Another Israel/Palestine debate that started as something else - Carpe Diem

[Acorn]

I think we're seeing why Internet "discussions" tend to be unproductive.

First off, Andyboy, I think it might be instructive for you (and others) to re-think what Infanteer and I are trying to say. If you've concluded we somehow, actively or tacitly, support tactics such as suicide bombing, you are failing comprehension 101. Silence, indeed.

This is the reason why we fail to understand our enemy. Understanding is a key component to defeating that enemy. Sitting in the comfort of our living rooms, with our access to relatively free media, combined with our social/cultural upbringing, leaves us baffled by what we see in the Middle East. Hell, we call it the "Middle East," which is a perceptual bias in itself.

I don't see why you can conclude that I don't condemn the tactics under discussion. I also don't see why you think simple condemnation of their tactics would have a desireable effect. Do you have any understanding of the Arab world?

The principle problem I see here is a classic "mirror imaging" error.

So long as we fail to even try to understand the motivation of our enemy, we will fail to win.

Acorn

 

[48Highlander]

You're taking an issue of morality and turning it into a we're-all-equal-let's-look-at-their-point-of-view hug-fest.  Sure, every side has their motivations for doing what they do.  As was pointed out, I'm sure Hitler had a very well thought out reason for killing Jews, and I'm sure Sadam had plenty of reasons for gassing the Kurds.  I'm also quite sure that Osama felt perfectly justified in crashing aircraft into the World Trade Center.  Understanding what makes them tick is important because it can make it easier to defeat them.  However, approaching the situation from an entirely impartial position without making any moral judgement, is pretty pointless, and only confuses the issue while providing ammunition for those who are opposed to our goals.

Also, if you don't think Cadets and "junior suicide bombers" are the same thing (and I don't beleive you do), why make the comparison?  Why even mention them in the same paragraph?  There were probably much better ways to illustrate the point you were trying to make.  Obviously making the comparison is going to raise some pulses and confuse the issue.  What do you suppose would be the response if someone tried to draw paralels between Al Qaeda and the CF?

 

[Andyboy]

I think we're seeing why Internet "discussions" tend to be unproductive.

First off, Andyboy, I think it might be instructive for you (and others) to re-think what Infanteer and I are trying to say. If you've concluded we somehow, actively or tacitly, support tactics such as suicide bombing, you are failing comprehension 101. Silence, indeed.

This is the reason why we fail to understand our enemy. Understanding is a key component to defeating that enemy. Sitting in the comfort of our living rooms, with our access to relatively free media, combined with our social/cultural upbringing, leaves us baffled by what we see in the Middle East. heck, we call it the "Middle East," which is a perceptual bias in itself.

I don't see why you can conclude that I don't condemn the tactics under discussion. I also don't see why you think simple condemnation of their tactics would have a desireable effect. Do you have any understanding of the Arab world?

The principle problem I see here is a classic "mirror imaging" error.

So long as we fail to even try to understand the motivation of our enemy, we will fail to win.

Acorn

Well thanks for setting me straight Professor Acorn, where would I be without your infinate wisdom. I mean after all, if someone doesn't agree with you the best way to get the to agree is to belittle them right?

I'm not sure why I bothered...

 

[Infanteer]

You're taking an issue of morality and turning it into a we're-all-equal-let's-look-at-their-point-of-view hug-fest.   Sure, every side has their motivations for doing what they do.   As was pointed out, I'm sure Hitler had a very well thought out reason for killing Jews, and I'm sure Sadam had plenty of reasons for gassing the Kurds.   I'm also quite sure that Osama felt perfectly justified in crashing aircraft into the World Trade Center.   Understanding what makes them tick is important because it can make it easier to defeat them.   However, approaching the situation from an entirely impartial position without making any moral judgement, is pretty pointless, and only confuses the issue while providing ammunition for those who are opposed to our goals.

The morality of what?   Suicide bombings?   Israel/Palestine?   Dressing Children up and taking them to the Demonstration?   This is why the argument is getting convoluted - use the quote function and point out where I'm promoting a "we're-all-equal-let's-look-at-their-point-of-view hug-fest" instead of just lobbing accusations of moral turpitude.

