Solution to Suicide Bombings

Great Debates
101

Yes, I outlined my plan above (or it may be on page one of this thread). No, I am not for genocide. I am for wiping out the religion; not those who are currently practicing it. Prevent the spread of the religion, make it die out. Prevent any children from becoming muslims. Allah must go the way of Zeus.

**

Sorry, but I have never bought the “they sound the same so they are morally equivalent” argument. I call it the open-mind fallacy. Police officers use guns, criminals use guns… therefore police are no better… down with the cops.

I don’t buy it one bit. I’m trying to get rid of a belief system that incites global terrorism through my hard-line ideology. They’re trying to kill as many infidels as possible through their hard-line ideology. No moral equivalency at all, even though they both involve one side trying to “get rid of” the other.

I believe America has the resources to do it. It won’t be pretty at first, I concede. But it’s the only way to get rid of islamic terrorism.

rjung please don’t think for a second that I’m some bible sympathizer. The only book worse than the bible is the koran. As far as I’m concerned, bibles should be used as kindling for the koran-burning bonfire. They’re both evil, rancid books that we should “protect our children” from.

That’s really the bottom line… get the children away from the muslims before they are brainwashed with islam. Brainwash them with something else (they can pick a new religion from a cutesy pop-up book or something). It sucks, but it seems clear that people need to be brainwashed with something or else they just don’t feel right.

102

Yikes,

I just came back to this thread and I see Kalt has taken my idea of eliminating islam and run with it.

FTR I wasn’t really serious, I just like scaring religious people - kinda a hobby of mine. Get over it Kalt, it ain’t gonna happen in our lifetime. It’s probably not even possible - it would require such intense scrutiny in so many countries to stop them sneakily practicing islam.

Although, as an anarchist, I would ultimately like to see all religions disappear. I think the world could safely lose a religion or two without being overly hurt by it but I think we need to wait for religions to implode under the weight of their own ridiculousness. We can help the process along by criticising religions and pointing out errors but invasion followed by forced conversions would set a bad precedent for the world.

Apologies to anyone offended by my idea, I was just hypothesising, not setting out my manifesto.

103

I know it’s not going to happen. But it should. . . .

Yeah, i’m not an anarchist, but I agree that the world would be a better place without religion. All of em.

They will never implode, however. Because when one religion launces 100 nukes at the other, which then launches 100 nukes in retaliation, people will be saying the nuke-launchers (the ones who actually pushed the buttons) are just a “small minority” of each religion. The “vast majority” of each religion doesn’t believe in nukes/button-pushing.

Meanwhile we’re all friggin dead. Praise the lawd.

104

Yeah, those terrorists, like Gandhi and Jesus-REALLY violent folks!

What about Martin Luther King and Oscar Romero?

:mad:

105

Well then, it seems we’re all just going to have to learn to get along with each other to avoid that kind of thing happening, doesn’t it?

Through gritted teeth, if necessary.

Guinastasia,

I would say that Jesus, Ghandi etc would have been good people anyway, they just happened to also be religious. Maybe good people are naturally drawn toward religion because they feel it would be a natural outlet for their “goodness”. This would explain why so many “good people” are religious?

It doesn’t however prove that religion made them good just that good people tend to also be religious.

People think that religion governs the way they behave but it doesn’t. It’s the other way round - religion is the product of human nature. Religions mirror the personality of their founder.

Buddhism differs from Christianity because Buddha (the actual man) had a different personality to Jesus (the actual man). Likewise Islam reflects Mohammed’s take on the world.

We need to reject all organised religion and look at humanity as a whole. That’s the only way we can ever hope to know God (if He exists).

Religion is a product of human nature not the other way round.

106

Us all getting along isn’t going to happen either. We have a better chance of getting rid of certain religions.

Anyway, if religious people would take responsibility for the actions of their religion’s followers rather than giving the standard “they’re not with us” excuse, then maybe we could get somewhere. It’s up to the religious leaders to control said fanatics. It’s up to them to instruct the people that the religion’s relevant God Book says DON’T do that. If religions don’t do that, then their followers have no right to stand there and say “we do not condone that” whenever something bad is done in the name of the religion.

