Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Are Americans "Fair Game"

- General Discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/)

- - Are Americans "Fair Game" (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/157833-americans-fair-game.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2840082)

It's been my limited experience that when someone mentions the "nature" of something, they're presenting a postulate as a demonstrated conclusion. The most flagrant use of this is in "human nature", where all sorts of things are suggested to just sort of be a part of the human condition. I once was told that zoophilia is human nature. Only if humans are animals, I think I responded.

Will, it is a demonstrated conclusion. It's part of the definition of organized conflict, whether that on a battlefield or (to a lesser extent) playing field. So nice strawman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

In this case, I feel like we're speaking in generalities so generally general that we're losing track of the subject. First, we're obviously talking about violent conflict. Second, violent conflict can be determined to be immoral or moral; it's not somehow all inherently amoral. In the very specific case we're talking about, Anwar al Awlaki, a cleric with some influence especially among moderate Muslims, has called for the murders of people regardless of whether they're innocent or not. Which is obviously crazy (ducks as The_Shoe is thrown).

Violent conflict can only be amoral. Morality (or lack thereof) is only possible with perspective. You need to know The Story Behind The Conflict in order to draw a moral conclusion. If I point you to a war between any two Greek citystates c. 500 BC, the only way you'd ever be able to draw any moral conclusion about it is by reading the history surrounding it. Until you know that history, the war itself is completely immoral.

But the point is that wishing harm on your enemies is a pretty basic part of organized conflict i.e. war. That's the whole reason for being there in the first place. So MY question is why has he, as someone who's very familiar with America and Americans, decided that we're ALL the enemy? There's nothing crazy about that at all. He's simply expanded his definition of "evildoers".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

but generally the murder of people who have not wronged you is judged to be immoral.

Except in war. Soldiers, as a rule are young men. In a war, they're standing across a battlefield from another young man that they've never met. And these two young men are going to try to kill each other. Sgt. Alvin York did that better than any other American in WW I, and if you tried to say he was crazy, there are a lot of people that will laugh in your face.

Soldiering isn't crazy. It's a part of life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ring (Post 2840097)

Jazz, I also want to you to respond to this:

"other highly respected folks that have done exactly the same thing without the same stigma."

I ask you, who exactly is highly respecting these stigma free perpetrators?

Moldy ancient sixth grade social studies textbooks from 1967?

You've got your head shoved so far up your own worldview that I'm surprised you can see your keyboard. Simply because you don't respect anyone doesn't mean everyone else has to kowtow to your opinion. So how about Hirohito, the late Emporer of Japan? Go find your favorite Japanese citizen and see what they think. There are millions of Russians that respect Stalin. Ask Turks how they feel about Ataturk - just don't do it in Turkey or you'll likely be arrested.

There are 3 people that I don't respect that did this yet somehow garner the respect of millions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan (Post 2840106)

Language used to describe enemies (whether they are the Huns, the Mongols, the Nazis, etc.) has never been very nuanced. This is purposefully done. Shades of grey just confuse the issue and make it harder to achieve victory.

Exactly. That's why I object to people automatically assuming mental illness when discussing Alwaki. Maybe he is; I don't know. But neither do they, and honestly, it's just the flip side of the same coin that Alwaki's spending. We're all evil, so he must be crazy.

It goes without saying that "soldiers" and "war" are dynamic and amorphous terms as used in this particular thread.

Oh yea, let us now rejoice in the prevailing legitimacy of violence and brutality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia (Post 2840331)

Oh yea, let us now rejoice in the prevailing legitimacy of violence and brutality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Oh, you really got me there.

I am not an optimist any more than you are. I have strong ideals about killing people and I have those ideals because I am keenly aware of how easily people justify killing each other. I really don't care what murdering bastards are loved by millions. Even serial killers have people that love them.

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------

It's the same phenomena, by the way.
Planning the death of thousands in war.
Planning the deaths of all the blond women you see who look like your mother.
Not you, you, of course.
But the psychological steps to getting there are the same. It's amazing what one can rationalize when they shut out all but a very narrow sliver of the world.

I completely agree that it's awful. But, unfortunately, that is our world. I'd love to waive a magic wand and make war disapear, but it's not going to happen. We can only try to minimize it as much as possible. That's a goal I'm sure we can both agree upon.

But to try to circle this back to the OP, I'm much more interested in the question "why did he change his mind" than I am dismissing him as a madman. He's obviously no more mad than the billions of people that have accepted war as an unfortunate, sometimes inevitable, event. After all:

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

violence is no more or less real than non-violence.