I've stated that Palestinians, in deciding their COA (both individually and as a group), are probably not concluding that "we need to act like slimy cowards, but we will subject everyone to our hidden agenda" - I am saying that to them, their actions and motivations are informed by many cultural inputs and are probably just as strong as ours.   I've said that I don't think their current tactics are any good because they don't seem to indicate a desire for peace.   If there is something wrong with my line of thought then please, by all means, point it out.

Anyways, morality is a matter of opinion and perspective - what half a billion North Americans think may not be what half a billion Muslims (from various Nations) feel - where is the ultimate moral authority?   I'm serious in this question.   To me, it seems that the only thing that validates our system of morality is our ability to fight for it - this is something that I believe in and I will support by putting the uniform on; but how this makes our outlook superior or invalidates that of others is beyond me.

Also, if you don't think Cadets and "junior suicide bombers" are the same thing (and I don't beleive you do), why make the comparison?   Why even mention them in the same paragraph?   There were probably much better ways to illustrate the point you were trying to make.   Obviously making the comparison is going to raise some pulses and confuse the issue.   What do you suppose would be the response if someone tried to draw paralels between Al Qaeda and the CF?

It's called being provocative for the purpose of discussion.   As I said, I responding to the "ignorant savage" line and thought I'd play Devil's Advocate by showing that perhaps the motive for doing something like this (dressing up children to emulate the defenders) is something that is a shared amongst other societies (ours included) and that perhaps the Palestinians aren't the "cavemen" some would like to believe.

This doesn't mean that one can not make a moral judgement on the issue, it is only trying to point out that all societies are complex and that this complex system has a big effect on informing their decision making.   You brought up the Balkans before; sure I was there, and my moral judgement was that these rednecks were only going to tear their own country up again - I could probably tell them that and it wouldn't make a difference as my opinion was informed from my unique Western culture; the history that imprints itself upon the mind of those there (including your Grandfather, if I recall your earlier statement) is simply non-existent for me.   I can rationalize it by educating myself on the issue, but I can't experience the emotion of it, and in these conflicts, emotions often override any rational discourse.

This is why I am going to be a Jedi - emotion is the Path to the Dark Side....

Well thanks for setting me straight Professor Acorn, where would I be without your infinate wisdom. I mean after all, if someone doesn't agree with you the best way to get the to agree is to belittle them right?

Well, he answered your question of supporting suicide bombing with the reason why he was arguing his point of view - what did you expect when you accused both him and I of it twice and have been told otherwise.   As I said above, instead of lobbing general accusations around, use the quote function and point out the specifics of the argument that you are trying to counter.

Other than that, there is no point in being rude - if you don't want to take part in the discussion, then simply ignore it.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[Andyboy]

Me oh my, where to begin.

Acorn,

I apologize for my sarcasm, maybe lack of respect for other posters is why these discussions never go anywhere. I trust your feelings weren't hurt, mine was an off the cuff reaction to your post. Perhaps you should reread your post and think about how I might interpret it taking into account my socialization, current situation, background and societal inputs. Then again you could have just answered the question (as Infanteer somehow managed to). Is it so hard to believe that there are some people who are reading this thread who may take your comments as a defence of the tactics the Pals employ? If you don't state it unequivocally the option is left up to the reader. By tap dancing around the answer and deflecting to me all you are doing is raising more doubt/reinforcing the belief that they are justified. But I don't know anything about the middle east so I guess that point is moot.

Next, if you or Infanteer take the question as an accusation that is how you choose to take it (to paraphrase Infanteer). I was hoping to hear from a paragon of Middle East studies such as yourself as to whether you feel they are justified in their actions; I guess a straight answer is too much to ask.  At any rate it really doesn't matter, the bluster covers it. I and pretty much everyone here have repeatedly agreed that the Pals have justification in their own minds for what they do and that we need to understand them to defeat them. Please, there is no need to restate your point, we get it and agree. The problem is ayone who ever did anything has some sort of justification for what they do. I'm morally opposed to using the quote function or else I'd point out the examples of when people or groups had justification in their own minds for what they did, but that does not mean that that justification is valid. I'd like to hear from your experience if you think the Pals justifications are valid. If it isn't too much trouble that is.