Religion is powerful mind control, and it is grossly negligent to not use that mind control function to prevent violence. All members of a religion are strictly liable for any damage resulting from (“in the name of”) the religion unless appropriate steps are taken to prevent it. That means getting a consensus and distributing official literature and official interpretations of the relevant God Book (i.e. thou shall not kill includes not killing abortion doctors). Warning labels, basically. It’s easy for catholics, they have a central figure, the pope. Other religions should create a similar “god’s representative on earth” to stick behind bulletproof glass to have there to tell them what’s right and what’s wrong. A book is NEVER enough. If that’s all you have, the religion is defective and all it’s followers are strictly liable for any harm caused in the name of the religion. Can’t say “they’re not with us.” If they believe in the same religion you do, they’re with you. And you’re with them.

Yes, if you are a muslim, you are responsible for islamic terrorism. If you are a christian, you are responsible for abortion clinic bombings. No, not from a legal go-to-jail standpoint, but from a pragmatic, one. And a moral one, too.

JMnsHO, of course

107

Oh, and religions should be civilly liable (for monetary damages). Anyone harmed by a religion should be able to directly sue any representative congregation of that religion. If I am hurt by, say, a catholic, then I should be able to sue not only the Vatican (of course they have the deepest pockets) but also any other catholic church. Yep, the one right around the street corner. All I have to prove is 1) harm; 2) proximately caused by a follower of the religion; and 3) the harm was done in the name of that religion/religion’s god.

#3 can be inferred with circumstantial evidence. A muslim blows up a synagogue, it can be inferred that he did it in the name of allah/islam. Anyone hurt in that explosion should be allowed to sue ANY islamic mosque to recover damages. As islamic mosques, they are all jointly and severally liable for the defective religion.

Religion is nothing more than a product. Strict products liability (402A, etc) should apply. “Oh but the free exercise clause!” No… you don’t have the freedom to exercise your beliefs in harmful ways.

Install such a program, and after a few huge verdicts, religious violence will start to decline pretty darn quickly.

108

Magiver, here’s my reply.

I see the general problem with this conflict and know its not as easy as one two three to solve it.

People did say “Death to America” but that is mainly sparked by the fact that America has been telling they are a bad country they are supporting the enemy and they will be next. This only happened during demonstrations during the Iraq War, for about 3-4 weeks, but during normal times nothing like this ever happens. People here are extremely friendly, and will do all kinds of things for you, just because they find it thier duty to welcome foreigners.

“The axis of evil” is actually one of the most peacefull places I have ever lived. Everyone is nice, it is very safe (Yu could point out some less postitive reasons for this but hey). Syria does not like Israel becasue they invaded thier country and are currently still occupying part of it.

I will get back to this later I have to split.

109

I’ve got to disagree with your definition of a ‘zealot’. Just because they weren’t a zealot at one point in their lives does not mean they aren’t one at the time of the attack.

The BBC article makes it pretty clear that by the time the suicide bombers are ready to carry out an attack they are almost completely indoctrinated in the zealot-like fundamentalist frame of mind.

You hardly ever get ‘natural’ zealots. Some kind of rigorous indoctrination and ‘brainwashing’ (for want of a better word) is needed. Whether it’s kamikaze pilots or suicide bombers or branch davidians. Sure the terrorist groups select people who they feel would be easier to ‘mold’ but these people do not carry out bombing because of ‘despair’, they do it because they are indoctirinated into some fundamentalist mindset where they are led to believe that killing others (and sacrificing themselves in the process) will make some fundamenatal difference.

110

The Soviet Union and China and other communist countries persecuted religion for several generations in the most inhuman ways and religion survived the regimes that wanted to kill them.

At any rate, I can’t believe some people here are proposing that kind of “final solution”. Truly scary. Not only that but The USA could hardly prohibit the exercise of religion abroad and allow it at home.

Anyone who thinks this should be considered as a solution has no grip on reality.

111

WEll, I guess we could wind up playing “chicken and egg,” here. Certainly, with enough preparation and indoctrination, by the time someone goes to blow themselves up, taking as many other people as they can with them, they have achieved a zealous state of intent. The question remains, however, where and how were they recruited to begin with? How easy would it be to recruit someone who was otherwise planning to go out and start a family and watch their grandkids grow up and get married.