I will say that there are times where planning the deaths of thousands in battle is completely morally justified. And it's a very different phenomena if it's a defensive act to preserve lives. But again, that's only possible once the full story gets out.

Wow, I have never felt so validated in my life. I gotta take a knee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz (Post 2840392)

Regardless of the realities of history, this is still just an opinion nevertheless.

That said, I discern a difference between planning an actual battle between opposing armies and, say, the razing of a city. And I daresay I'm not alone in this observation because of the trouble our military goes to to ensure us that we never target civilians intentionally. Which is a load of horseshit, of course, but indicative of what 'modern Americans' believe about themselves. I experience no cognitive dissonance from acknowledging my own ideals and how thoroughly trampled they are by reality. And I'm certainly not going to buy into either a defeatist view where I am relegated to accepting what repulses me or ennobling it by attributing ridiculous moral virtues to it.

And that's about it.

Thanks to Roachboy for posting this on Facebook...

it looks like people are still asking the same questions about Awlaki.. how did he become so disenfranchised from the general american people?

This article may answer some questions.

should the americans made the terror attacks a crime against america? or a war against america? is there a difference?

Quote:

The transformation of Anwar al-Awlaki - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
The transformation of Anwar al-Awlaki
By Glenn Greenwald

Wikimedia/Muhammad ud-Deen
Anwar al-Awlaki The Washington Post today has the latest leak-based boasting about how the U.S. is on the verge of "defeating" Al Qaeda, yet -- lest you think this can allow a reduction of the National Security State and posture of Endless War on which it feeds -- the article warns that "alomg-Qaeda’s offshoot in Yemen is now seen as a greater counterterrorism challenge than the organization’s traditional base" and that this new threat, as Sen. Saxby Chambliss puts it, "is nowhere near defeat." Predictably, the Post's warnings about the danger from Yemen feature the U.S. Government's due-process-free attempts to kill U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, widely believed to be in Yemen and now routinely (and absurdly) depicted as The New Osama bin Laden.

The Post says Awlaki is "known for his fiery sermons" (undoubtedly the prime -- and blatantly unconstitutional -- motive for his being targeted for killing). But what is so bizarre about Awlaki's now being cast in this role is that, for years, he was deemed by the very same U.S. Government to be the face of moderate Islam. Indeed, shortly after 9/11, the Pentagon invited Awlaki to a "luncheon [] meant to ease tensions with Muslim-Americans." But even more striking was something I accidentally found today while searching for something else. In November, 2001, the very same Washington Post hosted one of those benign, non-controversial online chats about religion that it likes to organize; this one was intended to discuss "the meaning of Ramadan". It was hosted by none other than . . . "Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki."

More extraordinary than the fact that the Post hosted The New Osama bin Laden in such a banal role a mere ten years ago was what Imam Awlaki said during the Q-and-A exchange with readers. He repudiated the 9/11 attackers. He denounced the Taliban for putting women in burqas, explaining that the practice has no precedent in Islam and that "education is mandatory on every Muslim male and female." He chatted about the "inter-faith services held in our mosque and around the greater DC area and in all over the country" and proclaimed: "We definitely need more mutual understanding." While explaining his opposition to the war in Afghanistan, he proudly invoked what he thought (mistakenly, as it turns out) was his right of free speech as an American: "Even though this is a dissenting view nowadays[,] as an American I do have the right to have a contrary opinion." And he announced that "the greatest sin in Islam after associating other gods besides Allah is killing an innocent soul."

Does that sound like the New Osama bin Laden to you? One could call him the opposite of bin Laden. And yet, a mere nine years later, there was Awlaki, in an Al Jazeera interview, pronouncing his opinion that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempt to blow up a civilian jet over Detroit was justified (while saying "it would have been better if the plane was a military one or if it was a US military target"), and urging "revenge for all Muslims across the globe" against the U.S. What changed over the last decade that caused such a profound transformation in Awlaki? Does that question even need to be asked? Awlaki unwittingly provided the answer ten years ago when explaining his opposition to the war in Afghanistan in his 2001 Post chat:

Also our government could have dealt with the terrorist attacks as a crime against America rather than a war against America. So the guilty would be tried and only them would be punished rather than bombing an already destroyed country. I do not restrict myself to US media. I check out Aljazeerah and European media such as the BBC. I am seeing something that you are not seeing because of the one-sidedness of the US media. I see the carnage of Afghanistan. I see the innocent civilian deaths. That is why my opinion is different.