Infanteer,

1. Although the comment was directed towards Acorn thanks for showing me where you stand, it is far easier for you to refer to something you've already said than for me to sift through 12 pages of voluminous posts in order to clarify who said what and when. 

2. I'm pretty sure Acorn is capable of defending himself; if he is offended by my comments then let him speak for himself. You may be directing staff here but I don't believe it gives you license to speak for someone else.

3. What was that you said about lobbing accusations around?

â Å“It's called being provocative for the purpose of discussion.  As I said, I responding to the "ignorant savage" line and thought I'd play Devil's Advocate by showing that perhaps the motive for doing something like this (dressing up children to emulate the defenders) is something that is a shared amongst other societies (ours included) and that perhaps the Palestinians aren't the "cavemen" some would like to believe.â ?

Who exactly believes the Pals to be cavemen or ignorant savages? You've said it now back it up.

4. â Å“Well, he answered your question of supporting suicide bombing with the reason why he was arguing his point of view - what did you expect when you accused both him and I of it twice and have been told otherwise.â ?

Actually he never answered the question, but I guess I can assume from his (and your) indignation at the interpretation of my remarks as an accusation that he does not.

To recap:
Me-â Å“do you believe that hey are justified in using their children as suicide bombers?â ?

Acorn- â Å“... I hope AndyBoy doesn't really believe anyone has truly tried to justify suicide bombing and encouraging one's children for that.â ?

Me-â Å“I've reread the thread and I haven't found anything to suggest otherwise.â ?

Acorn-â Å“You are a stupid moron who hates chocolate and speeds in school zones.â ?

Me-Witty reply

You-Don't be rude he answered your question.

Me-Not quite but I get it, I hope everyone esle does.




CBH99,

You might be right in saying I'm exaggerating, I don't know for sure. I've googled it but finding any reliable information on the conflict is difficult. It seems like everyone has some sort of iron in the fire and uses what they can for their own cause. I don't know what the age dispersion is but I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that young Pals are blowing themselves up with the encouragement of their society, including their parents. If a parent incites their child to kill themselves what does it matter if he (or she) carries it out when they are 9 or 19? In my opinion the single biggest influence on a person's life are the parents and parents should be encouraging their children to live, not die. Even from a practical standpoint a society cannot continue if the parents kill off the children.

 

[Infanteer]

1. Although the comment was directed towards Acorn thanks for showing me where you stand, it is far easier for you to refer to something you've already said than for me to sift through 12 pages of voluminous posts in order to clarify who said what and when.

No problem.

2. I'm pretty sure Acorn is capable of defending himself; if he is offended by my comments then let him speak for himself. You may be directing staff here but I don't believe it gives you license to speak for someone else.

Well, I'm sure he is as well; I was only stepping in because the debate took a downturn with your "Professor Acorn" comments - not as Mod but as another participant in the discussion.   You've sinced apologized for the statement, so there isn't really an issue.   This debate has been relatively well done - I haven't seen these topics get to 12 pages without going to shit, so I'm reasonably pleased with the decorum.   Let's keep it this way.

3. What was that you said about lobbing accusations around?

â Å“It's called being provocative for the purpose of discussion.   As I said, I responding to the "ignorant savage" line and thought I'd play Devil's Advocate by showing that perhaps the motive for doing something like this (dressing up children to emulate the defenders) is something that is a shared amongst other societies (ours included) and that perhaps the Palestinians aren't the "cavemen" some would like to believe.â ?

Who exactly believes the Pals to be cavemen or ignorant savages? You've said it now back it up.

Again, I highlighted them above a few posts ago.   The exact statements were by Mr Allan, Mr P-Free, and Mr 2332Piper.   Although Wes's other theme of his post (Palestinian/Muslim violence in Western cities) was a valid one that I agreed with, I had different ideas on the comments referring to the motives of the Palestinians.

Actually he never answered the question, but I guess I can assume from his (and your) indignation at the interpretation of my remarks as an accusation that he does not.

There was no interpretation here, you said it clear as day:

I've reread the thread and I haven't found anything to suggest otherwise. Silence can be seen as tacit approval.

