, yes.
I think with political matters like this it's imperitive to do some talking. You can't kill all of the Al Qaeda, or people who think like them, and as long as they live, they'll continue to hate the US, and probably keep trying to attack them. Better would be to attempt discussions, and keep attempting them. With guns as back up. I'm not a complete pacifist, but as long as that group, culture, whatever continues to teach people that the US is wrong, terrorism will continue. Forcing a society to change is not the way to go about it. It just makes people angry.
My soapbox is getting so much use lately.
If a serial killer mowed down tons of people because God told him too, and then wanted to come after you and your family, would you try to sit down and reason with him or fight back?Quote:
Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
However, the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists or whatever asinine policy they've adopted, so that's unlikely. "We don't talk to try to talk to people who use violence, we just invade their country and use violence." Yeah, that's a GREAT policy. Not at all hypocrisy.
Terrorists are the serial killers and we aren't going to let them push us around. I'm pretty disgusted with the sympathy some of you show for terrorists.
The Al Qaeda are not evil, now, and I believe that's how the US often portrays them. They don't have reason, they're just attacking because they're evil. End of story. Of course that's bull, they have their reasons. No one acts without reason, even if it is one we consider insane. Understanding that reason instead of just acting with violence would end this better, I think. --Emerald Aeris
Everyone has reasons for what they do. I doubt anyone would argue that terrorists aren't after something. Question is, whether their reasons justify murdering people. (Answer, is no.)
"We don't talk to try to talk to people who use violence, we just invade their country and use violence." Yeah, that's a GREAT policy. Not at all hypocrisy.
So you would prefer that only the terrorists use violence? Since the terrorists aren't "evil", and "have their reasons", after all, as you say; terrorists are apparently justified in using force, according to yourself, since it's not "evil" of them to do so. And yet the people who fight terrorists, though they also have their reasons (namely, wanting not to be exploded by terrorists), aren't justified in using force to stop force from being used against themselves, or against innocent people in their own countries.
Your views aren't at all consistent.
"Question is, whether their reasons justify murdering people. (Answer, is no.)"
Did I say they were justifed? My point was that they're not just evil, and are people with reasons for doing things, not that those things were right. Evil, I think, in this context summons up fantastic images, as I'll explain later. I think what they did was wrong, definitely, but not evil. I suppose my use of the word evil was misplaced, since it can also mean simply a bad thing. I'll explain this a bit later.
"So you would prefer that only the terrorists use violence? Since the terrorists aren't "evil", and "have their reasons", after all, as you say; terrorists are apparently justified in using force, according to yourself, since it's not "evil" of them to do so. And yet the people who fight terrorists, though they also have their reasons (namely, wanting not to be exploded by terrorists), aren't justified in using force to stop force from being used against themselves, or against innocent people in their own countries."
I didn't say that only terrorists should use violence. It just seems rather hypocritical of the US to say that the terrorists shouldn't use violence to implement change, and then use violence to implement change themselves. Also, did you not read this part of my post? " Better would be to attempt discussions, and keep attempting them. With guns as back up. I'm not a complete pacifist"
Fighting back, and defending yourself is necessary, of course, but I don't think it's wise to only fight, and actually make it a policy to not attempt any sort of peaceful discussion at all. I didn't say that terrorists are justified anywhere.
I'm being misunderstood, so I'll clarify. My point there was that they aren't "just evil". The media tends to portray them as evil villains, like in a video game. No feelings, no morals, no reason for killing people, they're just evil! So it's ok to kill them. I've heard people who feel frighteningly close to that about it. This isn't a game, they aren't evil. They have families. They were raised to be like that. They know no other way of living. War means taking thousands of human lives! And you won't even consider talking to them? That is just as disgusting as them. They're misguided, ignorant and crazed from a lifetime of religious propaganda. What's the State's excuse?
I'm not saying the US should've done nothing. They are justified in hunting down Osama, and arresting all who are responsible. But going on a mass terrorist hunt isn't going to stop them. Violence first is just a waste of human life. War should always be the very last option, in this situation, it was the first. Do you even know why they attacked the two towers?
And Talus, the reason it's different from serial killers is because serial killers ARE insane. Serial killers aren't thousands and thousands of people, they aren't political, they don't have the support of other countries. This is not a private matter. It's political, and global, which makes it very different from a serial killer. It's vastly not as simple as arresting a serial killer. If discussions worked, lives of American soldiers, innocent lives, and terrorists could be saved. Why isn't that worth trying persistantly? Why do we just give up because they killed people? Is fighting and killing them going to bring those people back, or stop them from killing more people before they die?
