Isn’t it trolling to post something like this, and then watch the reactions from everyone else (rather than actively participating in the discussion)?
IMO, it’s trolling if that was his intent. But he has chimed in a couple of times, though he seems unfamiliar with the forum descriptions.
Most of the stupid threads like this in GD are started by “Guests”. It gets tiresome after awhile.
Note that I didn’t say, nor do I belivee, that most “Guests” start stupid threads like this.
Easy with the “t” word y’all.
And I think John Mace’s ponit was that terrorists, I mean er, tr…o…l aw I can’t do it but ya know what I mean tend to be Guests. Not that Guests tend to be…
Then you would not object if terrorists killed you and members of your family. Correct?
Also, I am not clear if you feel that 9/11 was also justified. Do you think it was? Why, or why not?
And, to welcome you to the SDMB, let me offer a quote from another, now departed poster.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s a textbook example of a tu quoque fallacy. Here’s another textbook example:
So basically Osama Bin Laden’s answer to the question has nothing to do with actually answering the question and all it is is trying to change the subject to avoid the actual question - right? So that is the fallacy?
Yes. Answering a question or addressing an argument with “well, you do it too” is a tu quoque fallacy. Arguing that some action is acceptable because your opponent has taken that action in the past doesn’t address the argument as to whether either of you should be taking that action in the first place.
That pig sucking Osama would deny that the attack on Pearl Harbor ever happened.
I’m finding it hard to care if the OP is terrorized, but I’m happy to stop/kill violent Islamicists whenever possible.
Weird, I posted this about a year ago. I think what’s shocking when this question gets asked is the sheer volume of people that agree with masheene. I can remember right after 9/11 a lot of people kept saying, “good, they deserved it.” Same thing after Madrid, and again after London. This is not an uncommon opinion for people to have.
Even worse is the dismissive tone people use which inspired another recent thread. The comments made there seemed to suggest that terrorism is also a rational response to what ever frustrations these groups have. It was also stated what we are not allowed to call terrorists insane or irrational.
I, personally, think this viewpoint is disgusting and entirely antisocial, showing an utter disregard for human life–but I’m of the minority. The rest of the world seems to think that US foreign policy means that every US citizen will get what’s coming to them.
To play devils advocate, the statement I usually hear is that American citizens, or frankly anyone living in America, benefits from US policy (both foreign and domestic). By choosing to live in the country, they are aligning themselves with the actions of their government. One year ago November, the country was given the opportunity to voice their opinion in a free and democratic election, and they chose to re-elect their president, and thus show their support for what ever policies he had made or promised to make.
We’re at a stage in our evolution where we all seem very confused how to justify murder. The war in Afghanistan and then in Iraq seemed justified, but it still meant a lot of civilian deaths. Its now getting harder and harder to take any sort of moral high ground over terrorism while at the same time killing civilians in two countries.
Would you not argue that the real immorality of terrorism is not the murder of innocent people per se, but the arbitrary and rationalised selection of who is innocent and who is not? Terrorism is, when you hack right down to it, the removal of the status of “innocent”, “non combatant” and “civilian” to justify some arbitrary end. And both “sides” do it. It’s not the dead who are terrorised, it’s the living who know that, under the new paradigm, they may be next.
Fact of the matter for the OP is that a statement of “we deserved to be terrorized” can’t be supported, when there are no objective criteria for who does and does not deserve to be terrorized. Also, the OP uses 9/11 as his example of deserved terrorism. Why not Oklahoma City? Do the OP’s same criteria for deservedness apply there?
I could go on but it would just drag this into IMHO territory where it IHMO should be. Under the topic “Terrorists have no point to prove, they’re just arseholes”
mm
Kirk: Then the attack by Vendikar was theoretical.
Vendikar leader: Oh, no. Quite real.
An attack is mathematically launched.
I lost my wife in the last attack.
Our civilization lives.
The people die, but our culture goes on.
Kirk: You mean to tell me…
your people just walk into a disintegration machine when they’re told to?
Vendikar leader: We have a high consciousness of duty, Captain.
Spock: There is a certain scientific logic about it.
Vendicar leader: I’m glad you approve.
Spock: I do not approve. I only said that I understand.
-A taste of Armagedon
Likewise, I understand why we could be subject to terrible terror attracts in the future, I do not agree we should be “submitted to the same fate” understanding is not the same as approving, masheene@comcast.net seems to be doing the later here.
OTOH there is also a problem when one falls for the other extreme: that we should never ever consider valid the reasons why they are fighting. (Once again I consider those reasons not good enough to justify attacking innocents).
As McNamara mentioned in The Fog Of War: his first lesson was:
I just don’t understand the idea that it’s not okay for one man to die for the sins of his country, but it’s okay for 2,000 to die.
Take any one of the people killed on 9/11, when we was alive, show him to someone like the OP, and ask, “does this guy deserve to be terrorized?” The answer will probably be “no” and if it’s “yes,” then the answerer is a maniac.
But show him a building full of people and say “did these people deserve to be terrorized” and if he says “yes,” then it’s understandable? What?!?! Why?
When you say “we deserve to be terrorized,” what does that mean, really? It means, people deserve to be blown up and killed. How could that ever be justified?
Blame is not a zero-sum game. It’s entirely possible to say “The 9/11 terrorists were crap-sucking bastards” and “The United States has been led by crap-sucking bastards who’ve been screwing over the Middle East for decades.” So on and so forth.
In the end, though, two (or more) wrongs don’t make a right.
Bingo! Because “terrorism” implies large scale actions and association with some concept higher than human life, where as if you only kill one person, it’s “murder” and apparently we’re more squeamish about that. The big lie is much easier to swallow than the little one.
Have really become become inured to terrorism to the point where people start saying “oh maybe we deserve this”? Well, I’m sure the last thought that goes through such a person’s mind as the shrapnel rips their body apart or they desperately fumble with a cell phone to call a loved one as their plane goes down will be a comforting one.
mm
Couldn’t you repeat this same sentiment with US soldiers heading to Iraq/Afganistan, or the civilians they’re about to kill? No one wants their civilians killed, or even their military.
At least a soldier knows that he runs the risk of being killed - it’s part of the job, unfortunately. A civilian, on the other hand, shouldn’t have to worry about being blown up on the way to work.
Unfortunately yes. Its getting harder and harder to seperate war from terrorism because in the end civilians die.
The US really is in a strange position being happily isolated in North America. It used to be that when a country went to war, it faced the very real threat that the oposing country would fight back. Pearl Harbour, if I’m correct, remains the only attack on US soil. All of the past 50 years have involved the US fighting a war in a very far away country without any risk to her own citizens. The risk of terrorism is now seems to balance this out.
I agree, now shouldn’t that be true of any civilian? Does it not seem universal that civilians should be protected from such acts.