I'm unsure of the answer you are seeking?   For us to say "Yes, Palestinian actions are bad"?   Will that really get anywhere?   It is kind of irrelevent to the discussion, as we were attempting to explore Palestinian motivations for their COA, not our own opinions on Palestinian COA (as I'm sure we all know what they are).

So, do you wish to debate the justification of suicide bombing tactics or the justification of the Palestinian Initifada in general?   Other than that, if you want to start a thread on "Your Opinions on the Suicide Bombers" than go ahead, but it probably wouldn't be very interesting.

Me-â Å“do you believe that hey are justified in using their children as suicide bombers?â ?

Again, where is the argument of child-bombers; are you mixing up the children in protests with actual suicide bombers?   I thought we establshed that those were two seperate topics.

Acorn- â Å“... I hope AndyBoy doesn't really believe anyone has truly tried to justify suicide bombing and encouraging one's children for that.â ?

Me-â Å“I've reread the thread and I haven't found anything to suggest otherwise.â ?

Sounds like an answer to me (hint: no, we do not personally approve of Palestinian COA)

Acorn-â Å“You are a stupid moron who hates chocolate and speeds in school zones.â ?

He never said that.

 

[48Highlander]

The morality of what?   Suicide bombings?   Israel/Palestine?   Dressing Children up and taking them to the Demonstration?   This is why the argument is getting convoluted - use the quote function and point out where I'm promoting a "we're-all-equal-let's-look-at-their-point-of-view hug-fest" instead of just lobbing accusations of moral turpitude.

I've stated that Palestinians, in deciding their COA (both individually and as a group), are probably not concluding that "we need to act like slimy cowards, but we will subject everyone to our hidden agenda" - I am saying that to them, their actions and motivations are informed by many cultural inputs and are probably just as strong as ours.   I've said that I don't think their current tactics are any good because they don't seem to indicate a desire for peace.   If there is something wrong with my line of thought then please, by all means, point it out.

    Ok, this far I'm with you.

,
Anyways, morality is a matter of opinion and perspective - what half a billion North Americans think may not be what half a billion Muslims (from various Nations) feel - where is the ultimate moral authority?   I'm serious in this question.   To me, it seems that the only thing that validates our system of morality is our ability to fight for it - this is something that I believe in and I will support by putting the uniform on; but how this makes our outlook superior or invalidates that of others is beyond me.

easy:  if you beleive in your system and are willing to die for it, you obviously beleive that it's superior.  those systems which are almost the exact opposite of your own are obviously invalid.  now obviously we can't talk about morals from any absolute viewpoint; even people within our own society disagree on what constitutes moral behaviour, however, we generaly agree that blowing up busses full of kids is wrong, and that any society which allows or encourages it is wrong.  So what makes our system superior and others invalid is our own beleifs, and our ability to enforce them.  That's how it always works.

It's called being provocative for the purpose of discussion.   As I said, I responding to the "ignorant savage" line and thought I'd play Devil's Advocate by showing that perhaps the motive for doing something like this (dressing up children to emulate the defenders) is something that is a shared amongst other societies (ours included) and that perhaps the Palestinians aren't the "cavemen" some would like to believe.

I didn't see anyone implying or stating that dressing up kids as suicide bombers makes Palestinians "savages".  If that's how this discussion got started then I suppose I understand what you're trying to do and can't realy criticize.  I think what makes them "savages" is the fact that they encourage suicide bombings, religious wars, and genocide.  "western" society outrgrew that sort of behaviour a couple hundred years ago, so by our standards they certainly are "savages".  Glorifying their wariors is nothing exceptional - many societies either do that to this day or have done so in the past - but it's the identity/method of those wariors which makes them seem like savages to us.

This is why I am going to be a Jedi - emotion is the Path to the Dark Side....

I've officialy adopted the Jedi faith, and my PEN form reflects that   We would be pleased to count you amongst our ranks

 

[Infanteer]

  So what makes our system superior and others invalid is our own beleifs, and our ability to enforce them.   That's how it always works.

Right - morality is relevent to the society that holds it to be true and the only thing that substantiates it is the ability to fight for it - I've argued this many times before.  I guess the crux of what I've been getting at is that others (Palestinians, Japanese, Mongol Hordes, Fantasians) don't fight us because they are wrong (evil) but because in their mind they are right.  It may seem like semantics, but to me there is an important difference.

