POLL: Would terrorists be swayed by a "system of compassion?"

[ajn678]

Christians say we should have love for all human beings.

I take it you disagree.

What exactly does loving someone in ISIS look like? I am not a Christian, I don't really give a **** what they think.

 

[Craig234]

Anything that de-radicalizes a radicalized man and prevents him from committing violence, I'm all for.

There's an interesting anecdote about something Arafat did. There's a tradition with 'radicalized' terror groups, that after they serve their purpose, it's hard to re-integrate them into society, and they were often killed apparently by their own leaders.

Arafat didn't like that, and when he had young men who had served him as 'terrorists' fighting for their cause, he launched a program to reintegrate them, by recruiting women to be their wives - telling those women they were serving their country by doing it. Having wives seemed to really end violent impulses by those men and it was pretty successful.

There are a lot of issues in that anecdote - from the issues of justice between powerful groups and not powerful groups who have only 'terrorism', the effects of war and violence on people, the lack of institutional concern with reintegration usually, etc.

But I think it's useful in part for humanizing people and remembering they are people.

 

[Craig234]

I would add that it is inherently racist and narrow minded to measure another culture and its values by your own culture and values.

I would moderate that, to say there is some truth to it but only some.

It's true that there's a human tendency to devalue things that are 'different' but not 'worse' much of the time.

Perhaps there's a spectrum. We can look at another nation's art, eat their food, and appreciate it. We can look at things that are simply different, and think they're 'worse', not appreciating different points of view. I don't know where to start with examples - take arranged marriages, perhaps. There are 'two sides' to the issue and we probably don't usually appreciate the 'other side' of it, even if we'd still dislike it.

But some of the issues move more and more towards values that raise questions that are more about universal values, and don't excuse anything as 'different culture'. A society that has slavery, that allows rape, that has genital mutilation for children, that tortures people, that commits genocide - these things rather raise room for criticism that's not addressed by the 'prime directive' mentality of 'who are we to say'.

That makes the topic more complicated - 'cultural differences' and 'universal values' and a lot more - but it is what it is. Neither myopic views nor a lack of universal values address what's right, in my opinion.

Unfortunately, any effort to 'help' seems to have a likelihood of being overtaken by everything from unintentional insensitivity that crushes others, to corrupt interests in gaining power over others. Look at how 'food assistance' is being used this year in Venezuela as a weapon of US foreign policy to overthrow democracy there. Want to help them? Try not sanctioning them. Helping them is not the goal, cheap oil for the Koch brothers is.

Having said all that, your point is well-taken.

There's a lot of room for recognizing that what is distasteful or wrong or disgusting to one culture might be seen differently in another.

 

[Cassandra]

Well stated and well posted.

I would add that it is inherently racist and narrow minded to measure another culture and its values by your own culture and values.

In the cited example of Kashoggi, in that culture it is illegal to criticize the royal family (I think I have that correct).

It is not right nor is it wrong. It is just their way, their values, and their society, and, yes, they do in fact get to make up their own rules that they decide to live by. Too bad that they are not Western ones and too bad they are not yours. But let's face it, it is their country and it is their society.

So your fauxrage is misplaced. No one is forcing you to go there, nor to live your life by their rules.



Wow. I'm rather surprised by the Netherlands.

How Criticizing Arab Governments Becomes Illegal - Carnegie Middle ...
carnegie-mec.org/sada/20873
Aug 18, 2008 - How Criticizing Arab Governments Becomes Illegal ... the president” (or the royal family), “offending religion,” “spreading false information that ...

Saudi economist who criticised Aramco IPO charged with terrorism ...
[url]https://uk.reuters.com/...saudi.../saudi-economist-who-criticised-aramco-ipo-charged-...[/URL]
Oct 1, 2018 - Saudi Arabia's public prosecutor has charged a man, identified by ... unions are illegal, the media are controlled and criticism of the royal family ...
​

It's their country, and they get to make their rules for their country. You visit their country, respect their rules (i.e. when in Rome . . .)

Sorry but I am at a loss. I disagree with much of your post but I also don't know in what way you think it addresses the nub of the debate between yours truly and 'Ecofarm'.

 

[Phys251]

Are there any well-documented instances of terrorists who have been reformed by mercy?

