I agree on the ideal of a new thread, but here we are posting in this one.We can have useless threads where we all agree on everything and useless threads where nobody agrees on anything. My point is that "everybody can agree" is not itself any kind of a reason for a thread. Ideally a thread provides new information or a new perspective on something that people can agree with or criticize.
I'm talking about anybody in any kind of official capacity with the US Govvernment.
Could it be because the government's lack of remorse is not seen as monstrous at all?
I agree on the ideal of a new thread, but here we are posting in this one.
What is it that makes you think the US government is remorseless? That's not a challenge, but a genuine question. (Also, I think what I said about certain members has much more impact on thread quality than the government's lack of empathy for its atrocities, as that only impacts certain topics).
When the Israeli government authorizes a strike against a Hamas leader or whatever who happens to be living in a civilian neighborhood...part of the logic is indeed a "tit for tat". And they know that the guy is in this civilian area and that inevitably the strike will kill innocents who surround the guy.
A big part of war is simply fighting until the other guy gives up. So tit-for-tat does just that. Like, there is a legit argument that the bombings in WWII of German cities was terrorism...the bombs were so inaccurate that they just destroyed entire sections of cities and not hitting the intended targets.
But there is something despicable about the Palestinian intentionally targeting and working to intentionally maximize civilian casualties. I'd have more respect for them if they at least had an ostensibly military or government target in mind. Instead, they target whoever they can reach.
Which is why I think a lot of terrorism from Palestinians is really about emotional satisfaction.
I agree on the ideal of a new thread, but here we are posting in this one.
What is it that makes you think the US government is remorseless? That's not a challenge, but a genuine question. (Also, I think what I said about certain members has much more impact on thread quality than the government's lack of empathy for its atrocities, as that only impacts certain topics).
Agreed then, I just wasn't sure who you meant when you referenced the government not feeling remorse. I do believe that the people carrying out the orders feel remorse though. Would you agree to that? And if not, would you agree that there exists 'some' degree between US soldiers carrying out orders and the man in the OP's blatant hubris?It might sound silly, but I think it's important to point out that The US Government can't have remorse for anything, only people in an official government capacity can. It's clear to me that these people don't have remorse because they don't express any remorse. They expressed enormous remorse for the loss of Ryan, so we know its something they can do.
It also seems clear to me that it's only possible to order a raid like that if you've dehumanized the innocent people that will be killed by it. Why would anyone express remorse for killing people they've dehumanized?
Agreed then, I just wasn't sure who you meant when you referenced the government not feeling remorse. I do believe that the people carrying out the orders feel remorse though. Would you agree to that? And if not, would you agree that there exists 'some' degree between US soldiers carrying out orders and the man in the OP's blatant hubris?
Thanks, btw.
This is not so much about the soldiers, and more about the decision makers. I want to make that distinction because many times we don't have a window into what an individual soldier is experiencing or doing, and many of their decisions are made in the stress of combat. On the other hand, we can very clearly see what the result of a raid is, and then observe what the political leadership says and does. FWIW
I think it's really tricky when you try to get at what's inside someone's heart. What you see probably says more about you than it does about them. If you really want to know what I think, I think it's a complicated mixture of dehumanization of the people that are killed or hurt, rationalizing the decision, an earnest sense that the these kinds of raids are necessary for a security perspective, and a practical sense that remorse for the loss of Yemeni civilians is not tolerated in the public discourse.
But I don't agree that we should try to get at what's in someone's heart in this case. If the Obama administration or the Trump administration orders a raid that turns out the way the raid in Yemen turns out, and they morn the loss of an American combatant, but not the deaths of many non-combatants, I think we need to see that as a monstrous in its own right.
I think it's a big mistake to exceptionalize the monstrousness of the Jordanian (or the people who supported what he did) against the monstrousness of a government that doesn't express any remorse for the civilian suffering caused by their raids. They're both rooted in dehumanizing people and convincing yourself that the benefit of your actions are worth the human cost. I think if you're trying to make a moral distinction there, it's either because you're trying to diminish the legitimacy of the Jordanian's feelings about Israel, or trying to diminish the importance of the civilian casualties in the American raid.
No, there is something uniquely monstrous about the town celebrating his return despite the very public knowledge of him intentionally targeting children.
Ultimately, such things reflect quite poorly on Islam and the strength of its morality.
No, there is something uniquely monstrous about the town celebrating his return despite the very public knowledge of him intentionally targeting children.
There isn't really any excuse or plausible deniability or fog of war. He admitted to what he did and in fact boasts of it and is unrepentant. How many people celebrated Jessica Lynch when she returned home?
Ultimately, such things reflect quite poorly on Islam and the strength of its morality.
It reflects poorly on Islam? How so? Is this a Muslim issue or is this an issue of regional power and struggle?
Gee. I wonder.
Most of the international community want a two state solution.
A majority of Palestinians want a two state solution.
A majority of Israelis want a two state solution.
So what's the problem? The parties of god won't allow it. Islam and judaism make the situation intractable.
Nope. Pure politics. Arab League doesn't want it solved. Israeli hawks don't want it solved. Palestinian leadership doesn't want it solved.
Imagine Palestine being established and Israel stopped West Bank occupation, the attention will turn to the crap Saudi Arabia is doing. The Palestinian leadership will have to actually better the lives of the people instead of living it up.
The many problems in Israel will be in the spotlight, and despicables like Nethayahu will have nowhere to hide.
So you think that without religion they'd find another "convenient political" reason to fight over worthless land? Makes sense. Jews settled there randomly after wwII, with the only criterion that it be in the middle east (for reasons - sunny weather?) and it be in one of the few places there that doesn't have oil.
Wonder why that is. Politics?And you may call it worthless, but not to Israeli and Palestinians.
Why do you need to believe that?
It reflects poorly on Islam? How so? Is this a Muslim issue or is this an issue of regional power and struggle?
So you think that without religion they'd find another "convenient political" reason to fight over worthless land? Makes sense.
I don't need to believe anything. I simply cannot anymore stand equivocation of despicable behavior. This is the moderate Muslim conundrum: they don't actually do the killing but they do provide support for the perps.
Religion cannot be disentangled from politics and nationalism.
Do you also have the duty to seek out and eliminate terrorists who seek to kill others and have no qualms about putting themselves in situations where innocents can be used as shields? If you know how to seek out and eliminate the bad guys without any chance of loss of life for innocents, I'm sure there are a lot of people who'd love to hear about it.
Don't you also hate how when someone drives a truck into a crowd on purpose to kill people, and when someone has an accident on the highway and kills people are exactly the same thing? Action causes a bunch of dead people: all you need to know.
You are ignoring the actual target and focusing only on the consequences of killing said target.
But the targets are different, and for scenario (2) we'd be taking action due to the impending act of killing they'd perpetrate.
In the case of ISIS we're fighting a genocidal group hellbent on killing everything not themselves.
There's a difference between executing a murderer VS being a murderer.
There's a difference between fighting a war of defense VS offense.
There's a difference between fighting against genocide VS fighting for genocide.
The basis of opposing your outrage begins there.
I understand the loss of life and we work to minimize it. The opponent works to maximize it. Do not compare the two.
Err Palestine has been there a long time... Before Islam at least.Wonder why that is. Politics?
There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What, you think our country is so innocent? I think that our country does plenty of killing, too.
That kind of talk is unpatriotic. Time to put a veil over it. And then remove that veil. And then ban it.