I didn't see anyone implying or stating that dressing up kids as suicide bombers makes Palestinians "savages".   If that's how this discussion got started then I suppose I understand what you're trying to do and can't realy criticize.

That was the message I was getting from the few posts I linked to above - it may have not been prevalent here, but I have for sure seen it elsewhere and decided to let a response go here.

I think what makes them "savages" is the fact that they encourage suicide bombings, religious wars, and genocide.   "western" society outrgrew that sort of behaviour a couple hundred years ago, so by our standards they certainly are "savages".

Pfft...look at WWII - or how about the Balkans, right on the cusp of the West.  Northern Ireland?  Vietnam?  What about 60,000 nuclear warheads with a hair trigger for Armageddon - you think suicide bombing is nasty, how about preparing and rationalizing the destruction of entire societies?  The list goes on - I don't think the West has "outgrew" anything; we just have our own unique ways of destroying other human beings.

I've officialy adopted the Jedi faith, and my PEN form reflects that   We would be pleased to count you amongst our ranks

Ahh, to be a Padewan; when to I get my Lightsaber?

May the Force be With You,
Infanteer

 

[Andyboy]

Infanteer,

Instead of continuing with fracturing the thread into a he-said she-said argument I'll address the main points that I feel sum up my position. The posters on this thread seem to have been divided and my points are directed to the "opposition" rather than you in particular. It seems you have become the voice of the "opposition" so don't take this as an attack, accusation, or some kind of trick to dick you around. 

I'm going to address two questions you asked and one point and then I'll be gone and you can continue with however you want your thread to go.

1.What did I expect? I expected that my words would be taken at face value and replied to as such. Instead I got condescension and dismissal and reacted. I can understand how my words might be taken as an accusation but I am at a loss as to why you would choose to do so. The question, ("do you believe using children as suicide bombers is justified...") and subsequent statement ("I have seen nothing to suggest otherwise...") were intended to help clarify and UNIFY the various positions here in the board and to remind those of you arguing for empathy that empathy can sometimes be mistaken for sympathy. As you said yourself we arel a lot closer in our positions than we think and it was an attempt to illustrate that. I see now that I was wrong to assume that my words wouldn't be taken for anything other than what they were intended, or failing that, be given the benefit of the doubt.

2.What do I want to hear? You, amongst others, have been pushing for empathy for the Pals (which I don't disagree with), what I disagree with is not extending that same empathy to people (on this thread and elsewhere) who react with revulsion towards an act that they find revolting. It isn't unreasonable to feel disgust and anger at seeing images of Pals dressing their children up as suicide bombers, that is generally how our society has been constructed to react. Perhaps an acknowledgement of your own feelings (not neccessarily yours, but the "oppositions") on the matter would go a long way in creating common ground which in turn would allow for a more open and constructive dialogue.

As an example of what I was hoping for I will give you my feelings on the matter and I'll let you decide whether it would be pertinant to the discussion.

I find the images of Pals dressing their children up as suicide bombers to be disgusting. I think that by dressing a child up as a suicide bomber encourages that child, and possibly others, to act as a suicide bomber and as such I think it is a betrayal of a parent's responsability to their children's health and welfare. That being said I understand that there are a lot of influences in the Pal society that do not necessarily have the best interests of the Pals at heart and as such are misleading parents and children to carry out acts that are not in keeping with Arab society, Islam or even human nature. I do not believe that every Pal agrees with the practice, I don't even think a majority of Pals agree with the practice but that doesn nothing to diminish my disgust for the people who do. In other words I do not believe that Pals are necessarily savages but some Pals are acting as such (in our eyes) under the misguided notion that doing so is the right thing to do.

Do you not see how this could help unify the discussion? Do you not see that by leaving it unsaid that some people might take it in a way that was not intended? There are people reading this right now who are formong their opinion based on what is being written here. Acorn himself said that he "hopes" no one thinks he support suicide bombing and left it at that. That implies he thinks that someone might and yet he did nothing to dispel the idea.

