"Love thy enemy": Some thoughts on Paris

[Glaurung]

You can't make yourself look Scandinavian,

I could probably pass.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

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).

Yes you are right
The ideology of Islam and all Muslims in the world are moving according to this ideology
An ideology seeking to dominate the worldEvents Paris today is not for psychological reasons
But many causes
Muslims in France today feels strong
Because their number has become a multi-million
They're strong, they were able to enter through gaps in the laws in France
I think it will not be the last
French has put nests of snakes in their homes
This outcome
Yeah
Islamic ideology produces terrorists

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

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?

Can eliminate Islamic terrorism and one way only
It is the world to know the truth of this ideology
It is a means of fighting terrorism
When he knows that his religion School of terrorism, he should choose
To stay at this school
Here on France to take up the measures
Or to leave school and join Islam Baadlogih other peaceful world

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Love thine enemies unto death

Spaniards expelled the Muslim invaders from Spain

 

[Laika]

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.

That is very true, and why I can't pin down "right" or "wrong" here. I would argue that human beings have a natural predisposition to hedonism and therefore are adverse to suffering pain and do have a desire for peace. The reverse of course is that people can enjoy inflicting pain on others through sadism and that we are naturally predisposed to war. the latter is probably universally condemned as a motivation, including- as perverse as it may sound- by the SS and the KGB.

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?

This depends on how you attribute the source of an ideology. I would say that ultimately people create ideology/culture, rather than simply being passive products of it. the problem with the latter is that when you say X ideology is evil, it starts to resemble demonic possession- as the person becomes the instrument of the idea, rather than the idea a means for the person's understanding of their own actions.
the problem is, that the notion of a "social contract" is typically western one, as it relies on the idea that people have free will and therefore ultimately must consent to a culture, ideology or system of government. it is not "universal" and generally fails to explain why such a social contract originated in the first place. it best describes "consent" to certian limited aspects of a "culture", e.g. the election or appointment of a single individual as the 'leader' of a group, rather than the enterity of a culture. we don't have the capacity to chose every aspect of a culture and that places limits on our ethical reasoning of what we can and cannot subscribe to.

p.s. thanks for your thoughful contribution on this.

 

[metis]

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.

It's obvious how they excuse it as this was also used to justify al-Queda's actions on 9-11. But just because they make up these excuses certainly doesn't mean we should accept them. Many people live in poverty the world over, but only a small fraction go out and try to kill civilians.

The problem I have with our actions is that those of us in the west often overreact, try to bomb peoples in submission, and that rarely works plus is morally indefensible to me. ISIS has publicly stated that it wants to draw us into the conflict that they believe they'll win in the long run, and all too often we are gullible enough to do just that. Our politicians are willing to do this because they don't want to appear to be weak.

As Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye will only result in the whole world going blind".

 

[JoStories]

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.

I don't know Outhouse. Do you truly think some people need to die? I wanted to kill the f****r that raped my daughter but wouldn't that have reduced me to his level? I can't do that. Perhaps its because I am Buddhist but I can't truly say that some people need to die. Even people like Hussein, or Bin Laden, or McVey, or a few others. Are we really that kind of humans now?

 

[JoStories]

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.

I can't agree with this. Being NA, the tribal view of life is built both on intention AND action. And my being Buddhist also follows the same premise. My late beloved cousin was Quaker and would never have raised a hand to anyone ever. It was his ideology that led to his actions, or lack thereof. How do we define 'bad guy'? Are we really so much better than another to be able to even think such a notion? Define good guy even. How do we compare the two and based on what criteria? Do we decide who is good or bad? How?

 

[JoStories]

It's obvious how they excuse it as this was also used to justify al-Queda's actions on 9-11. But just because they make up these excuses certainly doesn't mean we should accept them. Many people live in poverty the world over, but only a small fraction go out and try to kill civilians.

