"Love thy enemy": Some thoughts on Paris

[Unification]

Some people need to die.

Some people need to die to hatred and violence.

 

[Deidre]

Good men can do plenty of things besides kill.

You have to defend sometimes. That doesn't always equate to killing, but to do absolutely nothing, is not helping anyone.

 

[kerndog]

For me, so be it. I am not afraid to physically die. I wouldn't become what I despise before doing so. That's my nature. I have no enemies. Internal revenge and hatred would be more of an enemy for me than any human being.

Others have nature where they can physically kill others. It's within their nature. It's currently in their DNA and hearts.

Hypothetically, if France came to you right now, took you... Said you were going on foot to raid Isis buildings... would you have what it took to kill these enemies?

DO YOU HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO FOLLOW CHRIST ?? 1 Pet 2:21.....John 13:34,35.....Romans 12:9.....1 John 4:20 & 5:19.....2 Cor 10:3.4

 

[outhouse]

Some people need to die.

Sad thing is, this is true. I don't like it one bit, and good people will perish in the hunt for freedom from evil.

Liberal thinking can lead the wolf right to the sheep. There is a time for liberal thinking and to be politically correct, and another time to take action and get a job done.

 

[Twilight Hue]

For me, so be it. I am not afraid to physically die. I wouldn't become what I despise before doing so. That's my nature. I have no enemies. Internal revenge and hatred would be more of an enemy for me than any human being.

Others have nature where they can physically kill others. It's within their nature. It's currently in their DNA and hearts.

Hypothetically, if France came to you right now, took you... Said you were going on foot to raid Isis buildings... would you have what it took to kill these enemies?

I used to be an infantry soldier.

It would be a severe test, yet if you have people out trying to kill you, even those with no military training will do whatever it takes to see to it their attackers stop outright. It's natural to defend oneself, and justifiable under circumstances concerning the cancer that the Islamic psychopathic fanatics brings to the table. I have no problems with France or anyone else compulsed with hunting out and completely exterminating such people that mercilessly kill, torture, and maim others.

 

[outhouse]

"love thy enemy"

Your only free from tyranny due to the blood of your ancestors and those in service today whos blood stains the very free and safe path you walk.

They did their job by doing the exact opposite of this. Were talking about barbaric primitive animals who place mythology over reality and with blood and fear recruit those ignorant or scared enough to follow.

 

[Shusha]

How does it not have anything to do with hate?

When one believes they have a superior moral goal, the enacting of that superior moral goal is not an expression of hate.

I don't see them being about racial supremacy... Theirs is religious, not racial. That is a radically different dynamic.

I agree that it is religious and not racial. I don't understand how the end game of dead people makes a reason to differentiate between those two things. Yes, one can change one's religion -- but being required to change one's religion in order to, you know, stay alive, makes the distinction rather pointless in my mind.

 

[Unification]

I used to be an infantry soldier.

It would be a severe test, yet if you have people out trying to kill you, even those with no military training will do whatever it takes to see to it their attackers stop outright. It's natural to defend oneself, and justifiable under circumstances concerning the cancer that the Islamic psychopathic fanatics brings to the table. I have no problems with France or anyone else compulsed with hunting out and completely exterminating such people that mercilessly kill, torture, and maim others.

Perhaps I'm one of the anomalies that are dead to that nature.

The hunted usually become the hunters, becoming also the ones who mercilessly kill, torture, and maim others.

I have no problem either, it happens whether I would have a problem or don't.

Human's are no enemy to me, but whoever's enemies they are... what will be done will be done by the ones capable of doing such.

 

[Unification]

Your only free from tyranny due to the blood of your ancestors and those in service today whos blood stains the very free and safe path you walk.

They did their job by doing the exact opposite of this. Were talking about barbaric primitive animals who place mythology over reality and with blood and fear recruit those ignorant or scared enough to follow.

If you were taken to follow, or have your blood spilled.... which would you choose? If you and your entire family were to be killed as bystanders for a war that had nothing to do with you guys, would you seek alternative means or say, "we will be innocent sacrifices for the freedom of others?"

