What are acceptable justifications for murdering others to you?

[The Straight Story]

Suppose for example someone killed a member of your family, would this be a good reason to go out and blow up a bus full of people?

If your country was screwed over, does this make it right and fair for you to plow a plane full of people into a building?

I don't think we expect anyone we know to act in such a rash manner, and since I don't think people in other countries are less civilized and/or human then we see ourselves then I sure as hell don't think such acts committed by them are just.

Jews have been screwed over by many countries, how have they reacted over the centuries to this persecution? If a christian today blows up a courthouse because they feel their faith is being attacked here should we strive to understand them and make things better for them so they won't do this?

I am more then willing to try to understand the terrorist and their actions - the 'root causes' but they damn sure well better spend some of their time trying to learn that killing innocent people themselves makes them no better then what some believe they are fighting against.

Who here is willing to step in and say 'hey, we had it coming, allow me to enlist to be your next victim'? If you feel strongly that we have more of it coming, let em know somehow because the 'we' in 'we have it coming' includes you.

I get the whole 'we created a monster and this is our payback' sort of thing, it is almost like a frankstein. But that still does give such acts any justification whatsoever. How do you stop the monster? Well I suppose if they see us as the monster it is to kill people ad hoc and target as many innocents intentionally as you can. And if that is fair for them...well, two wrongs don't make a right. Are we that much more civilized that we expect us to act one way and them another? Seems almost racist on the face of it.

I hold all people to the same standards. Our actions have been wrong, and so have theirs. Who will stop first???

[Mythsaje]

1. Comprehension is not agreement...

I can understand some of why they do it, but can't possibly consider their methods tolerable. Two wrongs do not make a right, and all that...

Two wrongs, then two more wrongs, then two more wrongs, then two more wrongs...don't make a right either...

Murdering innocent people, whether it's done with guns, bombs, tanks, or B-2 Bombers, is just plain screwed up. Whether it's done for the ideology of radical Islam or radical American Christo-Patriotism, it's still murder.

edited to fix a typo

[Syncronaut Seven]

2. Do you mean homicide, or murder?

there are no acceptable justifications for murder.

Violence by the opressed can often be justified, violence by the dominant, rarely so.

[The Straight Story]

5. Explain the term 'justification'

and what it may imply here.

[Syncronaut Seven]

9. I can't do that

But I can tell you as a survivor of chronic violent childhood abuse, my views tend to be a bit extreme. I side with the oppressed every time, and would tend to view justification in terms shocking and unacceptable to those who have never experienced true violent oppression.

I also have a pretty good idea who the violent oppressors are.

[shraby]

3. Self defense.

[DanCa]

4. Here and now

If I were facing someone in a fight or protecting a loved one and it was in the heat of the moment type of thing thats the only time I could justify it. If someone killed a family member, god forbid, I couldn't go through with my revenge fantasy's of going out there and getting even. No matter how much I would like to.
At the same time I am a cultural neutral when it comes to subjects like the death penality. I am not qualified to decide on matters of life on death.

[The Straight Story]

6. Thanks to all so far for keeping this flame free

Was just venting and trying to get a deeper understanding and other folks' point of view as perhaps mine seems too narrow.

[Bluebear]

7. Self-defense. n/t

[spindoctor]

8. None

.

[deadparrot]

10. Self-defense. nt

[Bouncy Ball]

11. Understanding motivation is NOT the same thing

as justifying behavior. Again, they are NOT the same thing.

The reason it's important to understand the motivation of people who do things like that is because there JUST MIGHT be something we can do to make things better. If it's something that's no skin off our nose, something we can easily do, why wouldn't we do it?

Let's take a smaller example. Much smaller.

A kid is really acting out in school. Getting in all kinds of trouble, disrupting class, acting rude to peers and teachers.

Sure the administration could simply throw him in ISS (in-school suspension). End of story.

But it wouldn't be. Whatever is causing him to act the way he is is still there. Those factors are still present. He probably KNOWS he is doing wrong (most kids and people do), but until these root causes are addressed by others and by him, they will not go away.

So the adults in his life could put him in ISS AND seek to find out what is causing this behavior. In that manner, there is a chance for improvement. When I know why someone does what they do, it gives both of us a chance to find a peaceful solution. (Notice there was still a repurcussion for the behavior.)

Finding out WHY they do what they do and trying to see if I can do anything (in partnership with them, hopefully) to change things does NOT justify the person's behavior. Wrong is wrong is wrong. But it seems silly and wrong-headed to refuse to look at the root causes.