Even your use of the word brainwashing (to which I won’t hold you, but you did introduce it) indicates that these recruits had to have their normal attitudes violently wrenched away so that they could be given new goals.

112

Ok, firstly, I reject your homegrown “open-mind” fallacy as a legitimate objection. Your cops/robbers analogy doesn’t hold up because the criminal and cop operate under the same set of rules. The rule of law. They answer to the same authority, which applies to both of them. The criminal is clearly behaving outside the boundries of acceptable behavior and violating the laws of the common state they share. Islamic terrorists seeking to impose Islam on the entire world(if in fact this is actually their motive, and not a smokescreen for some political goal) and those who would call for the extermination of Islam as a whole don’t answer to the same authority. Islamic terrorists, from what I can tell, do everything they can to make sure the moral authority they recognize would sanction/approve of their actions. They believe that what they’re doing, while not necessarially good, is the lesser of the two evils. Obviously their victims believe they are living, for the most part, in line with their non-Islamic moral framework. Both believe they are right, both believe the other is wrong. Who has the right to arbitrate this dispute?

Here is your invitation to show exactly WHY your condemnation of Islam as a whole and your call for its extermination is morally superior to the condemnation of Non-Islamic religions/states by extremist factions such as Al Queda and their call for extermination of the “infidels”. All I’ve seen from you so far is a variation on the “might makes right” arguement. If the situation were reversed and it was Osama bin Laden who ran the US and had the military might of the US Armed Forces in his control, would you renounce your beliefs and adopt Islam? Would you accept his decision to impose it on you by force? Why, or why not? Remember, bin Laden believes the US is a nation of individuals committing reprehensible acts on a daily basis. Imposition of an order which would, in his worldview, reduce the overall amount of “evil” in the world.

Literally hundreds of countries/empires have tried to exterminate various religions over the course of history. Their reasoning was very much along the same lines as Kalt’s. The religion is a danger to the peace and security of the state because it requires different goals or loyalties and/or clashes with the state’s moral authority. To date I know of zero successes. Occasionally a cult can be squashed, but an established religion like Judiasm, Taoism, Buddism, Hinduism, Christianity, etc. survives even the most determined persecution. I see no reason why a US-led effort to exterminate Islam would fare any better.

Moreover I see no compelling reason why I should accept Kalt’s assertion that extending his moral framework by force onto approximately a billion people worldwide, the VAST MAJORITY OF WHICH ARE NOT TERRORISTS IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD, is justifiable. I can not see that such a proposal is any different than Osama bin Laden’s assertion that Islam must become universal and his determination to impose it with or without the consent of the population to be converted.

Enjoy,
Steven

113

Kalt

Your legal idea is interesting but I don’t think it could work. For example, suppose I believe passionately in democracy so I plant a bomb in a totalitarian country because I think that will help “spread democracy”.

You would be able to prove 1) harm 2) proximately caused by a supporter of democracy 3) the harm was done in the name of democracy. So, under your rules, anyone harmed by the bomb would be able to sue any democratic government for damages despite the fact that that democratic government has no connection to me (the bomber) and despite the fact that there is nothing in the ideology of democracy itself that advocates spreading it by violence.

This is the hole in your idea. In order for your idea to work you would need to prove a fourth thing in addition to the three things you mentioned - that the ideology itself advocates spreading it by violence.

It would be impossible to prove this about islam. Although some sects of islam advocate violence to spread it, some do not. There are many different schools of thought within islam so you couldn’t hold the whole of islam liable for the actions of certain groups within it.

Even a very strict sect like Wahhabism would probably claim, in a court of law, that they do not officially advocate violence.

Sailor and MtgMan,

I don’t want to answer for kalt but, playing devils advocate, the rebuttal to your points would be as follows:

Instead of thinking of islam, christianity, hinduism etc as religions, think of them as ideologies. They are ideologies alongside democracy, capitalism, communism and fascism.

Not all ideologies are equal, some are better than others. For example, the world has (in general) decided that it can live without communism and fascism - it has effectively declared these to be hostile ideologies. “Hostile” as in hostile to the good of the world.