The problem I have with our actions is that those of us in the west often overreact, try to bomb peoples in submission, and that rarely works plus is morally indefensible to me. ISIS has publicly stated that it wants to draw us into the conflict that they believe they'll win in the long run, and all too often we are gullible enough to do just that. Our politicians are willing to do this because they don't want to appear to be weak.

As Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye will only result in the whole world going blind".

Well said Metis. I agree.

 

[Laika]

It's obvious how they excuse it as this was also used to justify al-Queda's actions on 9-11. But just because they make up these excuses certainly doesn't mean we should accept them. Many people live in poverty the world over, but only a small fraction go out and try to kill civilians.

The problem I have with our actions is that those of us in the west often overreact, try to bomb peoples in submission, and that rarely works plus is morally indefensible to me. ISIS has publicly stated that it wants to draw us into the conflict that they believe they'll win in the long run, and all too often we are gullible enough to do just that. Our politicians are willing to do this because they don't want to appear to be weak.

As Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye will only result in the whole world going blind".

Yeah. that's sort of what I'm getting at. I think the very knee-jerk way that people want to blame others is very dangerous. it's easy to leap into something and then find out it goes hideously wrong only to withdraw later at considerable cost (i.e Iraq). I'm not sure how far US foreign policy is decided by "what the people think", but certainly the influence of defence contractors who need to keep up bussiness could easily be an influence on whether we go to war or not (but I hope that is just me being cynical. probably not though).

I am aware Al Queida (obviously a different organisation to ISIS), have stated they want nuclear weapons capability and would use them on the West and I don't think they are bluffing with that one. In all probability ISIS and Al-Quieda could "win" in a localised sense because they are using gurrella/irregular warfare which makes it extremely hard to get rid of them as happened in Afghanistan and the still on-going problems in Pakistan. they are pretty much a "fact" and unless the West is prepared to nuke them, they will continue to be so for quite a long time. if we're lucky with some serious co-operation internationally, ISIS might be defeated within the next two-term of a US presidency, but you'd have to be "lucky" and have a favourable "wind of change" in the region.

Long-term expsoure to communist ideology has made me more willing to here the "extremists" out. This isn't because they are right, but the assumption that all these people have alterior motives has proven consistently false the more I've read. This isn't the same as saying they all have integrity and stick to their principles, but more often than not their is "method in the maddness", consistent thought patterns that give their ideas logical coherence, that in more moderate cases could be negioated with. Whilst no politicians wants to be seen legitimsing terrorists by negiotating with them or "appeasing" them- this is fundamentally unrealistic position to hold. its not weakness if it works. the reverse is that, the harder we are on them- the more they close ranks because they think there are no other options avaliable, the more willing they are able to justify further acts of terrorism by portraying the west as "unreasonable". if there are moderates or reformers, or even hard-liners who've grown tired of the struggle, we miss an oppurtunity to at least divide them by assuming they are "evil" and cannot be negioated with.

I can't agree with this. Being NA, the tribal view of life is built both on intention AND action. And my being Buddhist also follows the same premise. My late beloved cousin was Quaker and would never have raised a hand to anyone ever. It was his ideology that led to his actions, or lack thereof. How do we define 'bad guy'? Are we really so much better than another to be able to even think such a notion? Define good guy even. How do we compare the two and based on what criteria? Do we decide who is good or bad? How?

