Well, gosh, since y’all seem to think it is worth
discussing the issue, far be it from me to come off as some crazy, hot-headed whack-o who refuses to play the game. So …
Schwoebli says:
@Lazarus
there is a difference in expressing your opinion and using f-words...
Sure. And there is a difference between using f-words and supporting terrorists. A really, really big difference. Gruntboy was banned according to forum rules, and that’s fine. I have
no problem with CM stating his opinions. What I was attempting to convey with my previous post is simply my astonishment at the divide that is made evident by these events. I would assume that the flaming rule is intended to save people from feeling threatened or hurt by things said on this forum. If Buck thinks flaming and swearing have that potential, and he wants to keep GB clean and friendly, it’s his call. But don’t you people feel
threatened by a man who “supports” (still not sure what CM means by the word “support,” BTW) terrorists? I mean, seriously, we are talking about a life and death situation here, not some childish swearing, and the reaction is one that seems surrealistically academic – as if the outcome of such a minor debate is of no great import, and we can all sit about peacefully discussing ideas. But the opposition here (not CM, but the people he “supports”) would only hope to conclude any debate with fifteen sticks of TNT – don’t you (all) understand the futility of such a “discussion?” At the same time, I do not feel this thread should be closed. My feeling is simply astonishment at what some people feel is offensive or threatening: swearing versus sanction of murder.
CM says:
Just to put things in the Muslim perspective:
1. The most repressive governments in the world: Saudi, Egypt, Turkey and Kuwait are solidly supported by the US.
And so the corruption of their governments is the responsibility of the US?
And this has
what to do with the killing of civilians?
2. The two most militarily advanced muslim nations are targetted as terrorist nations. Pakistan and Iran.
I have my doubts about this statement. Pakistan is our buddy now! Yes, that statement is 50% sarcasm, but in no way could our relationship with Pakistan be described as targeting them as a terrorist nation. As for Iran: I think Iran’s military is weaker than it’s numbers suggest. Saddam had a “million man army,” too. Don’t mean much these days. Again: this has
what exactly to do with supporting terrorist groups?
3. Israel is allowed to violate international law and conduct while muslim nations are condemned for actions of fringe luantic groups.
So … you support the lunatic fringe groups? How does this solve anything? It simply re-enforces a negative image – in fact, makes that image into reality.
All of your statements about the perceptions of Muslims in the world are simply to say: they feel wronged, so their terrorism is somehow justified. My response: the Muslims of the world who feel this way need to get over their persecution complex and start behaving like rational human beings. I think that has been the answer all along.
Even though i support Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah i do not support Al Qaeda. They are just a bunch of idiots with nothing to do to benefit the islamic ummah (society).
Is this what makes you a “liberal or moderate” (as you describe yourself in another thread)? *Sigh* You know the world is in trouble when a “liberal” is one who only sanctions the killing of innocent people “to benefit the [fill in the blank] society.” I don’t even know where to begin or end a response to that. Shall we discuss the futility of making distinctions between one terrorist group and another? Or shall we debate the inherent tribalism of talking about “ummah,” and compare it to Hitler’s Volk and to Stalin’s Proletariat?
Later, CM says:
Plus one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist. By todays modern day definition Mandela would be a terrorist. But would that be a fair definition?
How many times must we refute this old bromide? Fine, let them be “freedom fighters.” But a freedom fighter has to do their fighting within the bounds of human decency. They can blow up tanks, military bases, soldiers – they do
not specifically target civilians; once that line has been crossed, they become not freedom fighters, but terrorists. Period.
Zelgadis says:
An interesting opinion I saw on the board CM linked to was that suicide bombing against military personnel would be more acceptable than against innocent civilians. This seems strange to me, in both cases aren't people being killed? Does anyone here share that view, and if so can you tell me what differentiates the two?
A soldier has made a conscious decision to defend the nation for which s/he fights. As such, they are supporting the policies of that nation, must take some measure of responsibility for them, and must accept the possibility being targeted as an aggressor. Now, Israel has a conscript army, so there is some argument to be made that the soldiers have no choice about being there. Personally, I view conscription as immoral for this reason (among others): it forces an individual to support a military they may not agree with the actions of. But I’ve also always believed that if one felt so strongly about being conscripted, they should look for citizenship elsewhere. Or, maybe Israel has a non-military option like Germany. If not, it should (IMO).
That’s it for me. Like smass, this thread makes me ill every time I see it. I was torn from the start about making this last post, as I really feel that any “debate” on the subject pointless, and possibly dangerous. Pointless, because we are trying to
discuss with people who will simply use violence in the face of reasoned debate. And dangerous because (contrary to C Elegans’ opinion) I do believe that holding a conversation on a subject such as this gives legitimacy to the opposition. You all know me: I’ll argue just about anything!
But there is a point where you just have to realize that it is not the right thing to do. For me, that point is reached when your opponent openly advocates violence against defenseless and innocent people. (As a note: the subject of Israel/Palestine is entirely separate and distinct, IMO.
That is a subject worth debate and discussion. “Suicide bombers” is not.)