Keep in mind that I have no sympathy for whoever committed the crimes of Sep 11th. But that doesn't mean that I would approve the killing of my Muslim brothers and sisters in Afghanistan.

And in his Al Jazeera interview nine years later, he explained why he now endorses violence against Americans, especially American military targets:

I support what Umar Farouk has done after I have been seeing my brothers being killed in Palestine for more than 60 years, and others being killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan. And in my tribe too, US missiles have killed 17 women and 23 children, so do not ask me if al-Qaeda has killed or blown up a US civil jet after all this. The 300 Americans are nothing comparing to the thousands of Muslims who have been killed.

A full decade of literally constant (and still-escalating) American killing of civilians in multiple Muslim countries has radically transformed Awlaki -- and countless other Muslims -- from a voice of pro-American moderation into supporters of violence against the U.S. and, in Awlaki's case, the prime pretext for the continuation of the War on Terror. As this blogger put it in response to my noting the 2001 Awlaki chat: "it’s interesting to think about how many other people followed that same path, that we don’t know about it." In other words, the very U.S. policies justified in name of combating Terrorism have done more to spawn -- and continue to spawn -- anti-American Terrorism than anything bin Laden could have ever conceived. The transformation of Awlaki, and many others like him, provides vivid insight into how that occurs.

* * * * *
It's equally instructive to note that if the Post were to give Awlaki a venue to express his opinions now -- or if the Pentagon were to invite him to a luncheon -- those institutions would likely be guilty of the felony of providing material support to Terrorism as applied by the Obama DOJ and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Funny dlish. You must see we are all just playing a game. Any transformations are given unless they are taken. Are we not equivalently fair?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern? (Post 2918099)

Funny dlish. You must see we are all just playing a game. Any transformations are given unless they are taken. Are we not equivalently fair?

i dont quite understand your post OCM. define 'fair'.

The article suggests that had the US limited its response to those that actually carried out attacks instead of going into 2 fullblown wars, it would have done a better job at keeping moderates from being radicalised. the collateral damage as a result of these wars as well as personal family tragedies where his family was targetted suggest that it was this that turned the tide.

comparing awlakis two statements in 2001..

Quote:

Also our government could have dealt with the terrorist attacks as a crime against America rather than a war against America. So the guilty would be tried and only them would be punished rather than bombing an already destroyed country. I do not restrict myself to US media. I check out Aljazeerah and European media such as the BBC. I am seeing something that you are not seeing because of the one-sidedness of the US media. I see the carnage of Afghanistan. I see the innocent civilian deaths. That is why my opinion is different.

and this one in 2009

Quote:

I support what Umar Farouk has done after I have been seeing my brothers being killed in Palestine for more than 60 years, and others being killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan. And in my tribe too, US missiles have killed 17 women and 23 children, so do not ask me if al-Qaeda has killed or blown up a US civil jet after all this. The 300 Americans are nothing comparing to the thousands of Muslims who have been killed.

In hindsight its easy to see the path that sent him on his way to becoming marginalised. Its also easy to transform into a radical and justify the killing of innocent women and children when relatives of yours have been killed innocently. Of course forgiveness is the ultimate human gesture, but if my own family was killed, id find it hard to forgive those that killed my family also.

its interesting to note that he also mentioned aljazeera as an alternative news source. anyone who's watched aljazeera will tell you how much more graphic their news reporting is compared to the american news channels. Had aljazeera not existed, would awlaki have found an excuse to turn his back on the country where he was raised? are alterative news sources to blame for radicalising muslim youth by showing pictures of dead men, women and children while other US sources feed airbrushed stories to their populace?

the question is, was awlaki marginalised by his own predisposition to radical islam or did the US help him on his way with the help of the media?

Why do you seem to be sympathizing, & characterizing him as a victim? America seems content to marginalize its own citizens willy-nilly; imagine your awlaki as such mindsets might. ... I can't either, but think if one makes a noise that a power doesn't like it should do itself the favor of being sincere. If the power "help"ed him to fulfill his predisposition, I think you know which came first. Ditto if that predisposition was noticed & encouraged. Only if the "help" was provided with the intent of changing his mind could I regard him as not responsible for his words, in so doing diminishing his personhood. I don't feel free to do so. I'm fair game.