You say - who are we to decide that one ideology is better than another? Well, you could take the consensus of opinion from all the other ideologies. You ask the following questions:

  • Does Christianity consider Islam to be a hostile ideology?
  • Does Hinduism consider Islam to be a hostile ideology?
  • Does Judaism consider Islam to be a hostile ideology?
  • Would a capitalist consider Islam to be a hostile ideology?
  • Would a communist consider Islam to be a hostile ideology?
  • Would a democrat consider Islam to be a hostile ideology?

If the answer to all these questions is “yes” then it could be claimed that all of the world’s major ideologies agree on this one issue.

Where I have written “islam” above, try substituting any of the other ideologies and asking the same questions. You will find that you will not get all yes’s. You will get some no’s which means that there isn’t a consensus amongst the world’s ideologies that any of the others are truly hostile. Even with communism - you get Christian, Jewish and Muslim communists and it’s not essential to communism to eradicate religion.

This is how we can know whether one ideology really is not as good as the others. It’s the only way to know, in fact. By considering whether one ideology is unanimously considered to be hostile by all the other ideologies. By looking to see whether one ideology is the “odd one out”.

You are correct that communist countries have tried to wipe out religion and failed but you could argue that they failed for two reasons:

  1. They didn’t replace the religion with a different religion. They tried to make the people worship communism and become godless - this doesn’t work

  2. They didn’t do it for long enough.

However, I agree with you that it’s probably not really possible or even desirable to try to eradicate a religion. Having said that though, I think islam really needs to get it’s act together. They are succeeding in being a major pain in everyone’s ass at the moment. I sense a hardening of the world’s attitude towards islam, a feeling that people are running out of patience.

All it would take would be for this feeling to coalesce into a united world movement and we could all be in for a very rough ride. Surprisingly, I don’t think muslims would have much of a problem with a war against them because I have been told by muslims that islam does predict that there will be a big war in which lots of muslims will die.

This war needs to happen before the day of judgement can come. So if there was a war, muslims would just assume that this was the “big one” and the day of judgement must be at hand. Where we differ (me and the muslims) is that they think they will either win the war or lose the war but it doesn’t matter because the day of judgement will come and they’ll all go to Heaven.

However, secretly, they think they’ll win the war because they’ve got God on their side.

I, on the other hand, think that they will either win the war or lose the war but it doesn’t matter because the day of judgement won’t come and we’ll all carry on as before.

Secretly, however, I think they will lose the war because they may have God on their side but we’ve got the numbers and the nuclear weapons. I know which I prefer in a fight.

114

Look foward to the chat. Will have to read up on Damascus.

115

Well, they clearly have no such consensus, so I’m not sure where you hope to go from here.

Which Christianity? That of Pat Roberston, John Spong, John Paul II, Ian Paisley? Yes, no, no, probably yes.
Which Hinduism? That of Gandhi? No.
Which Judaism? That of Meir Kahane, Ariel Sharon, Elie Wiesel, Henry Noble? Yes, yes, no, no.

Given the number of capitalist companies setting up shop in Muslim nations, “a” capitalist would not seem to find Islam a hostile ideology.
The Muslim Filipinos who are being lumped in with al Qaida because they are attempting independence (and who are the same Filipinos who were the Marxists attempting independence when Marcos used them as an excuse to damage Filipino Democracy), or the (no longer?) Marxist Russians battling to maintain sovereignty over Chechnya? No, yes(?).
There are several Muslim majority countries who follow democratic ideals to one extent or another counterbalanced by Saudi Arabia and other oligarchies. So No and yes.

This is the problem even with your modified version of Kalt’s silliness. Despite his desire to turn every religion (or your system of belief) into a monolithic structure, there is no monolithic belief system once such a system get larger than a few hundred adherents.

Basically, it is simply a matter of declaring “bad” anyone who believes anything. (I suspect that there would be some outraged cries from Kalt’s corner if we wished to sue or punish him because some nihilist (or whatever Kalt is currently claiming to be) hurt someone else. And if Kalt pretended that he was totally alone in his beliefs, it would not be difficult to demonstrate that there are others like him, even if they don’t pray together once a week.)

