Is "mainstream"/"moderate" Islam a problem?

[The Wrath]

You keep arguing this point over and over again. It's true -- there are innocent Gazans. Ditto Iranians. So what? Why is this fact relevant to the discussion of Israel's defense against Hamas or our defense against Iran?

It's not. But when people make the claim, "there are no innocents," I feel obliged to correct them...regardless of whether or not it should impact military decisions.

[AndrewRyan]

"The only way you are qualified to make this argument is if you are willing to rebel against your own government."-The Wrath

I am willing to rebel against my government. I haven't because the government hasn't presented me with a situation where I would not be able to live my life yet.

[KurtColville]

If they treat innocents the same, wherever their borders fell, does it make them any different?

I can't tell what you're saying, so I can't respond. Maybe you'd care to state it more clearly?

What have you done to fight for your freedom today?

I know you addressed this to Jake, but I'll offer the best answer I think there is. Americans, and citizens of the most civilized countries in the world, do something every day that Iranians and the populations of every other Muslim shithole cannot seem to manage: they refuse to sanction the evildoings of totalitarian, mystical animals. There are plenty of such animals in every civilized country, with aspirations to suck those countries into the Caliphate. But they don't get anywhere (or their battle is incomparably hard next to the Middle East) because the West is filled with good people who won't associate with these animals, who won't entertain the call to Islam, who won't marry their daughters to jihadist scum, who won't listen to jihad spread in houses of worship, who won't attend anti-Western rallies, and who won't give political support to aspiring Islamic tyrants.

In fact, the West is dominated by people who not only consciously reject such Islamic poison on a daily basis, they counter it with a significant degree of rationality, selfishness, this-worldliness, justice, individualism, material productivity, and everything else that makes the West great. They don't do it enough, to be sure. The West is a mixed bag, but it isn't nearly as mixed (read: thoroughly corrupted) as the Middle East.

These daily, conscious acts of rejecting Islam in favor of a rational morality are the most formidable way to fight for freedom, because they prevent the evil of Islam from gaining the foothold of sanction that it needs before it takes a single authoritarian step. Americans manage to fight this way, and to the degree to which they are consistent, they prevail. Iranians don't fight, and so fail. The fact that some Iranians find the prospect of regime change so daunting now only illustrates the inescapable price of centuries of sanctioning evil.

[KurtColville]

It's not. But when people make the claim, "there are no innocents," I feel obliged to correct them...regardless of whether or not it should impact military decisions.

Fair enough. I'm happy to stipulate all day that there are innocents in the worst hellholes on earth, and to the degree to which they are innocent, I feel terrible for them that they are victims of tyranny. However impossible their fight for freedom is, that does not change the fact that Iran is an imminent threat to this country, and the Palestinians to Israel. You stated here that overthrowing the governments of Hamas or Iran is "no easy task." That is absolute nonsense. The operations and top officials of those governments can be destroyed by us or Israel in a single day with overwhelming air power; the enemy has no capacity to stop it. The only reason people regard it as difficult is because they silently reject using overwhelming force out of concern for the enemy's well-being. Moral certainty and self-defense is apparently of no value to them. That is the idea I am fighting.

[Speedy]

They have the option to get out of the way. And I do not see where the US is sponsoring terrorism. There is a difference between deliberately targeting civilians and collateral damage caused by proximity to a military target. An army can not be held in check for fear of causing civilian deaths if the enemy is using the civilian population as shields. This is a tactic they are counting on to ensure thier safety because they think that Western nations will not attack a target for fear of hitting civilians, hence, the use of Mosques, hospitals, and schools as ammo dumps and weapons depots.

Ok, I agree with all this, I just didn't agree with the idea that there cannot be innocent adults living in an evil country

[Maximus]

Ok, I agree with all this, I just didn't agree with the idea that there cannot be innocent adults living in an evil country

I didn't imply that there are no innocent adults, i.e., that there are those who do not wish to take part in the fighting. Those people need to remove themselves from the battlefield. There have always been refugees during times of war. In modern warfare, they have to be delt with and directed to a place of safety, that is, if they are fleeing toward a US or allied force. In ancient warfare, or if they are fleeing toward an opposing force that do not share Western values, they may well be attacked out of hand just for the hell of it.

What I said originally is that the so-called Palistinians are enabalers. They allow the Hammas terrorists to dwell among them, giving them shelter and support. In this way, by thier implicit support, they are just as guilty as the terrorist who fires the rockets or detonates a bomb.