I don't know. rarely do our actions turn out as we intend them to- so good intentions do not necessarily lead to good outcomes. a rule of thumb is that something is "good" if it increases pleasure or reduces suffering, but the very nature of any form of conflict put that definition under alot of stress. war is just suffering and that sucks from any ethical hedonistic viewpoint. Then of course, there are those who profess good intentions but actually don't put them into practice or use unacceptable methods to achieve their goals. I've yet to come accross anyone who would stand up and say "yeah. I'm the villan. I just like killing muhahahahaha!" sadism is a factor in these things, but its almost never consciously stated. when you look on both sides of a conflict, the usual conclusion I find is that the conflict makes morality either meaningless or the conflict itself is immoral. Some wars have to be fought, (e.g. world war II) but I'm extremely cautious in applying that because even a "just war" covers up so much individual suffering.
I used to be a pacifist or sorts but have become more of an sceptic towards all forms of violence. true pacifism is noble but impractical; the advantage is that it is often more courageous than simply following orders as you have to assert a set of values in the face of overwhelming odds. ironically, pacifists may well make better solders if they can find a way to be principled about it because they will have really thought about what they are doing. hypothetically, that's the standard I'd aspire to. I haven't yet found any justification for killing or inflicting suffering beyond mere survival as most ideals simply look absurd when you face your own demise. those that don't often become monsterous.

Or maybe as the fallout series put it "war never changes".

 

[JoStories]

I don't know. rarely do our actions turn out as we intend them to- so good intentions do not necessarily lead to good outcomes. a rule of thumb is that something is "good" if it increases pleasure or reduces suffering, but the very nature of any form of conflict put that definition under alot of stress. war is just suffering and that sucks from any ethical hedonistic viewpoint. Then of course, there are those who profess good intentions but actually don't put them into practice or use unacceptable methods to achieve their goals. I've yet to come accross anyone who would stand up and say "yeah. I'm the villan. I just like killing muhahahahaha!" sadism is a factor in these things, but its almost never consciously stated. when you look on both sides of a conflict, the usual conclusion I find is that the conflict makes morality either meaningless or the conflict itself is immoral. Some wars have to be fought, (e.g. world war II) but I'm extremely cautious in applying that because even a "just war" covers up so much individual suffering.
I used to be a pacifist or sorts but have become more of an sceptic towards all forms of violence. true pacifism is noble but impractical; the advantage is that it is often more courageous than simply following orders as you have to assert a set of values in the face of overwhelming odds. ironically, pacifists may well make better solders if they can find a way to be principled about it because they will have really thought about what they are doing. hypothetically, that's the standard I'd aspire to. I haven't yet found any justification for killing or inflicting suffering beyond mere survival as most ideals simply look absurd when you face your own demise. those that don't often become monsterous.

Or maybe as the fallout series put it "war never changes".

I agree that often our intentions, however well thought out, may fall flat or even blow up in our faces. However, that said, that does not remove our need to continue to live by good intentions and try at all costs to avoid conflict and wars/killing. War, IMO, benefits no one. I agree that Hitler had to be removed. And Bin Laden and so on. But ask yourself how people such as this come to be at all? Is it mental illness? Religiously ingrained? Power hungry fools? And if any of the aforementioned, why? I was raised to accept all people as they are. Is a person really a villain and if so, how do we define this? Based on whose principles and what if those principles are wrong? Am I in any position to call the Muslim faith to blame for Paris? Of course not. This was the actions of a few. Those few are found in all faiths. Fred Phelps. Bin Laden, etc. There are idiots in all faiths. The question is, is killing them the right thing to do or does it lower us to their level? I believe the latter and will not do that as I cannot know all the factors involved. I grieve for the people who died but I also grieve for the people who did this.

 

[Laika]

I agree that often our intentions, however well thought out, may fall flat or even blow up in our faces. However, that said, that does not remove our need to continue to live by good intentions and try at all costs to avoid conflict and wars/killing. War, IMO, benefits no one. I agree that Hitler had to be removed. And Bin Laden and so on. But ask yourself how people such as this come to be at all? Is it mental illness? Religiously ingrained? Power hungry fools? And if any of the aforementioned, why? I was raised to accept all people as they are. Is a person really a villain and if so, how do we define this? Based on whose principles and what if those principles are wrong? Am I in any position to call the Muslim faith to blame for Paris? Of course not. This was the actions of a few. Those few are found in all faiths. Fred Phelps. Bin Laden, etc. There are idiots in all faiths. The question is, is killing them the right thing to do or does it lower us to their level? I believe the latter and will not do that as I cannot know all the factors involved. I grieve for the people who died but I also grieve for the people who did this.

