Islam in Europe: perception and reality

[Mudhammam]

Because it's not terrorism when your country bombs people into doing what you want them to do!

Which usually achieves quite the opposite of what your goal is. If someone were to bomb my family and friends to smitherins, to call them collaterals, I would consider joining the enemy of my enemy also. It's a first class PR strategy, just like running a recruitment office for ISIS or any other given group fighting the west.

How high is the conversion rate? We actually do a lot to minimize collatoral damage and when that does tragically occur, we try to do something for the family and explain to them our intention. Do our enemies do that? Nope.

[Heat]

Which usually achieves quite the opposite of what your goal is. If someone were to bomb my family and friends to smitherins, to call them collaterals, I would consider joining the enemy of my enemy also. It's a first class PR strategy, just like running a recruitment office for ISIS or any other given group fighting the west.

How high is the conversion rate? We actually do a lot to minimize collatoral damage and when that does tragically occur, we try to do something for the family and explain to them our intention. Do our enemies do that? Nope.

Oh okay, so we can go bomb a family and show up at the house greeting the lucky survivors whilst their mourning their loved ones and just be like

"Hey I know we just killed your son and all but do you want some money, like cash or something? What? Why aren't you welcoming us in with open arms? Hey listen here lady we're the good guys okay, we don't have to offer cash but we are doing it simply out of the goodness of our hearts. I would never stoop to the level of our enemies. I mean we're not MONSTERS!"

I mean I did my best to imagine a scenario but it's just too ridiculous a claim for me to realistically imagine it. The thought that we can kill innocent lives, but help out the families of whom we've killed members of as if we are the good guys, and expect instant forgiveness is literally insane. That we can bomb a country to shit but if we simply go down to the country after the fact and clean up the mess WE CREATED it makes it all right, and how dare anyone compare us to the likes of ISIS, clearly we are way above that. Disgusting mentality. I doubt you mean the things you claim, but the implied value of human life being substituted for financial or some other form of aid as equal pay is a disgraceful disregard for human kind.

[Mudhammam]

Oh okay, so we can go bomb a family and show up at the house greeting the lucky survivors whilst their mourning their loved ones and just be like

"Hey I know we just killed your son and all but do you want some money, like cash or something? What? Why aren't you welcoming us in with open arms? Hey listen here lady we're the good guys okay, we don't have to offer cash but we are doing it simply out of the goodness of our hearts. I would never stoop to the level of our enemies. I mean we're not MONSTERS!"

I mean I did my best to imagine a scenario but it's just too ridiculous a claim for me to realistically imagine it. The thought that we can kill innocent lives, but help out the families of whom we've killed members of as if we are the good guys, and expect instant forgiveness is literally insane. That we can bomb a country to shit but if we simply go down to the country after the fact and clean up the mess WE CREATED it makes it all right, and how dare anyone compare us to the likes of ISIS, clearly we are way above that. Disgusting mentality. I doubt you mean the things you claim, but the implied value of human life being substituted for financial or some other form of aid as equal pay is a disgraceful disregard for human kind.

Hmm... There didn't seem to be an answer to my question there. But... Are you so naive to believe that wars can be fought without loss of innocent, civilian life? Or are you perfectly aware of that reality, and simply morally confused so as to fail to mark the difference between how we wage war versus those who would target civilians and literally use children as human shields? Perhaps you're not drawing a moral equivalency between our attempts to minimize casualties and willingness to compensate families by some means and the groups that must justifiably be eliminated--that would be sheer idiocy--but then, what is your point?

[abaris]

Hmm... There didn't seem to be an answer to my question there. But... Are you so naive to believe that wars can be fought without loss of innocent, civilian life? Or are you perfectly aware of that reality, and simply morally confused so as to fail to mark the difference between how we wage war versus those who would target civilians and literally use children as human shields? Perhaps you're not drawing a moral equivalency between our attempts to minimize casualties and willingness to compensate families by some means and the groups that must justifiably be eliminated--that would be sheer idiocy--but then, what is your point?

The answer is pretty simple, no wars cannout. But I had this discussion with several members of this board, and as early as 2003 on another one called fearbush.com. This isn't a war. There's no opposing army and no opposing government to negotiate terms with. There's also no ground force involved. Airstrikes are directed from several thousand miles away with the operators and their superiors being the judges of who's to be eliminated. Death comes out of the blue.

Also I'm getting rather tired of the constant repetition of intent. Intent is nbthing. Intent doesn't make one superior and intent doesn't do shit when it comes to perception. Bomb my mother, brother, father or children and I will hate you for it. It's as simple as that. Philosophy doesn't have a place in this kind of discussion. Walking a mile in the shoes of the ones being bombed would be all that mattered. Yet that's never happening. People tend to hide behind intent and pat themselves on the shoulders for their superiority and being better than the ones they're targetting.