[Jake_Ellison]

So would you be part and parcel of any problem caused by the US government?

Absolutely. If the US Government were to commit unjustifiable atrocities against people, the way Hamas is doing, and I didn't act to prevent them, or at least I didn't leave the US immediately, denouncing it, I would be guilty as hell.

However, I'm not responsible for isolated crimes done without my knowledge. (as long as I do my best to see the people responsible punished).

[Maximus]

In fact, as the US Military is under secular, civilian control, mechanisms are in place to punish those elements that would engage in atrocities. In addition, there is a free-press that would expose said atrocities to the public. Witness the My Lai massare during the Veit-Nam war, and the subsequent trial and conviction of Lt. Calley.

Edited January 5, 2009 by Maximus

[FeatherFall]

Retaliatory murder (capital punishment) would be just IF we lived under objective law and IF the jury could know 100% as to a persons guilt.

I always thought of murder as a particular form of unjustified killing. If the act of killing is justified, I wouldn't call it murder.

[FeatherFall]

We Objectivists believe that everyone has the responsibility to fight for his own freedom, even if that might kill him.

Whoa. This has implications with which not all Objectivists would agree. For instance, a person submitting to taxation when he knows fighting it will result in misery is acting appropriately. Sometimes tolerating injustice (instead of fighting for freedom) is self-interested.

Absolutely. If the US Government were to commit unjustifiable atrocities against people, the way Hamas is doing, and I didn't act to prevent them, or at least I didn't leave the US immediately, denouncing it, I would be guilty as hell.

However, I'm not responsible for isolated crimes done without my knowledge. (as long as I do my best to see the people responsible punished).

I think he might have been getting at the fact that there are moral crimes committed by the US government (like taxation). He may have been asking where you draw the line. If that's the question, then I'll again say that each individual evaluates the context and does what is in his self-interest. In the US violent revolution is likely to get one killed, but voicing the opinion that forced taxation is evil will invite social pressure or perhaps endanger employment with a government agency.

They allow the Hammas terrorists to dwell among them, giving them shelter and support.

Some of them do, but if you'll recall, Hamas carry guns and aren't afraid to use them. A more accurate way of putting it would be, "they are forced into dwelling alongside Hamas terrorists". Most in this thread agree that there are innocents in every war zone, that the agressor is to blame for their deaths and that their presence shouldn't impact the moral resolve of a country attempting to protect itself. We should probably get back to the question of the thread, to which I would answer "yes".

[The Wrath]

"The only way you are qualified to make this argument is if you are willing to rebel against your own government."-The Wrath

I am willing to rebel against my government. I haven't because the government hasn't presented me with a situation where I would not be able to live my life yet.

It's an issue only of scale. People in Gaza still carry on living, albeit not a very good life, but is it unreasonable that some of them might be clinging on in hopes that better days are in the future?

You stated here that overthrowing the governments of Hamas or Iran is "no easy task." That is absolute nonsense. The operations and top officials of those governments can be destroyed by us or Israel in a single day with overwhelming air power; the enemy has no capacity to stop it.

I wasn't suggesting that we would have a hard time doing it. I was suggesting that Gazans and Iranians would have a hard time.

Most in this thread agree that there are innocents in every war zone, that the agressor is to blame for their deaths and that their presence shouldn't impact the moral resolve of a country attempting to protect itself.

From now on, whenever people attempt to strawman my arguments on this topic (which tends to happen quite often), I am quoting this post.

[Mammon]

Here's some food for thought.

Do you know which country in the world has the most Muslim inhabitants? Answer: India! Yet, with the exception of the recent attacks in Mumbai, there aren't suicide bombers, beheadings and the assassinations like in the Middle East. Why is that? Well, I'd say it was because of the culture of India, which is more tolerant, homogeneous and focused on mutual corroboration then the culture of the Middle East, which in more rural primitive areas is focused on pitting yourself against others who aren't like you and being totally inclusive.

In short, culture matters. Some cultures produce more scum then others.

I went back in checked some of the stuff and saw I had things a bit confused. India has the 2nd largest Muslim population, Indonesia is the first. Semantics played a role there. However, the thing I was getting at, which led to my comment, was that India has more Muslims then Pakistan, there are no Indian terrorists fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, no hijackers, and no Indian Muslims in Guantanamo Bay.

So, the point still stands. Indian Muslims don't blame the West for all their problems and are in fact, extremely open to Western ideals compared to the rest of the Muslim world.