A Question for David About Suicide Bombers

[andyfox]

Im light of this:

"When people demonize Hitler they are over exaggerating. He hurt many people because he felt it was in his own interest. Just like almost all animals would do. So at worst he was an animal. Not even that bad, if he sincerely believed that his actions were in the best interest of tens of millions of countrymen. Still he was very, very, very, bad. But not much worse than

tens of thousands of his henchman. Why is Hitler put into a seperate category? He may have conceived of the idea of the Holocaust but thousands went along willingly if not gleefully. Some may have been reluctantly following orders but plenty weren't. Like Hitler they were willing to see many people dead or miserable if the alternative was not in their best interest. I'd call them very, very bad. But not much worse than

millions of slaveholders in the United States. People who might have claimed to be good people. Except they were willing to see many people dead or miserable if the alternative (not having slaves) was not in their best interests. They were very bad. But not much worse than

500 million or so well off people (out of about 505 million) who do virtually nothing to stop the EASILY STOPPED suffering in Africa. A FOUR DOLLAR mosquito net prevents malaria. Read the article. These 500 million people are willing to see many people dead or suffering if the alternative (they have a thousand dollars less in their pockets) was not in their best interests. (As for the several billion not as well off, I believe about 99% of them would also look away if they came into money). That's a lot of bad people."

What is your feeling about suicide bombers? The majority apparently are acting because they believe their actions are in the best interests of their countrymen and that by taking some lives now that many lives will be saved and improved in the future.

Also, I'm curious how you feel about Ward Churchill's comment that there's a sense in which some of the victims in the WTC towers on 9/11 kind of had it coming to them in that they worked for America's financial "machine," and certainly they knew that that machine created suffering and death. http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

Thanks.

[David Sklansky]

"What is your feeling about suicide bombers? The majority apparently are acting because they believe their actions are in the best interests of their countrymen and that by taking some lives now that many lives will be saved and improved in the future.

Also, I'm curious how you feel about Ward Churchill's comment that there's a sense in which some of the victims in the WTC towers on 9/11 kind of had it coming to them in that they worked for America's financial "machine," and certainly they knew that that machine created suffering and death."

As to the second paragraph I'm sure few "knew".

As to suicide bomblers, I have stated before that it is absurd to call "evil" those who would die for their principles, flawed as they may be. I certainly wouldn't die for a mere principle. But this particular situation is different. Because I sure as hell would die for 72 virgins.

[ QUOTE ]
... Because I sure as hell would die for 72 virgins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, I would rather have them slightly more experienced. Virgins can be so messy. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[RJT]

Which leads to a follow-up question. How culpable (assuming suicide bombers are wrong in their understanding of the Koran) are Islamic Religious leaders in not condemning these acts? To me they are perhaps more culpable in their acts of omission - they should know better what is in the heart of Allah, yet remain silent.

[ QUOTE ]
Which leads to a follow-up question. How culpable (assuming suicide bombers are wrong in their understanding of the Koran) are Islamic Religious leaders in not condemning these acts? To me they are perhaps more culpable in their acts of omission - they should know better what is in the heart of Allah, yet remain silent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably as culpaple than any other religious authority which remained or remain silent when atrocities were made in their names, or condoned injustices, throughout history. Dont get me wrong, it still goes on.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which leads to a follow-up question. How culpable (assuming suicide bombers are wrong in their understanding of the Koran) are Islamic Religious leaders in not condemning these acts? To me they are perhaps more culpable in their acts of omission - they should know better what is in the heart of Allah, yet remain silent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably as culpaple than any other religious authority which remained or remain silent when atrocities were made in their names, or condoned injustices, throughout history. Dont get me wrong, it still goes on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I am mostly concerned here with the “… in their names…” part. (The “…condoning injustices…” seems a way bigger and more complex an issue, especially given the notion that who really knows who is “right“ anymore in most conflicts. Who ever really has all the true information nowadays?)

[benkahuna]

I've heard (from a Muslim in Lebanon) that oftentimes religious authorities are the only ones that had access to the entire Quran and that they are quite selective about what is presented to the masses. Lack of education and resource access looks like it causes big problems here that go far beyond suicide bombers.