|
Arafat's dead (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Durafei |
| quote: | | When you put a bullet in the head of someone who was in the process of lobbing a live grenade at you, that is NOT terrorism |
I do not doubt for a second that many American soldiers have killed innocent civilians, if not out of enjoyment, but simply because it was the easiest thing to do at the moment.
Scenario: Innocent civilian is running away and it *appears* that he is hostile. What's the easiest option? To shoot the mother&*(er !
While this may not be terrorism(using the precise definition of the term), this isn't the right behaviour either, since you really haven't given that guy a chance - you just killed him. I obviously don't have any statistics, but I wouldn't be surprised if that kind of thing happens quite often in Iraq. |
|
|
| drewfactor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
and the vast majority of the KKK are christian.. whats your point?
maybe your just so used to seeing everything politically corrupt and thats why your moral views are different than mine.
then again i havent had the opportunity to ride a bike through afganistan |
That is my point! Think about it. When a culture (whether it's fundamentalist Christianity or Islam) embraces dogma instead of reason, imposes authoritarianism, and doesn't allow for individual freedom, the results are things like the KKK and terrorism. (KKK could probably be defined as a form of terrorism).
For the sake of trying to understand your argument, I think you're trying to accuse me of the logical fallacy: Affirming the Consequent. If A then B, B therefore A. In other words: Most Terrorists are Muslim, therefore most Muslims are terrorists. THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM SAYING.
However, working from abstractions and observing patterns, looking at generalizations and trying to reason based on those facts does not warrant the severe condemnation.
For instance, terrorists are mostly muslim and although it's not a simple correlation being causation, it does warrant an investigation on why most terrorists are muslim. That is not racist. That is called using thought. In fact, it means thinking outside of the politically correct, multicultralist, and relativistic mindset in which all values are abandoned. |
|
|
| drewfactor |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
Your definition of terrorist is so specifically moulded by those who want you to beleive that there is only one type. Terrorists can wear suits and sit in the oval office, or live in a cave and pray to allah.
Get it?
ANd i do not have anything against Jews or americans. My cousins are americans, and I have many jewish friends (i went to film school and worked in Thornhill!!!) |
Here we go again with all this conspiratorial stuff about being "moulded" as if I can't think for myself. Perhaps you don't believe that individuals are capable of independent thought and everyone is just "moulded" by their culture and media. I don't doubt that it is possible for people to be influenced by their surroundings, but I don't believe that it negates an individuals ability for independant thought.
And if you subscribe to all that "social constructionist" hoopla, then you are essentially negating the validity of your own opinions because everything you say is a product of your "moulding." |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by drewfactor
However, working from abstractions and observing patterns, looking at generalizations and trying to reason based on those facts does not warrant the severe condemnation.
|
the way you portray your generalizations indeed does
look for example how a nation such as ammerica is driven by fear and lies.. moulding at its best
would you not consider that a form of terrorism? the act of using fear as a political weapon?
the US spends billions of dollars on weapons of mass distruction every year.. im sure they would also know scare tactics on its own people as an excuse to implement its weapons..
war is a good and corrupt business.. lots of money to be made from both sides.. you seem to turn a blind eye on the US.. but tehy are the ones financing hte problem and instigating it
when you start to use generalizations and labels.. thats when it becomes ok to target people as masses.. your saying im being too politicallyl correct.. im saying your being medival in your resolutions. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Durafei
I do not doubt for a second that many American soldiers have killed innocent civilians, if not out of enjoyment, but simply because it was the easiest thing to do at the moment.
Scenario: Innocent civilian is running away and it *appears* that he is hostile. What's the easiest option? To shoot the mother&*(er !
While this may not be terrorism(using the precise definition of the term), this isn't the right behaviour either, since you really haven't given that guy a chance - you just killed him. I obviously don't have any statistics, but I wouldn't be surprised if that kind of thing happens quite often in Iraq. |
Indeed, the death of innocents is never the "right" thing. The three most important things that need to be taken into account are:
1 - The motivation. Was it accidental or intentional? Was it premeditated, or in the heat of the moment? Was the killer in a panic situation? And most importantly of all, was it an isolated incident (or a handful of isolated incidents) or was it well-planned under the blanket of some greater ideology?