[The Straight Story]

12. I can partially understand that

but the terms you chose are interesting. It would seem we are the adults (more advanced) and they are the children.

I do understand the worth of trying to examine the what led someone to do something and seeing if we can change that, pretty simple really.

But then too I look at the situation and think 'why are so few, percent wise, doing these acts?' - why are not many many more going and doing this? In Iraq for example, they kill more of their fellow countrymen then they do our soldiers - how does that help their cause?

It almost seems, in some freaky way in this world, you are either a victim or a perpatrator. Then when you move that from a person to person thing to a country or group it starts to get more interesting.

[Bouncy Ball]

14. You are reading too much in my choice of example.

My background is education, so it was simply a natural example for me to give. Could have easily been a different example.

"But then too I look at the situation and think 'why are so few, percent wise, doing these acts?'"

Well, the thing is, what they ARE doing is pretty huge and damaging and painful, so even though they are few, the results of their actions are enormous, so we cut off our nose to spite our face if we refuse to examine motivation.

"- why are not many many more going and doing this?"

Simple human nature. MOST human beings (thank goodness!) aren't willing to carry out actions which would result in the deaths of others, major destruction of property, etc. And again, I say thank goodness for that.

"In Iraq for example, they kill more of their fellow countrymen then they do our soldiers - how does that help their cause?"

Well, first of all, there are FAR more Iraqis in Iraq than our soldiers, so statistically that is pretty unavoidable. And barring you naming who these "they" are, I can't comment further. I mean, there are everyday Iraqis (civilians) who are angry and feel they are defending their homes against the foreign invaders, there are people who have come into Iraq in a parasitic, opportunistic manner and who are wreaking havoc for whatever various reasons they have, there are tribal conflicts that have been there for ages, but suppressed under Hussein and now up on the surface again, there are true terrorists who were quite attracted to Iraq after we left a power and security vacuum in 2003, etc. etc.

[The Straight Story]

16. Thanks for a well reasoned response

And I feel you are right, especially the last paragraph on the multitude of causes.

That most humans don't do such things I think is the one reason I have a hard time trying to find ways to put a spin (if you will) on their acts (or ours of course). The many are attacked by the few the world over. Whether the few be us or it be them. I don't think they want to understand our reasons and try to do things which make our aggressive behavior less likely to happen (an example of that - we could say without oil we are screwed so we need it and to keep it under control for security so if they just understand this we can work out a deal where they sell it and we buy it and share control, etc and so on). Our actions, despite what we may see as justified, are wrong. And the same to me on the actions of those few who chose to due such acts as 9/11 and 7/7 (and others).

We all need to get along and work together for all of us on this planet. Sadly, we in this country who have the power to help this along have chosen not to go down that path. Now it seems some there don't want that path either (ie, we want oil for security, and they want us gone for their security).

Overall it all seems to suck :)

[niallmac]

13. Tricky subject

We can suck the wealth out of countries, destroy the futures of generations of their people. We can keep fascist governments in power and train (thanks all mighty god to our ever so rightious and moral School of the Americas Torture U.) goon squads to kidnap and torture and rape dissidents, or whoever they want. The poor couldn't do this. Now that they are figuring it out we yell "unfair". This country has no idea to over generalize for a moment, what we have done to the futures of other nations. Yeah yeah rah rah we have done our good deeds but the power and the energy alway come first. I don't want to die before my time. i don't want my children to suffer for our arrogance but they and we all will. To speak of our motivations for killing and hold them up to the motivations of others is a tricky argument to enter into. I would seriously pause and think about the common experiences I hold with a Palestinian or Iraqi or Saudi before I tsk tsk their behavior. Prior to 911 or 7/7 I wasn't being f'd over by them, they were being f'd over by my country. Now they are doing some f'ing and we want to have a Friends Meeting. Call me an apologist for the terrorists if you like. I am nothing of the sort. I just don't think this country understands what is going on here. Instead of mouthing "evil doers" we need to educate ourselves about our history and relationship with the third world. It isn't all Care packages.

[Bouncy Ball]

15. The guy in Mexico working at a Ford plant putting together

cars and trucks couldn't afford one of them if he saved up his whole life.

Millions and millions of people across the globe don't even have access to clean water.

Etc etc etc.

There are a LOT of little germinating seeds for terrorism. The only thing that keeps it from being more common is the human inclination (in a civilized society) NOT to bomb buildings and kill people.

But as one of the most powerful countries on earth, I think we are negligent if we don't thorougly examine the root causes of terrorism, along with working to stop it.