3. Dressing children up as suicide bombers vs. suicide bombing. I cannot see how you can possibly separate a parent encouraging a certain behaviour from their child carrying out that behaviour then or at a later date. For example if a parent were to encourage their child to play at smoking would it be a separate issue if that child were to take up smoking? Are we to assume that Arab parents have no influence on their children? In my opinion the single biggest influence in a person's life is their parents, maybe it is different for an Arab family but I doubt it. In other owrds if a parent says suicide bombing is something to be admired then there is a very good chance the child will agree.

If there is any question as to whether or not children are acting as suicide bombers here is an instance of at least one child acting as such.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050522/ts_nm/mideast_bomber_dc&printer=1   

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Don't have time to read the whole thread, but here are a couple of comments.

The hero worship of suicide bombers both the celebration of their acts and imitation by children is the result of two basic issues. The legimate frustration f the average Palestinian and the exploitation of that frustration by groups within and without the Palestinian political movement. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have used suicide bombing as a political tool dressed up to be a patriotic act to further their belief.

There is a growing concern within the Palestinian and Arab world about this â Å“death cultâ ? that is forming and it's potential impact of resolving issues and creating a viable society. Arabs are beginning to see that it is a double edge sword, this tactic has cost them support and the moral high ground. It also strengthens the Israeli position. As a result the 2nd Infadita has been a dismal failure, costing the Palestinian all the gains they achieved in the 1st. The use of suicide bomber is a tool for groups that can not offer anything in the real world and therefore promises rewards in the afterlife. The Israelis realize this and have made the consequences for the family of the bombers high, this policy of collective punishment, isolation and assassination has broken the back of the Palestinian revolt. With the loss of money from Saddam and Europe, the PLA could no longer buy off people, now the average Palestinian just wants some peace and a job.

So a comparison between boy scouts and the suicide bombers is flawed, as the scouts have always been about promoting positive virtues and values, the suicide bombers do not offer anything other than the possibility of killing some more Jews (or anyone else with the misfortune to be in the wrong place)

A comparison between the suicide bombers and the Hitler youth of 1942 and on would be fairly accurate. 

 

[Acorn]

My last post to this thread was condescending and pompous. I apologize.

I didn't think it necessary to voice outright opposition to suicide bombing because, in my mind, I thought it should be obvious as I certainly didn't voice outright support. I made the mistake of thinking my comments were clear enough in opposition to it.

I also reacted off the cuff. The "accusation" that I (or others) support such acts infuriated me, and I failed to follow my own usual advice to calm down before posting.

Andyboy,
I don't think you're a stupid moron, but you have yet to answer whether you hate chocolate or not. If you don't state unequivocally your position, the option is left up to the reader. 

That being said, I do not think the Palestinians are justified, however, I haven't been in the same position, so I don't know how I would think if I were subject to the same pressures. I'd like to think I would continue to find the idea of suicide bombing repugnant, but I'm not so sure. Regarding the grooming of children for suicide bombing, as opposed to actually using children for that (even Palestinians balk at that - though their definition of "child" vs "man" is also different from ours a 15 year old is pretty close to manhood, and may be regarded as a man in some parts of Arab society), I see a fine line between that and the culture of heroism and sacrifice we (or some of us) favour in Western society. To give you a cultural example: a few weeks ago the final episode of Third Watch was broadcast, in which one of the police officers (a female sergeant, which may or may not have had some bearing on what the writers were trying to convey) blew herself and a major crime figure up with grenades she had concealed. What was the producer/director/writer trying to convey? That suicide can be acceptable in some circumstances - for the greater good?

As well, consider how we favour servicemembers who perform suicidal acts in battle. The pilot, wounded and his aircraft on fire, chooses to crash it into the target. I can see the distinction, but can a Palestinian, who has been directly subject to massive military superiority, is propagandized by his own "government," and is relatively uneducated in the first place (a product of the occupation and propagandization)?

Acorn

 

[Infanteer]

Most of these debates seem to revolve around the words that everybody is looking to find - I think Andyboy nailed it with differentiating between empathy and sympathy.

It is clear that none of us sympathize with those who conduct terrorist attacks against civilians (nor those who condone it).  I'm convinced that some of the hardline elements of the Palestinian movement have been hijacked by the Islamic Insurgency (Which is discussed on this thread), so you would find me in the trench with you ready to waste these guys if we ever ended up there.