Everything happens for a reason; reason is NOT the same as justification, though I'm getting tired of repeating that in every thread on these topics. [q=Talus]I'm pretty disgusted with the sympathy some of you show for terrorists.[/q]Ronald Reagan supported Central American terrorists who murdered innocents; many citizens of the US and elsewhere backed the Vietnam war in spite of the hideous atrocities commited by foreigners fighting in that conflict. I guess they're all evil, too:p
Lots of people have very serious issues with American foreign policy, and the US's willingness to use violence to enforce its views and interests within other nations. The attitude that "I am right in all things, it is my place to decide what is acceptable and what is not" is making a lot of people very afraid for their independence, even their lives. Extremists repond to this fear or perceived threat with extreme, unreasoning and intolerable acts of violence. More... sane people react by voicing their fears and criticisms. However, those fears and criticisms are similar to the fears and criticisms possessed by the terrorists, thus making it easier to shriek "OMG terrorist sympathiser" whenever someone disagrees with the 'dominant culture'.
Edit: Typos.
I think what they did was wrong, definitely, but not evil. --Emerald Aeris
This is the only definition of evil that I know. So yeah, I misunderstood.
I don't think the terrorists are JUST evil. I don't think they're mindless animals or something. I don't think they're completely devoid of all humanity. I do think that they hold certain beliefs which ARE evil, and that those beliefs are evil enough to invalidate everything else. Maybe Osama loves his mom and kisses her good-night every night. Maybe he has kids and buys them presents all the time. Those things just don't matter when held up against the fact that he kills innocent people for a reason which isn't justifiable to anyone but himself. I think it's completely pointless to even look at for good qualities. His good qualities don't matter because his bad qualities are so bad.
Violence first is just a waste of human life. War should always be the very last option, in this situation, it was the first.
They attacked us first. Did we go ram a plane into Afghanistan before 9/11? No we didn't. Did we do something to make them mad? Maybe. Very likely we did, in fact. Did we do anything to make them mad enough that it's justified to kill innocent people in our country? I certainly don't think so.
You yourself say that violence should be a LAST resort. That's a nice rule to follow. However, the terrorists didn't attempt to communicate with us. They just killed people. So they've refused to play by your rules; now what? Should we continue to play by your rules of non-violence, while they happily continue to murder office buildings full of people? Should we bend over backwards trying to spare the poor terrorists, while they've already proven with their actions that they won't do the same in return?
I, for one, don't think I have a duty to reason with someone when they have a gun to my head. I don't think I have a duty to sacrifice my well-being and possibly my own life just for the possibility of saving the life of someone who's proven himself a killer. I don't think the life of the person who initiated violence is any longer worth as much as the life of the person who has had violence initiated against himself.
Do you even know why they attacked the two towers?
This kind of question makes it seem like you think it's possible that their reasons are justifiable. There is no justification for an initiation of violence. I will agree with you; violence is justifiable only in retaliation to violence. And because there is no justification for uninitiated violence, and because they've opted to use such violence, who cares what their reasons are? Maybe their reasons are really great. Maybe they want to defeat America so they can take our wealth and build hospitals and buy everyone puppies. It doen't matter. Their reasons are invalidated by their actions.
Is fighting and killing them going to bring those people back, or stop them from killing more people before they die?
Yes, it's going to stop them. Anything less, and you're relying on the good nature of the murderers. Why should we take the chance? Why should we gamble with innocent lives, to spare the lives of murderers?
"Those things just don't matter when held up against the fact that he kills innocent people for a reason which isn't justifiable to anyone but himself. I think it's completely pointless to even look at for good qualities. His good qualities don't matter because his bad qualities are so bad."
Again, I wasn't justifying their actions, nor saying you thought that, but that's how the media portrays him. As if it's ok to kill people who are "evil" without a trial.
"They attacked us first. Did we go ram a plane into Afghanistan before 9/11? No we didn't. Did we do something to make them mad? Maybe. Very likely we did, in fact. Did we do anything to make them mad enough that it's justified to kill innocent people in our country? I certainly don't think so."
No, the US definitely didn't deserve the attack, but I think it's important to understand why they would do such an awful thing. Maybe there's something about your country that needs addressing, maybe there's something about theirs? Who knows. An eye for an eye is not a good way to run a country. Like I said, peace talks should be combined with defense, and bringing the guilty party to justice.