A more peaceful world certainly doesn't start with a military superpower attacking a fourth-rate military power under false pretenses, killing thousands of their civilians and tearing up the place.

[The Straight Story]

17. but is it

Americans doing this or american government? Now I know that seems like a silly question perhaps - but here is my view on that. We don't think, in general, people should go out and attack arab americans for 9/11. We don't want to discriminate and blame a whole group for the actions of some. I think we should expect the same from those groups. Why kill innocent americans, britans, whomever based on where they were born or how they look, et al?

There are many Americans/et al/ whom have also worked hard for people in 3rd world countries, tried to do good in some form or another. Why blow them up or kidnap and kill those people? How does that help one's cause - all it may do is help someone feel better because they killed someone from the 'evil empire'.

The same we judge ourselves and our actions to me is fair to use when examining those on the other side of the issue.

[Bouncy Ball]

20. The problem is, to the rest of the world,

what the American government does IS what the American people do!

After all, we live in a representative democracy or republic or whatever the hell you want to call it and the rest of the world knows it and expects to hold us responsible for the people WE elect.

The government IS us, we ARE the government in a country with our system.

Now you and I both know our system is kind of crippled and hobbling along, horribly injured right now, but to the rest of the world, that matters not.

The rest of the world really doesn't make a big distinction.

And terrorists certainly don't. They don't care. Their point is indiscriminate terror. Sometimes they are more specific and go for certain governmental leaders but mostly they just want to fuck shit up really badly, throw a wrench in the works, for whatever their reasons are.

[The Straight Story]

27. So would you then be willing to say

That they are in error? If the rest of the world thinks that then perhaps THEY need to also get their heads out of their asses and see that such thinking is wrong. As we strive to understand, why should we not expect them to do the same? Are they less civilized then us? Is it evolution in action - the strong (us) survive and the weak (others) go bye bye?

If there is no god and this is all there is, then perhaps we are justified in doing all we can to protect our particular group and screw the rest. Morals are made by power in such a system, perhaps, and we have the power and make the morals. Might makes right and we have evolved into the top of the human food chain so in a science sense (loosely speaking) we are justified in what we do to get what we want.

Man, this could go all over the place topic wise :)

[Bouncy Ball]

30. Of course they are in error.

But I can't go there with you in the rest of your post.

Might does not make right. Simply deciding to flex our muscle harder would only cause MORE terrorist attacks, witness the big increase in them since bush launched his "war on terror!"

It's contraindicated, LOL. Cutting off your nose, again.

There are some problems here:

1. Terrorists and terrorist groups are notoriously hard to define, hard to identify (individual members, etc.) and bust up. Really hard-core spy work is needed for that and I don't know that that's happening right now.

2. Are you going to tell them to get their heads out of their asses? Are they going to care?

We can't MAKE other people do what we want. We can try to scare them. We can adopt their tactics (well, HERE, we'll just kill all THESE people, so there!), we can nuke the rest of the planet (but then, oops, we have had our own homegrown terrorists!), we can all hunker down in underground bunkers, but what kind of life is that?

You sound frustrated. Terrorism IS frustrating. It DOES suck. Completely. State-sponsored acts against other people and countries that are harmful suck, too, of course.

We need to use our power and influence (most of which bush has fucking squandered, thankyouverymuch) for good and not for harm. We need to be doing some serious on the ground undercover work to bust up the terror cells. (You'll never totally get rid of them, but you can cut off their funding, seriously weaken them, cause confusion in the ranks, etc.) We need to stop attacking countries that did nothing to us. None of this involves appeasing terrorists or giving in to them in the least. But it would go a LONG way toward lessening their activity on this ball of rock we all have to share, ya know?

[The Straight Story]

40. A little confusion

None of this involves appeasing terrorists or giving in to them in the least. But it would go a LONG way toward lessening their activity on this ball of rock we all have to share, ya know?

That last sentence confuses me and is part of why I posted the original thing I did. Seeing their concerns and addressing them - these are the same concerns many might have but only a few choose to blow up innocents. I guess it all comes down to - do their tactics of blowing up a bus load of people randomly help them and if it does where does that lead us? If you want to be heard and have us change our ways go off and kill a bunch of people and we will talk.

What did those people do that they deserved death? Perhaps Jesus was right all along, turn the other cheek.

It is sad to me how we can have so many threads about the wrong bush has done, the evil, the pics of kids in iraq dead, et al, and yet when someone else kills innocent people we (sometimes and generally speaking) we give them a bit of a pass because we understand...