2 - The intended victims. This is not the same as the actual victims. If police have a sniper trained on someone who is holding a hostage, who spins around just before the sniper fires and as a result the hostage gets killed, the sniper's "killing of an innocent" goes under a MARKEDLY different category from the hostage-taker who deliberately kills those hostages to make a political statement or personal demands. Was the "target" partly responsible for inciting the violence, or did he/she truly have no stake whatsoever in the situation?
3 - The law of diminishing returns. For example, if a guerilla is planning an attack that will take down 500 innocent people, and the only way to stop him is to bomb the crap out of his bunker and take maybe 50 innocents in the process, it may not be "right" to kill those 50 innocents, but neither would it be "right" to let those other 500 innocents die needlessly. Simply stated, there is no right answer, only the lesser of two evils. If we are to take it on principle that every human life is equally valuable (a philosophy quite often toted by the pacifists, ideologues, and defenders of terrorists), then by definition the most "correct" course of action is the one which leads to the least amount of lives being taken.
Often the ideologues and pacifists will ignore points 1 and 2, but I find that the vast majority of them have problems even grasping the concept behind #3. The law of diminishing returns applies to everyone and everything - if a group of American terrorists hijacked a nuclear warhead and were about to fire it into downtown Toronto at 9:00 AM on a Wednesday, most of us would consider it an "acceptable" loss if 5000 Americans in the terrorists' area had to be killed by a carpet bomb in order to stop 1 million innocent citizens in the downtown core from being wiped out. It is only when these casualties start to balance each other out (i.e. that you are causing as many deaths as you would be preventing) when the LDR kicks in and you need to rethink your strategy.
Many may enjoy claiming that terrorism has a vague definition, but in fact the whole point of the word is denote something that is black and white, something that is quite clearly ideologically based and evil in nature. People may attempt to blur the line by claiming "Hey, this [insert violent act here] isn't RIGHT either, I'd call that terrorism too!" - but use of the word "terrorist" is inappropriate when it becomes open to interpretation, and is usually a deliberate misuse of the word in a tricky attempt to gain a more solid moral foothold in an argument. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
look for example how a nation such as ammerica is driven by fear and lies.. moulding at its best |
Here's a tip: don't start your arguments with statements like this. You're throwing your credibility out the window before people even begin to hear you out.
To clarify, it doesn't make sense to use emotions in the context of an example or analogy.
Look for example at how you're a dumbass and never make any sense.
You see? If I start off like that, you're not going to care about anything else I have to say. I didn't mean it in that case, obviously, but the effect is the same. |
|
|
| malek |
dude, I never said there's no extremists... but i didn't see in your videos any head of states? or political figure?!?
Is that Hezbollah tv? cause damn thats some radical stuff I never seen on Arabic tv. |
|
|
| starsearcher |
MMmmmmm Salad...yummy
"We will push Israel and the Zionists into the sea...it's either us or them..." Hmmm...interesting to see a psychology professor saying that...oh well...just goes to show what I've been talking about before...but then again he might just one of those extremists...
Oh wow...second video...Allah will give you girls and a mercedes in heaven :p wicked...I actually feel bad for the kids that they have to be brought up by such ed up parents that send them to die. Poor children...I like how they are all "martyrs" fighting for Allah...and all along I was under the impression that Allah and Jewish and Christian God are all the same :conf: |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Here's a tip: don't start your arguments with statements like this. You're throwing your credibility out the window before people even begin to hear you out.
To clarify, it doesn't make sense to use emotions in the context of an example or analogy.
Look for example at how you're a dumbass and never make any sense.
You see? If I start off like that, you're not going to care about anything else I have to say. I didn't mean it in that case, obviously, but the effect is the same. |
no need to get nasty with me
im just making a statement without using 5000 words
to bore everyone
:D |
|
|
| malek |
just got informed, that's IKRA' tv, craziest channel. Run by extremists, like a hardcore version of Fox :p
and if you pay attention, in one of the clip, a caller start telling them off (the channel). |
|
|
| starsearcher |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
just got informed, that's IKRA' tv, craziest channel. Run by extremists, like a hardcore version of Fox :p
and if you pay attention, in one of the clip, a caller start telling them off (the channel). |
I don't know anything about the channel but it's kinda messed up...
See the thing is I'm not denying that there are freaks and fundis and there are normal educated people that do want peace, and in fact Israel Jordan and Egyp are all in peace...It's just that there are lots of crazies that want to see the destruction of Israel - Israel for them doesn't exist, and every time I mention that people jump on my posts saying NO NO NO, it's not true, everyone's a peaceful loving person :p |
|
|
|
|