"You yourself say that violence should be a LAST resort. That's a nice rule to follow. However, the terrorists didn't attempt to communicate with us."
Two wrongs make a right?
"Should we continue to play by your rules of non-violence, while they happily continue to murder office buildings full of people?"
I didn't say complete non-violence anywhere.
"I, for one, don't think I have a duty to reason with someone when they have a gun to my head. I don't think I have a duty to sacrifice my well-being and possibly my own life just for the possibility of saving the life of someone who's proven himself a killer."
That works if you're talking about one person, but we're not. It's the same with the serial killer analogy. No, you're right that you don't have a duty, but it's not that simple. Can you say for sure who's holding the gun? Can you justify killing innocent people because you're pretty sure they have the gun, or even because they say they do?
"I don't think the life of the person who initiated violence is any longer worth as much as the life of the person who has had violence initiated against himself."
You have a point.
"This kind of question makes it seem like you think it's possible that their reasons are justifiable."
No, I think it's important to understand why people do things that horrible. It will stop them from happening again.
"Their reasons are invalidated by their actions."
A mentally disabled child kills a man. Who cares why or who? Kill the kid. Obviously this is extreme, but you've said yourself that the best way to test logic is to take it to the extreme. Reasons ALWAYS matter. Although yes, none of their reasons are good enough to kill people, but are they good enough to get angry over? I've heard people speak of economic problems coming from the US being one of many reasons they hate them. Now, please don't argue the validity, 'cause I'm really not sure. So hypothetically speaking let's say that's the reason. It's not a valid reason to kill people, of course, but if the US was responsible for economic strife, isn't that something that should be addressed?
"Yes, it's going to stop them. Anything less, and you're relying on the good nature of the murderers. Why should we take the chance? Why should we gamble with innocent lives, to spare the lives of murderers?"
Is it going to stop the people there from raising more terrorists? Should we just kill them, and kill their children eventually too? And keep killing everyone who comes at us without thinking that maybe there's a problem here that needs to be solved with something other than killing? It's a vicious circle. Don't you see that?
I'm not relying on the good nature of murderers. I'm not saying invite Osama to the whitehouse for tea. Messages could be sent, SOME sort of negotiation, something.
No where did I say that the US shouldn't be hunting the terrorists. In fact I said they should, so I don't know why you keep acting as if I've said that. I suppose that could be derived from where I said that violence should be the last option, but it's hard to explain. There's a difference between defending yourself, but also trying to make peace, and what the US is doing. The US doesn't seem to want peace, they just want them dead. The "no negotiating" policy exudes that.
Terrorism is evil. Terrorism is defined by deliberately attacking innocent civillians in an attempt to instill terror in the populace. How could that not be evil?
That's not what terrorism is. Terrorism is "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.", from dictionary.com.
This is just what I mean. Terrorism has become only associated with evil, bomb wielding, baby killing criminals. With the above definition, even Green Peace can be considered terrorists.
I believe this follows the "He started it!" way of thinking.Quote:
I didn't say that only terrorists should use violence. It just seems rather hypocritical of the US to say that the terrorists shouldn't use violence to implement change, and then use violence to implement change themselves.
It's pretty obvious that foreign relations in the 21st century require a more nuanced understanding of the world than the "hit me and I'll hit you back" policy we seem to have in the US these days. Then again, the intelligence people in the outgoing Clinton administration warned the incoming Bush administration that they needed to watch out for Al Qeada and impending attacks from them. The Bush administration said "um, no" and decided Saddam Hussein was a much more important target, so that gives you an idea of how much of a grasp our policymakers have of the world these days.
Well, we are hitting back, but that's not all we're doing. We're also improving things over there so that they don't feel the need to hit us any more.
Emerald Aeris: that definition is exactly what I said terrorism is, just in different words. And dictionary.com is always the end-all source for knowledge in the known universe.
I agree that rebuilding and fixing Iraq/Afghanistan/etc is good, but there is also the problem that the whole attitude of "let us come in and fix your problems/show you the way" is very insulting to many people of the world. Now granted, the fallen pride that Islam feels and it's unhappiness at the lack of prominence of Islam compared to Christianity and the West is something that these people will have to come to terms with, but you do need to recognize that we aren't going to be seen as saviors and embraced wholeheartedly.