What prevents the guy who gets mercy from just thinking, "What a bunch of schmucks! These guys deserve to get blown up again!"

I am not an expert in anti-terrorism, nor do I claim to be, but I want to keep my options open.

Here's an example that I found through a simple Google search.

 

[Ouroboros]

Touching on just one part of Omar's argument:

The desire to commit violence is not inherent to people — it is the consequence of systematic alienation; people seek violent solutions when the process established for enacting change is inaccessible to them.

It's highly debatable as to whether "alienation" fuels every instance of violence, though this is the predominant, Marx-prescribed viewpoint of the Left today.

Sometimes people perform violent acts because the "change" they desire is dominion of not only their own lands, but all lands adjacent.

What "alienation" motivated Osama to launch his attack? What "change" did he seek to bring about?

 

[JustHanging]

Ultimately, women win the war against terrorism. Each in their neighborhoods. Empowerment for hearts and minds.

In the meantime, everyone should kill as many terrorists as possible.

The problem is, who's a terrorist and who isn't is often in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure many who blew up the twin towers (and made Trump's building the tallest in New York, praise Donald!) saw the USA as a terrorist country.

So in the end, killing and hate only lead to death for everyone involved.

 

[cpwill]

Anything that de-radicalizes a radicalized man and prevents him from committing violence, I'm all for.

The recidivism rate for those who are killed is remarkably low.

 

[JustHanging]

Muslim's did to their people long before attacking the USA, and before the USA ever got over there.

God......you just cannot be this ignorant!

Apparently you don't know your history. Christians and Muslims have been doing terrible things to their own people, and other people, since their inception.

 

[JustHanging]

The recidivism rate for those who are killed is remarkably low.

But not their children and family members. I bet it's pretty high for them.

 

[cpwill]

Problem is that it creates more terrorists. "Americans summarily execute their prisoners! Look how evil they are!"

An interesting claim. I'm not aware of any VEO out there who argues that enemy regimes' use of the death penalty is inherently evil, or discrediting. Would you mind providing citation?

 

[cpwill]

But not their children and family members. I bet it's pretty high for them.

The literature actually doesn't support that.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[ecofarm]

The problem is, who's a terrorist and who isn't is often in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure many who blew up the twin towers (and made Trump's building the tallest in New York, praise Donald!) saw the USA as a terrorist country.

So in the end, killing and hate only lead to death for everyone involved.

In all of our hearts, we know what terrorism is. It's targeting innocents for political purpose.

In the war for hearts and minds, women are the front line. They will make the peace that changes the world.

 

[Gaius46]

I'm still waiting for any of the official defenders of Islam to admit that the Qur'an contains hundreds of infidel-hating verses as well as many exhortations to commit violence against them (especially in the later surahs). If they start with that simple admission of the truth, and then want to try to convince us that, for example, such verses no longer apply, or give us some other reason not to treat Islam with suspicion, then we might have some hope for being able to come to some sort of accommodation with our Muslim neighbors. But, as usual, Omar doesn't even come close to mentioning that these Islamic terrorists just might have been influenced by the Qur'an.

Bible’s full of references to incest, patricide and assorted acts of extreme violence. You gonna complain about that too?

 

[mike2810]

Maybe the "terrorists" should show more compassion towards the rest of us. :mrgreen: Why should the majority change when the terrorists use violence to try enact change. Terrorists would not be swayed by more compassion.

Ilhan Omar, how in the heck did she get elected.

 

[stevecanuck]

Bible’s full of references to incest, patricide and assorted acts of extreme violence. You gonna complain about that too?

I'm losing track of how many posters have used that non-sequitur. It's probably approaching triple digits.

Please provide examples of all the above that could be construed as on-going commands for Christians to keep doing all that.

 

[Port & Starboard]

Apparently you don't know your history. Christians and Muslims have been doing terrible things to their own people, and other people, since their inception.

We are talking 2019 pards. :lamo

Keep up or go away.

Nice try.

 

[Gaius46]

POLL: Would terrorists be swayed by a "system of compassion?"

I'm losing track of how many posters have used that non-sequitur. It's probably approaching triple digits.

Please provide examples of all the above that could be construed as on-going commands for Christians to keep doing all that.

