I’m still holding out for Attilla the Honeycakes. Right next to to Ghenghis … you khan’t stop eating them. And the Krusader Kremes.
I am looking for something more then just “evil” It seems like we could do a little better then that in explaining it (poverty, brainwashing are all good explainations). There must be reason and understanding their reasons is the first step to stoping, not justfying them.
Efrem, no offense, but your ‘We must understand them’ theory is crap.
We did not understand the Nazis, but lo and behold! They are gone. The Allies utterly destroyed the Nazi regime, then rebuilt Germany. No pointless negotiation. No ‘land for peace’ (after that little appeasement debacle!) Just good old faishoned might.
The exact same formula should be visited on the middle east, since it is the only formula known to work. While it may feel good to want to talk and negotiate, with fanatics, said talks are pointless.
Do you really think that you can ‘talk’ to someone who thinks blowing up children and old people is a good idea? Nonesense. And ‘understanding’ them, while it may be interesting from an academic standpoint, is irrelevant in the real world. We don’t need to understand terrorists, we need to destroy them.
I’m just throwing an idea on how to stop something that needs to be stopped at all costs. I’m surprized in was met with such resistance. Maybe we can’t “talk” to suicide bombers but through understanding we might be albe to stop the creation of new ones. Or to “deprogram” the current violent mentality of the populace on both sides.
We know that terrorist camps “prepare” (more like brainwash) these people into stapping bombs to themselves and blowing people up. The best way to stop these attacks would be in learning the “bomber’s mentality”, recrutment methods, and their beginings. If we know the process more then the terrorist themselves, we might be albe to prepare the Palestinian people according. By simple understanding we can help to discourge growth of new bombers in the most active way possible. Maybe, leadership programs for kids to show them that they can make a difference with violence, or community activisim.
I know it sounds corny, but I believe this is a great (and proven) way to curb violence. This can also work on either side to show that both sides are hurting. Tensions as a whole could be eased by this method. I really don’t know what the answer is (I don’t think there is a “perfect” solution), only someone who is knowleadgable in ALL sides can discover a better way. We do need a better way.
This mentality of “we wil destroy them, no need to understand. All we need to know is that they are evil.” (which I think is pure bunk) is dangerous and lazy.
Ok, Efrem is not paying attention. One of the definitions of “evil” is “morally reprehensible”. Deliberately targeting civilians with homicide bombers is morally reprehensible, and therefore evil. He’d like to pretend otherwise, but… he’d be wrong.
Poverty causes terrorism? There are plenty of people in the world, especially in Africa and parts of Asia, that are WAY worse off than the Palestinians. Are they committing homicide bombings? No. So it must be something else.
I know you won’t admit it, but I’ll ask anyway.
Why are Palestinians trying to kill as many Jews as possible?
I’d like to know the answer to that question. After all, we should try to understand, right?
I object to the saying that “evil” is an explanation for the attacks. Suicide bombers are “morally reprehensible”, but in no way helps to explain on how to stop it.
**
It could be a factor. Then agian it could not.
**
First, stop being a self rightous snob. I would like to know that answer, too. This is the SDMB were we strive for knowledge would to like to help and provide some possible asnwers too. Just try to be a little more desriptive then “evil”.
Also don’t presume what, or what not, I find morally reprehensible. If you had dropped that big cross and those nails, and actualy read my posts in full you would see that I find suicide bombers to be very “morally reprehensible”. So drop the self rightous additude.
After reading my preivous posts over I have found out that I created a new language “giberish”, please when you read it have an asprin on hand.
I know English is not your first language, but I think you’re playing a little semantics game here. One of the definitions of “evil” in the English language is “morally reprehensible”. A = B.
You say suicide bombers are morally rephrensible, but are loathe to call them evil, when the two are equivalent. Do you really not understand, or are you playing a game?
Me, self-righteous? That’s pretty funny, what do I have to be self-righteous about? Answer: not much. Anyway, I’ll continue to speak out against your line of thinking for one simple reason. To paraphrase, all it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.
I objected to “evil” being used as an excuse for bombings because there must be more to it then that. I find them very “morally reprehensible”, but would not call them “evil” as to explain away their heinous and very horrific actions with rubber stamp. The only way to stop them is to find out their exact reasons as to why they would do something so “morally reprehensible”.
These actions can never be excused especialy with such an oversimplefed comment such as “evil”, so we need to find out the real reasons. For example I brought up brainwashing, and vengence as a part of the problem and as a reason to why someone would become so violent. So, we might need to focus on these aspects that absorb people.
**
Are you impilying that I am advocating compliance towards these bombings? If you are, you really have mistook everything I have said and am trying to say.
Efrem the semantics game you are playing is getting old. Morally reprehensible = evil, at least in English. How can you say that the “suicide bombers” are morally reprehensible, but not evil?
It’s like saying 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 4.
Since I’m done playing word games with you, I’ll ask ya a question. Let’s see if you answer this time. Not holding my breath btw.
Why do you hate Jews?
Interesting, I have a question for you. Do you have such a warped sense to thought that you can conclude that an attempt to prevent the horrific and pernicious attacks of suicide bombing equals anti-semitism.
Listen pal, not once have you laid out a concrete plan to prevent terrorism, only to “understand” it. That’s absolute b.s. in my opinion.
Are you going to answer the question? Your lack of a reply is really quite telling.
Why?
Let me try to help you out here efrem.