Such acts are wrong, period. If we call out bushie boy on them we should call out others on the same thing - motivation aside. And does motivation make things ok? We are against the death penalty but seem ok with coddling others who impose it because we feel they are justified in killing fellow humans. Where does one draw the moral line in the sand?

[Bouncy Ball]

43. Hang on a second,

because I hate bush, his administration and all the vile things they've done does not mean my feelings about terrorists and terrorism are in ANY way diminished. They are not mutually exclusive feelings.

I thought it was understood that we all disagree with terrorism. Most rational humans do. And by most, I mean more than 90%. So what's there to prove on that point? The reich-wingers like to try to paint us as terrorist-sympathizers, but nothing could be further than the truth.

It's just that maybe we see some people in expensive suits in positions of power who give out orders that cause the deaths of innocent people and WE are supposed to be BETTER THAN THAT. We aren't some rogue terrorist group, we're a civilized nation.

But our actions often are no better. Our actions are more sophisticated, more convoluted, more well-funded, but they are often no better.

Disagreement with terrorism was an understood thing for most people, I thought. Just try to find a DUer who is willing to say "yeah, I think the terrorists are great!" Make sure they aren't a disrupting troll, either. Good luck.

[Bouncy Ball]

46. By the way:

"do their tactics of blowing up a bus load of people randomly help them and if it does where does that lead us? If you want to be heard and have us change our ways go off and kill a bunch of people and we will talk."

No one EVER said their tactics make sense! They get attention!!!

They already feel they are not and will not be heard, terrorism is borne out of desperation.

[The Straight Story]

52. So basically

They are as bad as we think bush is and they have no real justification for their actions.

Murder is murder. They were wrong. I know bush is, I hear it here all the time and I get that. But these people were wrong in what they did and should be called on it hard as well.

I don't want to deal with or try to understand people who blow up others. Whether they be bush or some other freaks who think they have a 'right' to do such things.

They are sick people with whom I do not desire to deal with in any manner. And I, for one, don't think we should hold all people who fit their profile (either muslim, pakistani, et al) accountable for their direct actions and that we should kill anyone with their profile via random bombings and hope that they will 'get the message'.

It is wrong what we do, and it sure as hell is wrong what they do. That message, on both ends, needs to be well heard.

[Bouncy Ball]

53. Nothing I can disagree with there.

I often see the two parties as two sides of the same hateful coin.

[Liberal In Texas]

18. If my kids, my wife, my dog, or me are attacked by some nut...no question.

I'll kill without hesitation.

I understand your post isn't about that, but I would say that even us "let's psychoanalyze" the terrorist liberals would kill if we had to defend our country from invaders.

Hmmmmm....Invaders in the USA. Yes we would with out question defend our nation and way of life. Hmmmmm..isn't that what some of the Iraq's are doing...Gives pause.

[Bouncy Ball]

21. I promise you we would.

I'm armed, I'd have no problem defending my child and my home, no problem at all.

[Liberal In Texas]

26. What are you still doin' up? He he he.. Yes me too.

But NEVER ATTACK a country that didn't attack us. That's just stupid.

(Oh, unless we want to take something away from them, like their OIL.)

[The Straight Story]

22. But would you

Attack innocent people in those countries or would you try and direct your attacks at the real seat of power that was directing the ones against you?

The people killed in britan were not the ones in Iraq carrying guns. Could you with a clear mind kill someone's kids with a bomb and do you think that would help you at all and your cause?

[Bouncy Ball]

25. Some issues of terrorism that remain unresolved,

even among researchers and think-tank types:

The boundary between terrorism and other forms of political violence

Whether government terrorism and resistance terrorism are part of the same phenomenon

Separating “terrorism” from simple criminal acts, from open war between “consenting” groups, and from acts that clearly arise out of mental illness

Is terrorism a sub-category of coercion? Violence? Power? Influence?

Can terrorism be legitimate? What gains justify its use?

The relationship between guerilla warfare and terrorism

The relationship between crime and terrorism

And maybe this will help you with your question:

The targets of terrorism are civilians. Terrorism is thus distinguished from other types of political violence (guerrilla warfare, civil insurrection, etc.). Terrorism exploits the relative vulnerability of the civilian “underbelly”—the tremendous anxiety, and the intense media reaction evoked by attacks against civilian targets. The proposed definition emphasizes that terrorism is not the result of an accidental injury inflicted on a civilian or a group of civilians who stumbled into an area of violent political activity, but stresses that this is an act purposely directed against civilians. Hence, the term “terrorism” should not be ascribed to collateral damage to civilians used as human shields or to cover military activity or installations, if such damage is incurred in an attack originally aimed against a military target. In this case, the responsibility for civilian casualties is incumbent upon whoever used them as shields.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/define.htm#present

[Liberal In Texas]

28. Of course not. Clinton caught the original WTC bombers. They're in

prison. OBL should be in prison. Do you see where I'm coming from?

