Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
i responded to his original "killing with kindness" comment in its original context. you may not agree with my response, but it certainly fits the intent of his original post.
if you consider capturing innocent people as a legitimate tactic, that taking a civilian by force and demanding that someone do your bidding or you will slaughter them in cold blood is fair... then the divide between us must close much further before we can discuss something as relatively trivial as politics.
|
OK, first of all, I'm not going to discuss with you if you put words in my mouth and then nitpick them apart.
Mr. Mephisto stated that his comment was taken incorrectly. If you want to keep arguing against it, you are wasting your time--my agreement or disagreement with you nothwithstanding.
I never said hostage taking was a legitimate tactic. What I was disputing was the notion that terrorists indiscriminantly kill people without any rationale. You can discuss whether you disagree with their logic, but it is counter-productive and displays ignorance to portray them as irrational killers. They have reasons, and they kill people for those reasons. As soon as you get off your pedastal and understand those reasons, you might be able to address them.
I used the examples of the hostages they chose to release as evidence of my interpretation. I never said that they were entitled or appropriate when they took hostages, but they didn't kill people simply because of whatever reasons you or Mojo seem to have concocted to support the caricture you have of them. When nations agreed to their terms, they let the hostages go. When it was discovered that some of their hostages were part of the groups they had determined were non-aggressors, they let them go without harm. They deemed people from our nation as part of an aggressive force, and our people, citizens and military, have been punished for their involvement in our nation's affairs abroad.
That's so clear cut that I am disturbed you would even continue to debate that. Rather than do so in a logical manner, you tried to build a strawman out of my comments and argue against that. Argue against what I actually stated: that terrorists kill for reasons, not simply out of hatred of a constructed 'other.' Mojo seems to think that terrorists simply kill people when they are "a) American b) Muslim c) the white devil."
I'm willing to bet neither he nor you even know what that term, "white devil," means. It doesn't mean evil, although you only understand it in your christian terminology and think you know that they only understand it in their religiosity. The reality is that satan is an accuser, and opposer, and ultimately a trickster. It's a term of derision and speaks to one's stupidity. That's what it means, and if you have a problem with that statement, print this out and ask someone you trust who actually studies the middle east and its culture. I don't know where you have built your ideas about that situation and the cultural implications, but it hasn't been based on a knowledgable source. Your comments indicate that to me. It's not my responsibility to beat knowledge into your head. You are perfecty welcome to walk around thinking you know things that you don't--it's a very comfortable life to have things figured out already. Challenging your assumptions, however, might actually give you a more broad perspective that results in you reaching an intellectual position rather than an ideological one.