116

Wow. I need to pinch myself or something. I didn’t think this thread could get much more surreal, but to see what seems like a genuine proposal which not only supports forced re-programming(replacing one religion with another) of ~ one billion people, but suggests the decision as to selection of the group of people to forcibly re-program rests in the hands of their ideological rivals.

Let me ask you something. If it is acceptable to forcibly convert those sharing a certain ideology if a majority of other ideologies agree the ideology in question is a problem, what does that say about Athiests/Agnostics(who represent single digit numbers of humanity) versus Thiests(who are an overwhelming majority). The cornerstone “sin” in virtually every ideology/religion is rejection of the religion/ideology as good and true. Would you support a campaign to annex and set up imperial-style colonies over anywhere Athiest/Agnostic ideas hold sway(and rooting out individuals in other areas)? Give the Athiest/Agnostics the choice of either dying out on their own(and forcibly preventing them from passing on their views to their children) or converting to a Thiestic ideology?

Wow.

Enjoy,
Steven

117

Jojo: democracy is not a business or a product. It’s just a system of government. It’s purpose is not, innately, to spread and make money. There is no central “teaching” of democracy (i.e. no holy “book of democracy” that requires interpretation). Yes there is the american constitution, but that just sets up a republican form of government for this country, it’s not analogous to a bible/koran/torah. Yeah I know people like rush limbaugh talk about democracy like it is a holy faith or something, but it’s not.

Anyway, even if it did apply to democracy, America, and every other democracy I can think of, has explicit laws with clear and accessable interpetations against blowing stuff up/terrorism. Religions don’t. Put the proper warning label on it, and there’s no liability. Democracy has given adequate warning to its followers what is acceptable behavior. Thus, democracy is not liable when someone blows up something in the name of democracy.

Now, Islam, on the other hand, is fatally defective as long as it’s God Book has one line saying “love the jews and the gentiles” and another saying “kill all the non-muslim infidels.” Per se defective. The religion should be liable for every single act done in its name until the Bod Book is fixed in an official way.

What about those who won’t accept the newly-inspired god book and branch off and start their own “traditional” sect? Then they’re strictly liable, as the new one has adequately warned its followers. The spinoff sect has not.

I’m tellin ya, it would work quite well. It would require much international cooperation, however. Although, at the very least, we can easily use the American Military to seize assets to satisfy what will most likely be default judgments.

I hate to sound like a kid in the sandbox (spare me the obvious retort), but they started it. As the rest of the world has evolved over the past 200 years (post-industrial revolution), islamic countries lagged behind and, in response, latched onto the one thing they had–their religion. It has evolved into a belief system that poses a danger to the entire world.

In reponse to that danger, I believe it is morally justified to get rid of it. I’m not even talking “preemtive strike” like the iraq war. We’re already at war with islam (we being the non-islamic world). It’s an involuntary war which islam dragged us all into, but we’re at war nonetheless. Yes, politicians can play it cool and say “we’re not at war with islam” because it’s not politically correct, but we all know that’s exactly what we’re at war with.

Another way to morally justify it is that they are trying to destroy/kill us, whereas we are not trying to destroy/kill them (not yet). If someone keeps slapping your face, you are justified in slapping back. Just because each side is face-slapping doesn’t mean they’re morally equivalent. Yeah, i realize “an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind” sounds ever-so-wise and peaceful, but it’s bullshit.

But, before we heard them all up into internment camps and take away their children for initial programming/reprogramming, let’s try my Strict Religions Liability system first. They’re all in it for the money; once they start losing money because of the actions of their followers, the official doctrines will magically start to change for the benefit of humanity (and their pocketbooks). They won’t be able to say “they’re not with us, we don’t condone that” if they have to pay for it. Plus keep in mind, it’s just a “very small minority” so it will be very easy for the “vast majority” of a religion to control them once they are given adequate motivation to do so.

118

if atheists start blowing stuff up, day after day, in the name of atheism, then yeah, round 'em up and hook em up to electrodes or whatever it is the scientologists do. It’s the “people of faith” that are causing the trouble… and one faith in particular stands out above all the others.

119

Well?