Killing with out direct self defense is stupid.

[MrSlayer]

19. You have to do something really fucked up to me for me to kill you.

I'm not going to kill a bunch of innocent people if you kill someone in my family or molest my kid or something. I'm going to kill the person who did it. It's never right to murder innocent people but you can see where if someone keeps on murdering your innocent people you might get a thirst to have some payback any way you can. I'm not a "terrorist sympathizer" by any means, I'll bet many of the people in this country who are patriotic would do the same type of things if the roles were reversed. You can only take so much. The real problem is most of America doesn't see anything beyond their next meal let alone the implications and machinations of international affairs.

[Bouncy Ball]

23. You said such a mouthful MrSlayer.

"You can only take so much. The real problem is most of America doesn't see anything beyond their next meal let alone the implications and machinations of international affairs."

Yep. I'd venture to say most Americans aren't even really aware of what we do in and to other countries.

Hell, it took me watching BBC World News a few years back to discover September 11 isn't just an important date to the US, but to Chile, too.

Ahem.

[insane_cratic_gal]

24. Tremendous amounts of grief and anger

Different cultures.

"Suppose for example someone killed a member of your family, would this be a good reason to go out and blow up a bus full of people?"

It was obviously ok for us to invade a country based on lies and 3,000 lives lost here. We in turn killed 30,000 people for the acts of 19 individuals who had nothing to do with Iraq. So how do we justify that?



Let me try to imagine life for an Iraq. My worse nightmares and pondering would probably never scratch the surface of what they must be going through.

Imagine being raised in a environment from the crib, bombs explode, people are shot right on the street where kids are playing soccer. People are dragged from their houses every night and disappear for months on end. Maybe they never come home again. Your growing up in an environment of murder. You grow up glorifying Murder. Dying for your God, or Allah, or holy war.

Every day, every week someone in your village dies as a Martyr. They are cheered through the streets. The village carries them, loves them worships them for their deed. For their death. Their family is now paid by this crime network or murder network, every month a check comes that pays for that families food. Your death, your sacrifice is feeding the bellies of your brothers and sisters, your wife and children, until the last one moves out.

Essentials of normality aren't even available to you to grow as a community of people. Your basic needs, are not being met. Who knows if your house will be standing tomorrow? It could be bulldozed over, bunker bomb could of taken it out. Maybe 5 of your loved ones where cooking dinner when it happened. You can't feel safe. Therefore, you never move from that constant state of alertness of fear to a more peaceful state of being.

Your never able to get past your anger and grief because everyday someone else you knew died accidentally or was just killed. What if it was an American bomb. What if you perceive half of your people to be at fault for agreeing with the americans who bombed those you loved. Would you not be angry at them too? What if Bush INC decided to lock down Blue states. They started to blow up houses raid people homes, harm people's kids. The Freepers walked around agreeing with actions of the current Admin (truth be told they'd love that shit). Would you not blame them too?

Where do you draw the line on the enemy. These are people who see themselves at War, As invaded. Russia or Someone shows up and occupy us to save us from the Bush Regime, we too are going to feel invaded. Though we might throw flowers in the street =p.

You get the idea.

Who can say what you would think or be capable of doing if you held your dying child in your arms. What sort of rage would that invoke? It scares me to even think about what I'd do to the person responsible.

[The Straight Story]

29. And that is what I am getting to in some ways:

It scares me to even think about what I'd do to the person responsible.

The person repsonsible versus the people who happen to live in the country where the person responsible resides and has power.

Maybe, just maybe, the people who blow up innocent civilians are hoping to influence those people to do something like vote those in power out. But how sympathetic will those people be to your cause if you are killing them??

It was obviously ok for us to invade a country based on lies and 3,000 lives lost here. We in turn killed 30,000 people for the acts of 19 individuals who had nothing to do with Iraq. So how do we justify that?

We don't justify that, and we don't justify what some people there do either. We hold them to the same standards we hold our officials. We condemn their acts and protest against such acts.

[Liberal In Texas]

31. I think we might be getting to the crux...the revenge thing.

Isn't that what the thread is about? Revenge?