Empathy was the word I was looking for - I was a little dismayed that some appeared to write Palestinian COA off to being a pack of unenlightened savages.  I'm sure we can all also agree that their current actions will not win the approval (or sympathy) from us, but it is undoubtedly a very real one to them.  I was also trying to empathize with what would motivate them to dress their children up in bomber suits - again, I am sure it is not for being unenlightened savages, and that the motivations for doing so were as strong as us Western parents putting our children in cadets.

No sympathy from here (at least not while they insist on taking such a hardline stance), but empathy in understanding what drives them to take the actions that they do.

Sound good?

Infanteer

 

[Brad Sallows]

>morality is relevent to the society that holds it to be true and the only thing that substantiates it is the ability to fight for it

Translation: anything goes.  Unfortunately, not all societies are uniformly composed of willing participants.

 

[Dare]

Most of these debates seem to revolve around the words that everybody is looking to find - I think Andyboy nailed it with differentiating between empathy and sympathy.

It is clear that none of us sympathize with those who conduct terrorist attacks against civilians (nor those who condone it).  I'm convinced that some of the hardline elements of the Palestinian movement have been hijacked by the Islamic Insurgency (Which is discussed on this thread), so you would find me in the trench with you ready to waste these guys if we ever ended up there.

Empathy was the word I was looking for - I was a little dismayed that some appeared to write Palestinian COA off to being a pack of unenlightened savages.  I'm sure we can all also agree that their current actions will not win the approval (or sympathy) from us, but it is undoubtedly a very real one to them.  I was also trying to empathize with what would motivate them to dress their children up in bomber suits - again, I am sure it is not for being unenlightened savages, and that the motivations for doing so were as strong as us Western parents putting our children in cadets.

No sympathy from here (at least not while they insist on taking such a hardline stance), but empathy in understanding what drives them to take the actions that they do.

Sound good?

Infanteer

I am pleased that this distinction has been made, but to comment on wording, if people who dress their children up as suicide bombers are not defined as unenlightened savages, to you. What would you describe as an unenlightened savage? As for a hijack of the Palestinian movement.. they're virtually all Islamic or Marxist "political" parties. Their founding charters have not changed much nor have their goals.

 

[48Highlander]

I am pleased that this distinction has been made, but to comment on wording, if people who dress their children up as suicide bombers are not defined as unenlightened savages, to you. What would you describe as an unenlightened savage?

Good point.  By that logic, a neanderthal whose idea of dating is clubbing a woman over the head and dragging her to his cave is also not an "unenlightened savage".  He's just doing what is acceptable by the standards of his society.

The term "unenlightened" is applied by those who consider themselves more advanced in one way or another.  Certainly, if we consider our moral code to be superior to those of the Palestinians, then we can accurately say that they are unenlightened.  Wether we can apply the term "savage" to them depends on which meaning of the word you want to go with, and what your opinion of them is.  Do we mean savage as in not civilized?  Well, I don't think that applies to Palestinians, they're civilized, their civilization just doesn't hold the same beleifs as ours.  Do we mean "savage" as in "ferocious"?  Well, their fighters probably are ferocious, so you could call them "unenlightened savages", but it probably wouldn't apply to mothers who dress their kids up as suicide bombers.  The word "savage" can also mean "rude", and I guess dressing your kid up in sticks of fake TNT while yelling something like "death to jews" can be considered rude

 

[Acorn]

While I consider the idea of encouraging one's kids to strap on explosives and take a few infidels with them to be repugnant, I have to wonder how the Palestinian who sees a kid blown up as "collateral damage" in an assassination by Hellfire perceives Israelis.

In the West we've come to regard close combat as "savage." In the Middle East avoiding close combat is "cowardly." I say that as a gross generalisation, since, as soldiers, we are more inclined than the average Westerner to admire the skill of the soldier in close combat. And, clearly, some factions in the Middle East are inclined to accept the murder by AK-47 of a woman and her children as somehow an admirable act of "resistance."

I would suggest that war is savagery, regardless of the perpetrator. What separates civilized from savage is the ability to regulate the savagery. Democracies certainly try to do this (I say try, as we are not always successful). Middle Easters societies, generally, do so as well, believe it or not. Where it breaks down is when state structure fails.

Acorn