PDA

View Full Version : Nazis vs. Terrorists


08-27-2002, 09:58 PM
Why is it that almost 100% of the population can agree that Nazi's were an awful group of hateful murderers, but there is actually a measurable percentage of people that try to justify the actions of terrorists? If the terror factions like the Hamas had their way they would do everything the Nazis did and probably more. To all of you who want to sit there and say why terror isn't really as bad as it seems or it isn't clearly a "black and white" topic then start coming up with legitimate reasons to defend the Nazis, then see how dumb you feel.


Kris

08-28-2002, 07:01 AM
Terrorosts are bad. Very bad. But Nazis were worse. Obviously.

08-28-2002, 11:33 AM
Obviously? Do you care to expand on your statement? Why are Nazi's so much worse than terrorists? My philosophy instructor would tear you limb from limb, David.

08-28-2002, 12:29 PM
Did you hear about the small Polish town that the Nazis got to and one of the first things that happen was the townsfolk asked the Nazis if we can kill the Jews now? So the Nazis, in their day, had their supporters as well, as do the terrorists today. This isn’t a legitimate reason to defend the Nazis or terrorists, but members of both groups truly believe they are doing the right thing and are supported by God.

08-28-2002, 01:34 PM
"...but members of both groups truly believe they are doing the right thing and are supported by God."


This is an example of how ignorance (and sometimes stupidity) are capable of causing great problems. In fact, I have been moving towards reaching the general conclusion that much, or even possibly most, of the world's problems are caused by ignorance and stupidity.

08-28-2002, 02:27 PM
My philosophy professor ate jicama and polished his nails. Yours must be ond badass if he is gonna tear David limb from limb! Perhaps he is also the wrestling coach.


Faceless Hack

08-28-2002, 05:07 PM
Or maybe they're caused by God.

08-28-2002, 10:17 PM
Well I totally disagree. Terrorists are only "not as bad" because they dont have the means to murder as many people as the Nazi's. If the terrorists had their way they would kill just about every non muslim in the world- the only reason they don't is because they can't.

Give the terrorists a few nukes loaded in ICBM's and things would be a lot different. People say the terrorists are oppressed people and yada yada but the Germans felt the same way back in the early part of the 20th century too. So no it's not "obvious" that Nazi's were worse. There is no justification for either of these groups, so they are pretty much equally bad.


Kris

08-28-2002, 11:06 PM
lenin called the people who supported him and did most of the work 'useful idiots'.


brad

08-28-2002, 11:08 PM
as far as i can see the nazis were just a terrorist group (look at their methods) who gained control of government.


brad

08-29-2002, 11:32 AM
Terrorism is a tricky thing. If it is against you it is a terrible thing. However, if it is for you then it is no longer evil. Instead, the terrorists become freedom fighters, contras, rebels, etc.


Before 9/11, there was considerable sympathy for the Chechnya "Rebels" (supported by Al Qaeda) by people (including the government) in the United States. However, my friend from Chechnya always thought of them as pure and evil terrorists that needed to be exstinguished.


The case against terrorism is not cut and dry. The United States has directly supported a large number of groups that others would consider evil terrorists.


Why is terrorism bad but organized actions by large militaries that kill 100,000s okay? Why was our killing in the Gulf War okay?


Maybe it is not the method of execution, but the cause behind them.


How do you define terrorists? The targeting of innocent civilians? The United states has purposely killed 100,000 of innocent civilians to advance its causes.


We also like to pit WWII as a fight between good and evil. However, that is not the case at all. We didn't attack Germany because they were slaughtering the Jews. Heck, our ally Russia was responsible for far greater killings than the Nazis.


Finally, how do you define evil? Is there even such a thing?

08-29-2002, 12:08 PM
DK: "Terrorism is a tricky thing. If it is against you it is a terrible thing. However, if it is for you then it is no longer evil. Instead, the terrorists become freedom fighters, contras, rebels, etc."


This implies that revolutionaries and freedom fighters are the equivalent of terrorists and that what you call them is based merely on what side you are on. But this is a common and severe misconception. As an example, just look at some freedom fighters who were NOT terrorists, regardless of whichever side you chose. The American Revolutionary war would be an example. The revolutionaries did not make a practice of terrorizing and slaughtering the Tories (those colonists who remained loyal to the Crown). Instead they fought the British Army exclusively.


The main difference as I see it is that terrorists frequently and deliberately target uninvolved innocent persons in order to make political points or to express their outrage. Now, I'm not saying the US is blameless or that in some cases throughout the history of nations there has not been some crossover between freedom-fighting and terrorism. However there is still an important philosophical and practical distinction. Terrorism is simply evil. Freedom fighting is not necessarily evil and may evewn be a good thing at times. The difference lies in whom the primary targets are and for what purposes they are targeted. It is very mistaken and misleading to assume they are simply two sides of the same coin, although in some cases the coin may have smooth edges and even some overlapping in certain areas. But the main faces of the coin remain distinct.


The doctrine that it is OK to attack uninvolved innocents in order to make political points or to express outrage, is confused in its inception, and simply evil and morally bankrupt in its practice.