Is revenge OK?

That I can discuss.

[The Straight Story]

34. Well sort of

Revenge against a person who wronged you versus revenge against anyone from a group you see who has wronged you. Again, as I mentioned earlier, after 9/11 those who believed that the perps were muslim - would we justify just killing any muslim since one of them (or more) were responsible?

[Bouncy Ball]

36. I don't think you are seeing this correctly

from the terrorists' point of view.

They don't CARE that YOU didn't do anything to them. They don't care that you are just some innocent civilian, minding your own business, going to work or whatever. You are STILL PART OF the group they hate.

OMG, re-read that last paragraph of mine. That could apply to reich-wingers' feelings about Iraqis.

Damn. My skin is crawling. Two sides of the same fucking coin.

[The Straight Story]

56. And maybe that is part of the point:

They don't CARE that YOU didn't do anything to them. They don't care that you are just some innocent civilian, minding your own business, going to work or whatever. You are STILL PART OF the group they hate.

They don't care - and we don't care. When we don't care we call our people on it. When they don't care - it is still wrong. And we get nowhere. THEY are no better then we are. So why care what they feel if they don't care what we feel. No one ends up on the 'high moral ground' as everyone sinks to the lowest. They are as bad as bush is seen here.

[Liberal In Texas]

41. Yes. Quite so. Revenge was used quite blatantly to lure the public

into a war with Iraq. It was used in WW2, WW1, The Spanish-American War, we could go on. It's a quite useful tool.

The thing is, Iraq didn't attack us. We had the illusion that they were going to. The revenge part came about because they were ARABS and ARABS are bad. All ARABS. Camel jockeys, don't you know? That justified it. To this day, I know friends "friends" who still think that the only good Arab is a dead Arab. It's crazy.

Now I can understand revenge. If you kill my kid, I'll kill you, kind of thing. Would I do it? I don't know.

But the FOX's and the Busco's have all preyed on this animal instinct that we have for REVENGE. Quite successfuly, weren't they?

[Bouncy Ball]

33. I really, honestly don't think it is the terrorists' aim to garner

sympathy among the civilians of any western country (if we are talking terrorists of the AQ variety).

As for OBL and bush, I think OBL rather likes bush being in charge. Hell, he's left him out there to be his Personal Boogeyman.

[insane_cratic_gal]

45. You and I may not Justify that

action.

But the Sect who backs this war and Bush sure does, they have no guilt over it. They justify it every day.

There is little difference in their hatred levels. Except terrorist sort of put their money where there mouth is (to be crude).

Hate must then lie that heart of what terrorism is. It's twisted around bibles, and korans. It's twisted in politics and books. A learned behavior, when the level of communication becomes nothing but endless frustration.
Given the ME and mankind has been feuding since we could throw bananas, I don't suspect acts of pointless violence will end anytime soon.

[bemildred]

32. It doesn't appear to me that ethics or morality have much to do with it.

So I am generally uninterested in arguments about whether this or that atrocity was "justified". "Justified" is just somebody's opinion anyway, there is no objective measure that can be applied, and it's clear enough that the perps thought that they had reason to do whatever they chose to do, and we are not going to undo anything by arguing that point. On the other hand, you are not for the most part going to get the victims to think justice was done to them.

In political affairs it's all expediency and greed and fear and lex talionis from what I see. So maybe a first step would be to introduce principled action into political affairs. And that only works if the more powerful agencies at work do it first, you can't expect the weaker parties to "fight fair" and "obey the law" and "exercise restraint" if the big boys won't. But I don't expect to see that happen spontaneously, what's the point of being powerful if you can't bully weaker peoples and enrich yourselves and play the big-shot on the World stage?

As for the "we are more civilized" issue, I like Gandhi's comment when asked what he thought about Western Civilization. He thought it would be a good idea.

[Bouncy Ball]

35. That was a FANTASTIC post.

You hit several nails on the head, especially about the bigger, more powerful groups needing to introduce principled action first.

And because they won't, we are caught in this cycle.

[bemildred]

37. Well, thank you, but it leaves me a bit depressed.

But I prefer that to being happy and deluded.

[Bouncy Ball]

38. Yeah, although some days I look at people I know

who know next to nothing about this stuff, happy as a clam, and I feel a twinge of jealousy. Oh to be unburdened as I once was.

[bemildred]

39. "Ignorance is bliss".

But it also increases your chances of being road kill.
Everything has a price.