 

[Nietzsche]

When one believes they have a superior moral goal, the enacting of that superior moral goal is not an expression of hate

Then nothing is an expression of hate.

I agree that it is religious and not racial. I don't understand how the end game of dead people makes a reason to differentiate between those two things. Yes, one can change one's religion -- but being required to change one's religion in order to, you know, stay alive, makes the distinction rather pointless in my mind.

How? You could survive ISIS. Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan...you make the switch, you live. The Nazis? If you were a Slav, an ethnic Jew, African or such you would end up either killed or worked to death. There is a significant difference in the scope of their atrocities and their methods. ISIS has yet to set up concentration camps. ISIS has yet to do anything but what amounts to modern-day pogroms.

 

[averageJOE]

It's the second day since the attacks in Paris. there's signs that we're probably going to go through a trauma of somekind pn RF and are lashing out at each other. That was somewhat predictable but it's ugly to watch. Regardless of what I say, it will probably have its own momentum which will have to burn itself out, so I realise that I'm probably not speaking to those who actually are the one expressing these opinions as any attempt to take the "other side" is some sort of betrayal. but if you are reading this, I hope in the muddle of these thoughts I will give you some pause and you will take a step back and ask what you are really angry about. maybe help this heal a little faster.

be honest, you don't hate "them". For the most part you don't even know who "they" are. What really scares you is the fact that something like what happens in Paris disturbs our sense of complacency, that "someone" is intruding our own lives. that someone "out-there" wants you to be afriad for being yourself, and it is offensive.

I'm not prone to quoting scripture, but there are somethings that religions got right. At times like this, we should remember to "love thy enemy". And no, love is not a weakness or cowardice in the face of atrocity; if anything it is because we have to see how wretched people who do these things are, how utterly pitiful that we stop being afriad of them because then we know they can be defeated because they defeated themselves a long time ago.

These are people who feel overwhelmed by the world, by the pace of the changes that are going on. they feel at the mercy of forces beyond their control. they lash out and try to fit the world into some kind of preconcieved pattern where they believe they will make them safe. But saftey is always just out of their grasp, their sense of vulnerability, the feeling of insignificance nashing at their heals, drowning in the knowledge of the futility of fighting a rising tide, filled with the lust for blood. It doesn't matter whether they are Muslims or not, fanatics are essentially all the same; they live with a permanant state of emotional diseqilibrium between the belief in the authoritarian insistence on the purity of their ideals and the imperfections of a world that changes and grows, as all things do. they are as tyrannical to themselves as they are to others. their perfectionism is the root of their fanaticism and personal growth their greatest enemy. their ideals cripple them; that is why they are angry and also that is why they will be beaten.

They are, in their own way, victims because they have come to see the world as a nightmare and then they try to make it real for everyone else. The only thing that they can do is make us afriad. Terrorism, is by definition an admission of failure. it means that you have failed to convince people, and that you do not believe that people will hear you or listen to you or be convinced. you can't make the change the want so you are fighting for relevance, whether it be on the pages of newspapers or on the television screens. you are already dying, so what harm is there in taking everyone else with you? so you scare them. you make them feel mortal, and you use their own power against them.

The West has made mistakes in the middle east, and there is no doubt that these things will not be resolved for a long time. no matter how angry you feel, days will pass and your anger will not end the conflict in Israel or Palestine; ISIS will still be flying under a black banner in Iraq and Syria, and Saudi Arabia will still be selling oil to the West. These things won't change just because you get angry and feel hurt. When Bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centre, it wasn't simply because he had greivances with the West. He needed us, he needed us to lash out and to inspire the kind of hatred in the Middle East that would make his dream of an Islamic Caliphate a reality. He succeeded in so far as the US and the UK invaded Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. the cost of those wara- along with many other things- broke the US economy and the source of their power. its struck at our sense of self-assurance as well.