I've sort of stopped thinking of the Hitlers and Bin Ladens as the cause of the problem. they are the leaders, but at the same time the figure heads for large groups of people who support or at least go along with what they said. their power ise dependent on other people following them. In a way, that sort of implies wars- as large movements of people- are inevitable. you only really get to chose what you do in a war situation, not whether we are actually in it and whether your life is at risk. you chose the best of the unpalatable choices perhaps. maybe its just me, but I'm not sure we are "sinking to their level" as collectively as a species we've all done this or worse before.

 

[Useless2015]

What happened in Paris was a logical outcome of the thousands of bombs France has thrown on ISIS for the past year and a half. Also IS has been promising that they will attack in Europe if they continue the bombing. Don't be sad and keep throwing bombs!

 

[Laika]

What happened in Paris was a logical outcome of the thousands of bombs France has thrown on ISIS for the past year and a half. Also IS has been promising that they will attack in Europe if they continue the bombing. Don't be sad and keep throwing bombs!

are you saying we shouldn't be bombing IS?

intresting point when I think about it. ekkk...

 

[Useless2015]

are you saying we shouldn't be bombing IS?

intresting point when I think about it. ekkk...

Well if i were to fysically abuse my neighbour on a daily basis, i should not be surprised or even mad that he will do something back right?
And yes, i think not bombing IS will help.....What reason would IS have if there is none?

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Who said that every Muslim is bad? I didn't see that on this thread.

No you didn't but lots of people I know from other sites as well as real life have that brainwashed mentality. Some I know even suggested that all Muslims should wear a crescent moon and star to signify they are Muslim. Does that sound familiar? Kind of what the Nazi's did when they made every Jew wear a star of david around them.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I don't "love" my enemies in the conventional sense; I only try to have compassion for them. That's different from love, although the line between the two can be rather blurry.

I certainly don't love the soldiers of ISIS or other terrorists. I may have compassion for them and hope that they realize the error of their ways, but I absolutely don't extend my love to everyone. I think extending my love to terrorists and murderers would cheapen it. I reserve it only for my family and close friends.

 

[Augustus]

On the one hand, we have Popper (who is correct): "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them... We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

On the other hand, "not tolerating the intolerant" doesn't mean counterproductive militarism.

Basically, we should do what the terrorists don't want us to do. This means not covering terrorist attacks in the media, not naming terrorists, no broadcasting any of their messages and not overreacting to their attacks.

Everything we have done since 9/11 has been exactly what they wanted us to do. Time to stop.

It won't solve the problem, but then nothing will solve it. Just have to ride it out and reduce its effects.

This doesn't mean doing nothing, but it should be more law enforcement than militaristic and it shouldn't be out of proportion to the effects.

Probably trillions have been spent since 9/11 to make the world less safe.

We have set the 'acceptable' level of terrorism at zero, which is impossible. We should accept some degree will happen, just another of life's risks. The more we react, the more they are encouraged.

 

[Useless2015]

I don't know Outhouse. Do you truly think some people need to die? I wanted to kill the f****r that raped my daughter but wouldn't that have reduced me to his level? I can't do that. Perhaps its because I am Buddhist but I can't truly say that some people need to die. Even people like Hussein, or Bin Laden, or McVey, or a few others. Are we really that kind of humans now?

Maybe you can notify the Budhist monks in Birma, who have been slaughtering,lynching and even skinning men,women and children simply because they are muslim.
Cut the Budha peace crap, the images i have seen from Budhist are more horrific than the average Hollywood thriller.
This is Budhism:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/651040255240466433

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

Agreed with some and not others. This says it mostly for me. We do not treat them correctly hence the reason they hate us in the first place. When many have died and generations have passed, we might realise it. By then, if history keeps repeating as it usually does, we will be fighting someone else.