Quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:
quote:
Originally posted by Stratos:
I wont try to put my answers inside the box above, I would just mess up the tags. I'll quote directly.
"You cannot and must not judge both sides as if they are the same or equal or even that both ideologies are valid... in this conflict"
If you don't judge them by the same standards, then what standards to use and what are then the justifications for them? If you judge the two sides by the same, or similar standards, you are automatically doing a comparison between them and I would bet the insurgents and terrorists wont score high at all. Issues can be raised on how the Coalition have handled the conlict, but the terrorists are just a hopeless case.
I hate to go back to the old story. By your logic The Nazi's had every right to murder Gypsies and Jews because "they Believed it was right".
Sorry not every side is equally moral in conflict.
"Both sides do not have to be suicidal immoral anti-humanitarian religious zealots...only one side has to be."
Not all of them are all these, there are many different insurgent groups. Just wondering, what exactly do you mean by immoral and anti-humanitarian?
Ohh say expressly targeting...blowing up innocent women and children...that is immoral and anti-humanitarian...making non-military civilians the target of your terror campaign is immoral and anti-humanitarian....I hope you can see that.
" The sides are not even, one side is for Human liberty and for freedoms and rights, the other represents islamofacism and supression of human rights and equality."
Only from our perspective. They appearantly think they're doing the right thing, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. If it's right or wrong in a absolute way is a different matter. In any case, they islamists have their own brand of human rights and equality based on religious laws. They don't like ours and believe theirs is superior.
no...not just from our perspective...the islamofascists are all about subjugating the people to the will of the religious leaders, removing human rights from women and for killing on site any homesexual....basicly they are against every personal freedom the west has "advanced" in the last 200 years or so.
"Again, you are placing both sides on the same moral level and this is wrong. (in my opinion...I know people who can justify any murder or killing so others may have different views)"
Whomever pulls the trigger is responsible for the resulting death. It might be seen as justified given the situation, perhaps, but the responsibility is clear, in my opinion.
Being responsible for a death is not the same as being responsible for a wanton act of murder and terror. A bomb that malfunctions and hits the wrong target is not the same as a suicide car driver exploding his car load of explosivesin the middle of men women and children who are trying to go about their daily lives...to morally equate these two incidents is to be morally bankrupt.
|
[/QUOTE]1. It doesn't matter if the Nazi's didn't have the right to commit genocide, they took themselves the "right" by might alone. In any case, a good deal of them had to have thought it was "right"; it would be impossible to carry out something like the Holocaust if you thought it was morally repulsive.
Now, this doesn't make it right, and I never claimed it did, I just wanted to point out that ALL people who commit genocide or carry out terrorist attacks believe they are doing the right thing. They sleep well at night because they think they did the "right thing", regardless of what they did. Further, I never said that they were equally moral, what I meant was that we should judge them by the same standards. As I see it, that's the only reasonable thing to do. Use different standards and your subjective opinion comes into play.
Only one side commited genocide during WW2, and only one side cut the heads of people in this current conflict in Iraq. That alone mean the both sides aren't on the same moral level, even if you judge them by the same standards.
2. I just found it mildly "amusing" that religionists such as the islamists always claim they're morally superior. How blowing up civilians is morally defencible is beyond me.
3. Yes, they are against several Western values regarding human rights, but they nonetheless claim their own version of human rights are better. The islamist would probably say that following the religious leader is the best thing to do since he's in better contact with God, that the womans role is in the home and that homosexuality is a mortal sin, punishable by death. They probably think God made these laws, and since God is absolutely fair, so are his laws.
4. I really wonders how many bombs dropped by American bombers malfunctions or hits the wrong target. No, civilians killed by these bombs died because the were near the spot the bombers aimed at. They were obviously not the target, but they were there. The motives and targets of the Coalition and the insurgents are completely different; they're not morally equal and I never said they were. What I meant was that you cannot judge them as morally inequal if you don't judge them by the same standards.
[ 11-03-2004, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]