Once, there was Al Quieda. Now there is ISIS. Don't let them make you angry or afriad. That is what gives them their power. it is what makes them relevant. turn off the TV. stop reading the newspapers. you have lives to live. don't let them take that away from you because they made you feel mortal. they too are mortal and they are already defeated, not on the battlefield, but in the war of ideas. they can't make us dream, they don't inspire us, they do not have joy or love in their hearts. they can't make us want to be like them. they are more afriad of you, than you are of them. What they fear is that void- that there is this vast and godless world, just over the horizon, where people live in the choas of choices, without clear meaning, purpose and who are content with a big mac, a coke and extra fries. They have seen the depths of hell and it is the West and its open for business, spreading the nihilist decadance of consumerism deep in to the Muslim world. The Infidel is being broadcast into their living room- and they feel surronded like there is no escape. the serpant from the garden of eden slithers round the dark recesses of their minds, the devil hissing uncomfortable truths. they want it to stop- whatever the cost. And who is decide what is sane in this crazy world?

So what of it? bombing us won't build a new world. it won't solve the poverty or hunger of the Middle East. it won't heal age old ethnic or religious conflicts and get people to work together. But when your that insigificant- it feels good to **** off everyone else. it makes you relevant. it make you big. it makes you matter. in other words, terrorists are the internet trolls of global politics.

Ignore them. don't give them what they want. don't take it out on the "Muslims" as if they are all the same as that. don't give them more victims to indoctorinate or use fear as a weapon. "love thy enemy" and you'll see the only weapon they have is their own destruction. they are martyrs because they think they haven't got anything better to give the world. prove them wrong- show them you are not afriad and perhaps they'll realise they don't have to be either. the only thing they fear more than us, is becoming like us.

thats why they hate us- because someone made them hate themselves and they blame "us" for reminding them of their vulnerabilities, their imperfections and the sands of time slipping through there fingers, fearing that they will be judged as harshly as they judge others. death is their enemy as much as their weapon. death kills there dreams too. love thy enemy and you'll see the child who grew up to want to kill people. how wretched a fate is that for a human being? isn't there some part of you that would wish they had a greater ambition than being the monster hiding under your bed? forgive them. they live as if they are already dead.

I cannot agree with anything in this post. I believe you have a misplaced view on the mind of a muslim extremist.

 

[Unification]

Your only free from tyranny due to the blood of your ancestors and those in service today whos blood stains the very free and safe path you walk.

They did their job by doing the exact opposite of this. Were talking about barbaric primitive animals who place mythology over reality and with blood and fear recruit those ignorant or scared enough to follow.

That first part can be misleading. War, in many ways, has not been conducive to freedom.

 

[Shusha]

Then nothing is an expression of hate.

This is possibly true. Hate is meaningless as an understanding of motivating human behaviour.

How? You could survive ISIS. Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan...you make the switch, you live. The Nazis? If you were a Slav, an ethnic Jew, African or such you would end up either killed or worked to death. There is a significant difference in the scope of their atrocities and their methods. ISIS has yet to set up concentration camps. ISIS has yet to do anything but what amounts to modern-day pogroms.

You are differentiating between two types of murderous behavior -- killing you for what you ARE as differentiated between killing you for what you BELIEVE-- as though one is somehow morally justifiable and the other is not. The fact that one can find a loophole to avoid being murdered by switching one's beliefs is morally abhorrent.

 

[Nietzsche]

This is possibly true. Hate is meaningless as an understanding of motivating human behaviour.

Hate exists, unless you'd like to tell me all those black people were lynched in the South for other reasons. If it exists, it can motivate. It is a powerful motivator. It can and will drive people to extremes.

You are differentiating between two types of murderous behavior -- killing you for what you ARE as differentiated between killing you for what you BELIEVE-- as though one is somehow morally justifiable and the other is not. The fact that one can find a loophole to avoid being murdered by switching one's beliefs is morally abhorrent.

I am suggesting one of them is ever-so-slightly less abhorrent. One at least invokes the possibility to reason with the attacker. You can't make yourself look Scandinavian, but you can say you're a Muslim with pretty little effort. I'm not arguing that somehow makes it okay, I'm arguing the two are radically different and that comparing them as if they're cuts of meat for sale is asinine in the extreme.