[The Straight Story]

42. And who then is powerful really:

In political affairs it's all expediency and greed and fear and lex talionis from what I see. So maybe a first step would be to introduce principled action into political affairs. And that only works if the more powerful agencies at work do it first, you can't expect the weaker parties to "fight fair" and "obey the law" and "exercise restraint" if the big boys won't. But I don't expect to see that happen spontaneously, what's the point of being powerful if you can't bully weaker peoples and enrich yourselves and play the big-shot on the World stage?

The people with the bombs on the bus were more powerful then the people on the bus without them.

[Bouncy Ball]

44. And the government is more

powerful and can do more damage than all of them.

[The Straight Story]

48. So why attack innocent people?

And not the government?

If we REALLY wanted to do more damage we sure as hell could. A lot more. But we try to restrain such things. We have the power NOW to pull out of iraq and carpet bomb every city into total ruins, but we don't. They have the power to strap bombs to themselves and kill people and they do (Some).

So we could do a helluva lot more, and don't. Why? What would they do with such power? With what little some of them have they choose to kill as many innoncents as they possibly can. Is that a more moral position?

[insane_cratic_gal]

55. Fanatics don't believe in innocents

they don't believe people are without sin.

I saw this documentary.. it was an HBO special.. I wish I knew the name, it be something I'd suggest you see if you could.

It was about Gaza, the Palestine Conflict, it goes on about Martyrs and a journalist and camera man who fall in adoration of one boy. Who just so happens to be an errand boy for a terrorist group. (A branch of Hamas I think).

The woman said to him something along the lines, "but he's just a child don't you worry for him." He said, there are 25 more waiting to replace him should be die. We'd mourn him, Martyr him and then we'd continue on. (paraphrasing).



I went digging for it. It's called Death in Gaza.

<Snip>

HBO: What would you like for viewers to take away from this film?

SAIRA: These kids are not monsters. They are living in unacceptable conditions. Human beings are human beings the world over and the circumstances they live in have a profound impact upon their behavior. There is a cycle of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where every killing creates a martyr, which creates more killing. Injustice breeds injustice.

It's conveyed very well, you see the chaos they grow up in, you don't sympathize with terrorists but you see these kids and the paths they might walk to be the next martyr

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/death_in_gaza/

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/death_in_gaza/resources.html

[bemildred]

47. Generally the ones with the bigger guns, I would think.

To make any sense of that question, you have to look at aggregates. Any individual with a bit of explosives and a motive can make a fair size hole in the World, that ought to be clear by now. "Less powerful" is not the same as powerless. But it's easy enough to look at Iraqis and the USA and guess who is more powerful, or Russia and the Chechens.

[The Straight Story]

50. The ones with the bigger 'guns'

just killed a bunch of people with no guns. The only ones with bombs that day (7/7) used their power to kill many others.

If we did the same it would be wrong. And their actions were just plain wrong.

[bemildred]

51. OK, it's wrong. I don't disagree. Now what? nt

[The Straight Story]

54. Not sure there is a 'now what' (and some examples)

I think perhaps there is just a time where it helps to see all sides and ponder where to go from here.

Examples:
The 'right' may say kill em all and let god sort them out.
The 'left' may say we need to understand those who do such things and find a way to not get them to want to do it.

The 'middle' may well say - both are wrong and their actions should be soundly condemned and the majority of people are not like this.

The view from the right may also be - we used our power and tried not to kill innocents and they used their power and did try to kill innocents so now we are justified in using our power to do the same.

The view from the left may be - we killed innocents so they are justified in carrying out the death penalty on our innocents and if we want it to stop we should cut our losses and compromise and find out why we got here.

the view from the middle may be - our elected officials killed innocents, you did not like it, so you did the same thing, and you both suck and we will tell you both you are wrong and there is no justification on either side.

So now what? No idea. Just tossing it out for discussion :)

[bemildred]

57. I just don't understand why you need to keep harping on the fact

that commiting atrocities is wrong. It seems painfully obvious to me. If you are interested in what I think should be done about these events, I think you pursue the perpetrators and their aiders and abetters as criminals. That's it. No retaliation, no revenge, strict legal process and all that. I think that's the right way to handle it.

[Bouncy Ball]

58. Agreed.

:thumbsup:

[The Straight Story]

59. The harping comes from

people trying to understand such folks and yet in the same breath condemning our actions out of hand. Wrong is wrong - why do so many need to qualify that and say such things like 'well, they would not have had to blow up those people if were nicer'?

