[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
You make some interesting points here. Now the sharia law is as unyielding as most Christian doctrine…
But this shows me that you have no idea what Sharia is. The two doctrines are not at all the same. Christianity, for example, is not incompatible with democratic government. Sharia is.
…but the vast majority of muslims that I have met, in exactly the same way as most Christians I know, are far more moderate in their outlook. You cannot judge a religious group purely on the actions of extremists.
But you have made a huge error - at what point have I judged Islam or Muslims as a whole in this? Islamism is not Islam - and I never suggested that Islam needed to be wiped out.
But no, I did not mean imaginary grievences. The reason this conflict is so complex is because both sides have a point and no-one is prepared to lose face first.
This is where I disagree - Islamists have no point, at least not a credible one. They have no grievance.
I put no more or less value on the life of a Middle-Eastern muslim than I do a Brit or a Yank. It’s a life. I have far less value for the life of a suicide bomber, but I am still fascinated by what drives a man to such lengths.
Then be as fascinated as you want - just don’t reach the false conclusion that he is justified.
Myself, I find that such an overly simplistic viewpoint that argues from a presupposed foundation that we are in some way a) impervious to such propaganda ourselves…
Completely wrong. Being better than someone else doesn’t equate being perfect - why in the world would calling them evil somehow imply that we think we are flawless? Nonsense - it simply means that we aren’t evil like them, as a moral judgment.
…and b) extremely hubristic to automatically assume we are 100% in the right just because we’ve been in the right before - Well it just doesn’t sit well.
It doesn’t sit well because it is clear you haven’t put much thought into this. How you can reach the conclusion that our moral condemnation of Islamism and subsequent policy to confront it - hardly different from our approach to Nazism - automatically means that we think that we have the arrogance to think we can do no wrong?
It’s baffling - the only thing our opinion means is that we’re better than Islamism and we are willing to fight to protect those superior values.
Better, not perfect.
There are other forms of strength than military action and until the violence ceases due to military action, I will stand by my previous comments that the violence WILL beget more violence.
Stand by them till you drop from fatigue, but recognize the simple fact that violence is coming, whether we choose to meet it with violence or with nonviolence. Violence will beget more violence, and nonviolence will beget more violence, so that cheap phrase is meaningless. You act as though nonviolence will somehow stop violence from occurring - and that couldn’t be more incorrect in this situation.
Targetted or not. Accident or not. I would destroy those responsible for the deaths of my loved ones if they were killed as collateral damage. That’s what I see a lot of these people doing. Not an excuse for the behaviour, but pehaps an explanation?
So how does any war end? Are the Japanese really just plotting to attack America over the rage of Hiroshima?
As I said, both sides have a point.
Disagreed - one side is right and the other is wrong. The Islamists have no legitimate grievance.
Again, I was referring to Allied action in Iraq. Sorry for the confusion, but re Isreal - whether they are targetting civilians or not, it doesn’t matter when the civilian death toll is so high regardless. It is unacceptable. When did everyone put such little value on any life that was not in their own backyard?
But you fail to see the real world again. Civilian casualties will always be ‘too high’ when the primary tactic of the Islamists is to use civilians as part of their battle plan. The law of war is supposed to help mitigate that awful problem - but, oops, the Islamists - the ones you think have a point - decided humanity’s rules don’t apply to them.
How easy would all this be if Israel or the US or UK simply followed the old scorched earth rule? With our fantastic military capabilities, we could level Muslim states and still have ammo left over to beat all of Europe with a blindfold on. Instead, despite that, great pains are taken to avoid civilian casualties.
So ask yourself why aren’t the civilians themselves getting mad? Not at the fighter jets dropping leaflets, but at the scum that intentionally put them in harm’s way so they can use terror as a tactic? Until you can find an answer, civilian casualties will always be ‘too high’ - but it won’t be the fault of Israel, the US, or the UK.[/quote]
Hmmm okay then. You refusal to see ANY genuine grievences on the part of the populations of the MIddle-East toward the west pretty much tells me our conversation is finished if your worldview is so blinkered.
A shame because you made some other interesting points but I have no interest in flogging a dead horse.
And what’s with all the - ‘you don’t know what you’re talking about’ or ‘you’re dishonest’ bullshit?
Can’t you accept someone has a different opinion and contest the opinions rather than the person with those opinions?
PS - Hiroshima and Nagasaki are pretty much the most descipable acts ever perpetrated by the west - one that people are still suffering for now. I don’t really think it should be held up as a viable way to settle an argument in the future.