 

[Shusha]

I am suggesting one of them is ever-so-slightly less abhorrent. One at least invokes the possibility to reason with the attacker. You can't make yourself look Scandinavian, but you can say you're a Muslim with pretty little effort..

You are trying to make an argument that morality is based on the TARGETS intentions or the TARGETS actions. That is wrong. Morality is based on the intentions and actions of the ACTOR -- not the target. Whether or not the targets can change who they are or what they do is irrelevant to the morality of the actors.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

How? You could survive ISIS. Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Pagan...you make the switch, you live. The Nazis? If you were a Slav, an ethnic Jew, African or such you would end up either killed or worked to death. There is a significant difference in the scope of their atrocities and their methods. ISIS has yet to set up concentration camps. ISIS has yet to do anything but what amounts to modern-day pogroms.

So I guess that leads me to ask what your predictions for all this might be. Say by the end of century or so, do you think that Islamic cultures might actually displace the European ones? I mean, if those birthrate numbers are correct and not just propaganda. And if that does happen, how easily would fundamentalists such as Isis skate over them in terms of power. Would they then set up concentration camps for the non-converters? Just what exactly does the future hold.

 

[Laika]

...

I'm not even sure how to begin on explaining how wrong this is. Not all things, or all people, are lashing out at the world because they're "hurt" or "vulnerable". Some people are just trying to take charge of the situation, do what they think is best. You don't kill thousands of people because your mommy didn't hug you enough. You do it because you're convinced it's the right thing to do.

Someone has to become convinced it is the right thing to do. There is no consensus on the psychology behind it, but you're clearly dealing with extra ordinary circumstances where typical standards of "right and wrong" break down. How someone gets the point of thinking it is right is not a wholly rational thing driven by ideology; there is a significant amount of emotional and personal factors involved as well.

I believe it is a grave mistake to characterize oppressive, murderous abusers as victims. I believe doing this empowers them and requires us to transfer responsibility from them to us -- a move which they will find very satisfactory. It leaves us with the idea that if we only treated them right, loved them, helped them, (insert 'correct' behaviour here), then they would cease their abuse of us. But the opposite occurs -- it only entrenches their belief in their own abusive behaviour. Its not about us and we have absolutely no responsibility for their behaviour. Its about them and their ideology.

And make no mistake -- they have an ideology which is clear, very well thought out, intellectual, persuasive and rooted in divine instruction with a strict and unyielding interpretation of same, which they see as a perfect morality. They have a clearly defined long-term goal and the means to that end is divinely ordained and therefore can not be questioned, even if the short term consequences are 'unfortunate'. The ultimate outcome is a world which submits to and is obedient to their god because all people will be participating, correctly behaving Muslims, or will be enslaved (pagans), or will be subjugated (Christians) or will be dead (Jews and apostates).

While it seems appalling to some of us, the underlying ideology is more elegant and more charismatic than most people give credit to. Which is exactly why it is so dangerous.

Ideology has no power on it's own. it is only given power by it's adherents. The religious ideologies of the Aztecs or the Ancient Egyptians or Ancient Rome was "clear, well thought out, intellectual, persausive and rooted in divine instruction" but they still dead ideologies. only the adherents give them life- and that involves the same problem as my reply above: what made them believe it was right? ideology is only part of that answer.

There simply is no excuse for intentionally killing innocent people.

The terrorists wouldn't call the people in Paris "innocent" either as they'd identify them as members of a foreign government which is bombing their "country".
The same thinking would be behind attacking the twin towers that the people who worked there were "guilty" of supporting the institutions of international finance which perpetuate poverty in the third world. So attributing guilt is not an adaquete justification for killing people other.

Imagine if the world ignored the Nazis. I hear you Laika, but this reminds me of a quote...