That’s not the point. The point is that both books where written a couple thousand years ago in a world that is about as different from ours as is possible and for anyone to take either literally or as a guide for living in the 21st century is the height of stupidity.

 

[Phys251]

The recidivism rate for those who are killed is remarkably low.

True. So is the crime rate for innocent bystanders killed by anti-terrorist missions, ex., drone strikes.

But the bystanders that survive can easily have their trauma and anger swayed into terrorism.

 

[Wan]

Apparently you don't know your history. Christians and Muslims have been doing terrible things to their own people, and other people, since their inception.

But he didn't say Christians did no terrible things, though. In fact he made no mention to Christians, as far as I know.

 

[stevecanuck]

Re: POLL: Would terrorists be swayed by a "system of compassion?"

That’s not the point. The point is that both books where written a couple thousand years ago in a world that is about as different from ours as is possible and for anyone to take either literally or as a guide for living in the 21st century is the height of stupidity.

Neither is that the point. The point is that they DO take it as a guide. That's why they make so many things go boom.

 

[Gaius46]

Re: POLL: Would terrorists be swayed by a "system of compassion?"

Neither is that the point. The point is that they DO take it as a guide. That's why they make so many things go boom.

So then you blame those individuals for being morons. You don’t condemn the entire religion any more than you condemn Christianity because of its violent roots.

 

[Crusader13]

Re: POLL: Would terrorists be swayed by a "system of compassion?"

Let's cut the semantics; would anyone (including this detestable lady herself) dare to say we should show compassion to Brenton Tarrant, the convicted white supremacist who killed 49 innocent Muslims a few weeks ago? What about Timothy McVeigh? Should the US issue a public apology for giving him a harsh sentence too? Guy was probably just a loner who needed to be shown some compassion after all.

Oh no I forgot - the special rules should only apply to Muslims.

Of course, you can only shut off your brain for so long to believe that terrorism is motivated by personal alienation or lack of compassion. If this was true we would've seen a huge spike in Jewish terrorism around WWII due to the way Jews were mistreated. We would've also seen a huge spike in terrorism by gay people given that their very existence was seen as an abomination and they were alienated by both the government and the whole world for centuries.

Then there's the fact that Muslims in the Middle East have a government that gives them unrestricted mob rule to stone anyone to death for offending them. They get free perks and abolish anyone that dares disagree with them. Somehow I don't think despite being shown so much compassion and freedom they would be willing to return the favour. Most of the perpetrators behind the Sri Lanka bombings a few days ago were from a rich family that probably never had to work or worry about alienation. Oh look the bombs still went off.

Think better, Ilmar Ohan.

 

[cpwill]

True. So is the crime rate for innocent bystanders killed by anti-terrorist missions, ex., drone strikes.

But the bystanders that survive can easily have their trauma and anger swayed into terrorism.

Drone strikes actually have pretty low rates of civilian casualties, especially when compared to other options, like local national ground force operations.

As for the "kill one terrorist, make more from his family/the witnesses" trope, again, we've not seen that play out in replacement numbers, as far as I am aware.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[stevecanuck]

Re: POLL: Would terrorists be swayed by a "system of compassion?"

So then you blame those individuals for being morons. You don’t condemn the entire religion any more than you condemn Christianity because of its violent roots.

Let's compare the lives of Mohamed (real person) and Jesus (mythical character, but real in the minds of Christians).

Mohamed:

Started wars.
Led raiding parties (he was basically a highway man).
Inspired his followers to create a vast empire via the sword.
Had people assassinated.
Had sex slaves and encouraged his followers to do the same.
Preached world domination by any means.
Preached that the world was divided between Muslims and non-Muslims, and that they would forever be enemies.
Had an entire Jewish tribe (Banu Quraiza) either enslaved (women and children) or beheaded (men and youths).

Jesus:
Healed the sick.
Fed the poor.
Preached love and forgiveness.
Most violent thing he ever did was turn a table over in anger.

Now, let's compare the first Muslims with the first Christians.

First Muslims:

Followed Mohamed's lead and picked up where he left off. They attacked there neighbors and got as for as France in the west and China in the east before being stopped.

First Christians:

Followed the stories about Jesus and picked up where he left off. They were peaceful and persecuted for the first couple of centuries before everything went off the rails.

But, other than all that, yeah, Christianity and Islam are exactly the same.