There is no need to make excuses or try hard to understand why. It was wrong. We can spend many posts bitching about how wrong iraq war and bush are, which is fine, but things like 7/7 and 9/11 were just as wrong and trying to understand the people who did it and make some sort of excuse for them is wrong to me as well. You kill a lot of innocent people I don't need to understand you - I know what you did was absolutely wrong and I don't want your excuses or to rationalize why you did it. Such actions solved nothing and ended the lives of many people and affected their families.

If you think the death penalty is bad, if you think bush and iraq war is bad and wrong, and if you think killing others is wrong then why try to soften the same stance when it is someone else killing people? Sadly I Have seen that here all too often. Hell Timothy McVeigh had his reasons - but I don't care what they were because they were wrong and his actions were wrong. Does not mean I will try to lessen the act by attacking the people killed and blaming their government. It was the act of an idiot who was plain evil. I don't care what he felt, or why he did it, there was still no excuse good enough for him to do so.

The root causes of such actions are some people suck. And I won't try and make them or their ilk feel better about it by saying things like 'well, we had it coming for things 'we' did'. The people on the planes of 9/11 never hurt anyone, they did not in any way deserve what they got. The terrorist thugs that crashed those planes are scum - not islam or muslims or people of the middle east - those individuals who did it were wrong. And if the goverments of US and UK did things wrong then they were the guilty ones and not the people that were killed because a few choice folks in power abused that power. And if some terrorist takes out their frustrations on innocent people they are not better then bush, et al, and in no way should we be kind to them or try to understand them here.

The root cause is that some people are evil, if you will, and I don't care what they went through killing other and innocent people is damn wrong - why water that down by trying to grasp why they did it? Condemn it across the board. But instead many will say 'it was bad, but I understand we had it coming'.

Which goes back to the OP - if someone thinks we had it coming, let them sign up to be the next victim since they think maybe it is justified and/or totally understandable.

[bemildred]

61. So you don't want to think about it or try to understand motives?

Fine, enjoy your ignorance and self-righteousness.

Any honest cop will try to understand why a crime is
committed, so he can have a better shot at anticipating
and preventing these things. You seem to confuse
attempting to understand motives with justification
or approbation, and that is "wrong" too.

[Bouncy Ball]

63. Which is EXACTLY what I told this poster

about four times in this thread.

So nevermind, I give up. Why waste the keystrokes?

[Bouncy Ball]

62. You asked all these questions, had all this discussion,

only to say "I don't really care what their motivations are."

Oooookay.

You completely misunderstand. No one here thinks we should sign up to be the next victims. This is such-----a certain way of thinking I won't name.

And AGAIN, NO ONE HERE has ever said terrorism good. But you EXPECT terrorism from fucking terrorists! You don't expect such horrible behavior from your GOVERNMENT.

THUS, the different level of outrage. In no way does it mean ANYONE here is ok with terrorism. Like I said, go do a poll of DUers and see how many you can find who will admit they think terrorism is cool. And good luck to you.

I think you just want us to say that and we won't and it's pissing you off. CAn't tell WHERE you're going with this whole thing, but you seemed to understand what I was saying and then you're right back to this "might makes right" and "I don't care why" bullshit.

Have fun with that.

[Cleita]

I don't accept entirely the concept of suicide bombing to

be based either in religion or idealism, maybe in some cases, but not all. I think bribery and blackmail have a part in it.

[JackRiddler]

49. Hm, when I read the thread title...

I thought you would be asking how one can possibly justify invading Iraq, murdering thousands of people there, and setting off further waves of murder among them.

That's a lot bigger than all of these terrorist actions put together, isn't it?

But long as you mention it: no, randomly selected civilians (or those selected simply due to nationality or location) never deserve it.

However, you are buying into the idea that there is really such a large "them" out there.

How do you know the official stories are true?

You say terrorism comes from desperation and is the act of self-organized fanatics. This is sometimes the case.

But I say terrorist groups generally begin with the actions of intel agencies who go into areas of unrest and start recruiting and arming provocateurs and informants; and if you really want to stop it, you need to start draining the spook pond.

[cynatnite]

60. The only one that is willing to stop is the one who thinks first

They better find a way to get their point across without killing. In the minds of extremists like these they don't believe that there is such a thing as too far.

This damn war has made more terrorists and someone had better get it through their thick heads that it's unwinable. People might as well face facts. We'll be paying for bush's blunder for years to come. I think it'll continue on to my grandchildren's generation. Maybe longer if someone doesn't get their head out of their ass and work to resolve what put us where we are in the first place.