But before i do I should point out that the only member I agree with 100% so far in this thread is Tamerlane. I find many posts interesting and worthwhile, but generally speaking it’s far to polarized for my taste. That’s only in my taste on the other hand so take notice as you please.
Back to efrem’s quandary, being the definition of evil. Let’s look at what is being said.
- (premise) evil=morally reprehensible
- (premise) suicide bombing in the context at hand=morally reprehensive
- Hence, suicide bombing in the context at hand is evil
Which I think is a correct syllogism. The communication problem does not aside in the premise stated in line 1, which could be argued (as it is being argued) to be self evident at least semantically. The problem arises in line 2, which could be argued to be subjective.
From a different subjective viewpoint you could formulate the following argument.
- (premise) evil=morally reprehensible
- (premise) to suffer humiliation without revenge=morally reprehensible
- (premise) to sacrifice your own life in revenge=moral
- (premise) In this context humiliation has been suffered
- Hence, suicide bombing in this context is moral and not evil
Which I also believe is logically correct even if I disagree with the premises, but then again I adhere to Western Christian morals and ethics which I have inherited by society and family. istara tried to clear this out as well and got into the same problem as efrem when trying to explain the idea of suicide bombings from a Muslim moral perspective.
It’s fine and dandy that a different moral perspective such as the Judaic or Christian one disagrees, but that does not make it universally evil. We do not have monopoly on these definitions. Universally evil is a hard thing to pinpoint (there is a thread running about that topic currently which does far a better job at clearing that out than I can in one post). Not only that, moral values are a moving target. There was a time when by Christian standards it was considered moral to prosecute and even kill all non-Christians.
Once again, in my moral perspective it is evil, from another it might not be. I’ll take another more innocent example (innocent for us of Semitic culture that is); for a Hindu it is morally reprehensible to kill a cow even if it is done in order to eat it, while Jews, Muslims and Christians agree that this is not morally reprehensible. By premise 1 in both syllogisms above we end up in the same dichotomy between the two views. AND DON’T EVEN TRY! I am NOT, I repeat NOT saying that killing a cow is the same thing as suicide bombing, I am merely giving an example of different moral grounds leading to different definitions of evil.
That’s all the help I can furnish. I’ll add that I believe that the rift that makes a resolution of this conflict so hard lies as much in these cultural differences as in the despicable acts of violence perpetrated by both sides.
Sparc
Sorry for the typos. Add an o to a to somewhere. Make reprehensive to be reprehensible in line 2 of the first syllogism and the conclusion in the second one is of course supposed to be line 5.
Thank you for the effort Sparc although I don’t think I understood it all. I kinda feel to completely state my position so that milroyj can’t find “offence” to it, I need to be in law school. Also it seems to me that milroyj is trying (somehow) in vain to “trap me” into saying anti-Semitic remarks (as if it is possible to force an opinion out of someone that isn’t their own), (s)he even started to ask clearly leading questions like
(emphasis mine).
And also seemed to spout self-serving rhetoric like
. It seems that in milroyj’s mind he has defined themself as “good” and also has defined me as “evil”.
This leads me to believe that for milroyj the truth is no longer relevant to him, but instead is looking for some sort of justification for those thoughts, because his own mind has already been “made up”. If that feeling is strong enough in his mind, he can very well see that justification anywhere (no matter what is said or not said), so actual reason might prove to be tedious or impossible, hopefully not.
If you want a “concrete plan to prevent terrorism” you better hurry up and ask G-d, because the only way you will get a one true answer will be from an omnipotent source (or Cecil). However, if you want to look for answers to something as complex as “preventing terrorism” you will get only theories and nothing “concrete” from the SDMB, anyone who says they can grantee you a “concrete” answer is a liar.
I am sure in your mind, it is telling everything you wanted to hear.
I think istara said it best in projecting what my views were. On the side I would also have to say that Tamerlane’s post was 100% agreeable with too.
milroj,
As can be seen from my past comments regarding efrem, I scarcely hold his views in high esteem. I have seen a consistent pattern of distortions and misinterpretations to support an anti-Israel view and one that is always very “understanding” of violence against Jews, while commonly condemning of any action taken by Israel. (Israel hasn’t been nice enough, hasn’t shown enough love) Yet, despite the fact that he has called me “rascist” in the past because I disagreed with one of his positions, your accussation of antisemitism is without proof, and in this particular thread, without, to my read, any justification. We do not know why he is so defensive of violence against Israelis. Some who take that position may be antisemitic, but others may not be. And even with proof of his motivations, such an accusation is probably best made in “the Pit”, isn’t it?
Though I do wish that he had a sense a humor. This whole thread began as a funny little thing, until he got all huffy about the jokes.
DSeid: Rascist, I say - Don’t think I didn’t notice your subtle Mongol-baiting - “Khan’t stop eating them”, indeed ;).
I would also like to add that I am shocked and appalled that anyone would agree with me 100% on my idea to rate societies based on their snackfoods. It has truly opened my eyes to how some of the twisted minds on this forum work. shakes head sadly
- Tamerlane ( who has never been known to agree 100% with himself )
Well Tamarlane, I believe one of your points early on was a request for qualified statements where some disagreement even within the argument is left open. I happen to mostly agree with that at 100%. 
Further I do of course think that a society could or maybe even should often be judged on the quality of their snack foods. I mean, I do say! Why would I bother with peoples that don’t understand the essentials of the cocktail hour?
Sparc (who has often been known to vehemently disagree with himself 100%)