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

The problem is, sometimes there are things which are "worse" than nothing. "good men" are not good by virtue of their intentions or ideology, but by their actions. there is no ideology which is so good, it cannot can do "whatever is necessary" to eliminate the "bad guys". When "good men" start blaming whole populations based on shared beliefs, almost any action they take won't be good because they are not differntiating based on what individuals actually did. At the end of World War II, the allies wanted to pretty much reduce Germany to rubble because they blamed all of germany for the war (known as the Morgenthau Plan). It was rejected on both grounds of practicaility and the fact that it was going to be bad for the germans. Whilst we still think of National Socialism as an "evil" ideology, the attempts of de-nazification of the country were hampered by practical difficulties because it proved impossible to put the whole population on trial in an exercise of collective guilt. They therefore settled for the Nurumburg Trials of the most high-ranking leaders, as well as to bring what the Nazis did to public and to be seen by the German population as a "just war". But the Nurumburg Trials were overseen by all the allies, including the Soviets, who falsified documents to blame the Katyan massacre of Polish officers on the Germans rather than accept blame for it. De-Communization hasn't really taken place in the Eastern Bloc, because they USSR wasn't occupied in a war. Even as members of the Khmur Rouge stands trial in Cambodia, many members of the current government were from that era and did participate in the atrocities that took place in that country. the same thing happened in West and East Germany with former Nazis being involved in the administration. The flip side of de-commuization as the belief that communism was an 'evil' ideology, was that it justified the mass murder of half a million to a million communists in Indonesia which has escaped international attention (but was shown in film the "the Act of killing" recently). To say the least, "Justice", even with crimes of great magnitude, is complicated.

loving thy enemy, is- as far as I can tell- practically the only way to know what might be the best thing to happen to your enemies. I'm not saying "don't kill them" but it shouldn't be so knee-jerk because we turn them into mythologised evil as they do to us. that's the root of their evil; seeing others in an abstract way as part of social groups to blame, to hate and to kill etc. it makes it easier to kill people- but it doesn't make the act of killing itself right as people still have to live with it.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Someone has to become convinced it is the right thing to do. There is no consensus on the psychology behind it, but you're clearly dealing with extra ordinary circumstances where typical standards of "right and wrong" break down. How someone gets the point of thinking it is right is not a wholly rational thing driven by ideology; there is a significant amount of emotional and personal factors involved as well.

There are emotional and personal factors involved in someone thinking peace is right, or anything is right. Ideology or philosophy or a politic simply take those things and add them to their own salads. Any one those former things could tell the learning brain to accentuate angst, or love or whatever.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Ideology has no power on it's own. it is only given power by it's adherents. The religious ideologies of the Aztecs or the Ancient Egyptians or Ancient Rome was "clear, well thought out, intellectual, persausive and rooted in divine instruction" but they still dead ideologies. only the adherents give them life- and that involves the same problem as my reply above: what made them believe it was right? ideology is only part of that answer.

Culture is just clothing a person wears, though many don't like to think of it like that. What a culture oftentimes comes with, or actually, probably always comes with is a 'social contract.' It is something you get born into. So actually with that in mind, that pretty much covers it for being the whole answer, no?

 

[Laika]

Your only free from tyranny due to the blood of your ancestors and those in service today whos blood stains the very free and safe path you walk.

They did their job by doing the exact opposite of this. Were talking about barbaric primitive animals who place mythology over reality and with blood and fear recruit those ignorant or scared enough to follow.

the blood of our ancestors flowed in the name of religious persecution, defending slavery, building empires and destrying entire civilisations, wiping out native americans, austrialians abiroginis, and forcing open the borders of China so that we were "free" to sell Opium. calling people "primitive animals" whose cultures were a "mythology" of blood, fear and ignorance was quite a helpful rationalization to justify it because it put us in the "superior" position of haivng 'true' standards to judge whether they should live or die. Just "doing your job" is not a qualification for moral behaviour as Adolf Eichmann found out or any number of people who "just followed orders" so that governments could eliminate their enemies.Nor was walking into no-mans land to be cut down by machine gun fire and shelling.

I cannot agree with anything in this post. I believe you have a misplaced view on the mind of a muslim extremist.

If you mean by trying to humanise them, I plead guilty.