08-29-2002, 12:14 PM
He was really mean. I shudder to think of the grade I'd have gotten if I answered questions in the manner that D.S. often does. Yep, it'd be a bloodbath.

08-29-2002, 02:19 PM
for your information, federal police are taught that the US founding fathers were terrorists.


i can get you documentation on that.


brad

08-29-2002, 02:51 PM
...The difference lies in whom the primary targets are and for what purposes they are targeted.


What standards are used and what governing body reviews these purposes and targets to determine their legitimacy?


You cite the often used - civilian as targets standard. I used to think that was the determining factor. However, wasn't it the Unites Stated that specifically targeted the destruction of two civilian populations in Japan to further the goal of ending the war? Was that wrong under the terrorist standard?


Lets say that the civilian standard rules. If so, can "rebel" organizations legitimately target military personnel and not be labeled terrorists? Can they legitimately target the Commander-in-chief? I am guessing that if someone killed our president, and had killed no civilians, we would still call them an evil terrorist.


Please define evil. I don't believe there is such a thing, or at least I have never heard a satisfactory explanation. Men are simply motivated by self interest and will generally do anything to achieve their goals. If those goals are contrary to our own we call them evil.

08-29-2002, 04:36 PM
This is pure BS and obfuscation.


Some of the defining things you ask do possibly fall into the category of overlappings. However the fact that there can be pure terrorism on one hand and pure freedom fighting on the other hand nullifies your attempt to use the legitimate gray areas to obfuscate the entire picture. As an example, Charles Manson or Timothy McVeigh engaged in acts of essentially pure terrorism--no way can their acts be purported to truly be part of a meaningful struggle for freedom. However, the man who tried to assassinate Hitler with a briefcase bomb (and failed) was acting purely as a freedom fighter and not at all as a terrorist. His only target was Hitler and possibly Hitler's closest aides.


Your asking for definitions of evil is just another attempt at obfuscating the whole picture by confusing the facts that sometimes evil can be relative (the eaten and the eater, for instance) and at other times it really isn't relative at all, as in acts of deliberate and unnecessary great cruelty which are simply evil and do not have the same counterargument of necessity available to them.


The issue about WWII and Japan has been discussed at length in earlier threads and I'm not going to get into that complex topic here.

08-29-2002, 06:08 PM
You still haven't defined evil. Please give me a simple definition and everything can be cleared up.


From your comments, it appears you are defining evil purely in motive terms and that methods are not important.


E.g., I blowup something for bad reasons - evil (McVeigh). I blowup something for good reasons - not evil (Hitler). However, one can conclude from your comments that the act of blowing something up as legitimate.


Under your apparent definition, then couldn't one conclude that crashing planes into buildings as a perfectly legitimate method if the cause behind the action is correct (lets say in the sake of freedom)? Isn't this the ends justifying the means? I am curious, what means are completely off limits to everyone?


Same example works with the eater and the eaten. However, the analysis is unimportant to the eaten, as his *ss is getting chowed either way.


There is nothing obfuscating about my comments as the issue is extremely complex.


Please don't get me wrong that I am soft on terrorists. That is misreading my comments. I want them all exterminated. However, I am not pitching the battle as one of good versus evil. Rather, it is simply a battle of competing interests.

08-29-2002, 06:53 PM
I'm not interested in embarking on tangential philosophical discussions here.


Terrorists target primarily uninvolved innocent persons in order to make political points. Freedom fighters prefer to target primarily military targets and select political personnel targets. That's a broad definition. It isn't a matter of competing interests; it's a matter of preferred choice of targets, and motives for those choices.

08-29-2002, 07:02 PM
...and as far as evil goes, look at Charles Manson. His heinous acts weren't the result of competing interests, but were rather the result of delusion and an eager willingness to become a genuine sadist. Now that's simply evil.

08-29-2002, 10:17 PM
M,


On September 3, Frontline will broadcast a show called Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero. In the preview I saw, people were struggling with the concept of evil. One said that "evil" draws people into it, and the terrorist acts of 9/11 did not necessarily constitute evil, perhaps because they repulsed people. Anyway, I look forward to watching.


John

08-30-2002, 12:49 AM
It is an interesting topic with many facets. Above in this thread above, however, I felt that DK was using it primarily as a diversionary tactic.


I don't even hold an opinion as to whether "evil" exists in the sense of a force or a source for it (probably not IMO). Also, some things are arguably evil or not. However there are also some things we simply know are evil: hence the above referenced example of Manson's acts--my point to DK--you don't necessarily have to be able to define it in order to recognize it.

08-30-2002, 12:51 AM
that's what happens when I change a few things around and don't proofread;-) It doesn't help to have to hunt and peck either, although the hunting is pretty easy now...it's the pecking that gets me sometimes.

08-30-2002, 11:23 AM
M,


Keep in mind that English teachers are much more forgiving than grammar nuts. /images/smile.gif


Perhaps we do need a good definition of "evil." I'm not sure that Manson represents evil or if "evil," as many might define it, exists. That is, can the concept of "evil" be separated from a theological world view?


John

08-30-2002, 12:03 PM
I'm not saying that Manson himself necessarily represents evil; rather, that his actions were indeed evil.


I don't think we need a theological world view in order to hold that unneccessary actions of great cruelty are evil actions.