[Mudhammam]

So, then, the alternative is... What? Let's negotiate with ISIS, or Boko Haram, or one of the other thousand insurgent groups holding the civilians in their region hostage and threatening our security and hope we can come to some reasonable terms with them? Is it only a war if they put on combat gear that identifies their allegiance because firearms and makeshift bombs don't qualify?

Of course intention is something. That's like saying no side is ever better than the other in war because both cause civilian deaths.

[abaris]

Of course intention is something. That's like saying no side is ever better than the other in war because both cause civilian deaths.

No, intent is only good to pat oneself on the shoulder. Try to walk in the shoes of those being bombed. Try to imagine losing loved ones because another nation - with greatest regrets - bombed your home. Try to imagine all of that and then come back telling me, how you would feel and if intent would matter in your consideration.

This philosophical chair farting by people who never have been exposed to violence or a war zone really is leading nowhere. War isn't a philosophical matter, it's a hard and brutal reality for everyone being exposed to it. The word colateral alone is aimed at removing the blood and gore as far as possible from the ones being on the side with oh so good intents. In order to not make them reflect on what is happening and what the logical consequence is in countries where there's hardly any real chance to land a decent job or having a real perspective to begin with.

[Mudhammam]

No, intent is only good to pat oneself on the shoulder. Try to walk in the shoes of those being bombed. Try to imagine losing loved ones because another nation - with greatest regrets - bombed your home. Try to imagine all of that and then come back telling me, how you would feel and if intent would matter in your consideration.

This philosophical chair farting by people who never have been exposed to violence or a war zone really is leading nowhere. War isn't a philosophical matter, it's a hard and brutal reality for everyone being exposed to it. The word colateral alone is aimed at removing the blood and gore as far as possible from the ones being on the side with oh so good intents. In order to not make them reflect on what is happening and what the logical consequence is in countries where there's hardly any real chance to land a decent job or having a real perspective to begin with.

A discussion of the appropriateness of the term "collateral damage" is neither here nor there... the fact is that in any war, or in any battlefield, unintended civilian casualities are bound to occur. That's all that is meant by the term. The fact is, whether an army intends to kill as many civilians as possible, or avoids them as much possible, or disregards them altogether, matters in terms of making ethical judgments about the justification of using violence as a means to eliminate evil. Likewise, try to imagine yourself living as a hostage under a regime like ISIS, or Saddam Hussein (in Iraq) before the U.S. invasion, and then hearing "peace-makers" like yourself criticize any attempt to remove your oppressors, particularly when the armies doing the removal actually do what they can to protect you and your family and then acknowledge, apologize, and try to make compensation in some form when mistakes are made... Tell me, would ISIS risk their lives to save foreigners who were taken hostage by their own nationals, as the U.S. forces do they put their own lives at risk to save Iraqi and Afgan hostages taken captive by insurgent fighters? Of course, you know the answer.

For someone who disclaims any interest in the ethical arguments for or against war, you sure seem intent on making them.. but please try a little harder. I don't even know what your argument is here... pacifism?

[abaris]

For someone who disclaims any interest in the ethical arguments for or against war, you sure seem intent on making them.. but please try a little harder. I don't even know what your argument is here... pacifism?

First and foremost my argument is the stupidity to believe that you can bomb any given opponent into submission. It only strenghtens the resolve of the ones being bombed, if there are civilian casualties. The one and only occasion where bombs may have had some influence is Japan. But Japan already was on the ground and ready to negotiate if some terms would have been accepted. Foremost not touching the emperor, which they got in any case.

Secondly, I freely admit that I would do my utmost to make the attacker pay, if one of my family fell victim to a drone strike. And that's not only me, that's also what some studies say on the effectiveness of these strikes. They create new enemies, which is only human. There's also precedent from WWII when allied crews have been lynched by the population, if they were unlucky enough to fall into their hands before getting to a POW camp.

Third, which is the unpopular option, if you want to defeat any given enemy, you have to have boots on the ground, and you have to know who you're dealing with. Most of all, have a plan for the aftermath, since large parts of the region's population won't greet you with open arms, but treat you as an occupying force. As has been shown most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan with the blue eyed beacon of democracy approach.

The cynical but only logical approach in regions like Syria, would have been to support Assad. If you don't know who's going to replace him - best recent example Lybia - you have to deal with the devil you know. And that's the only way to end the widespread bloodbath, since there are dozens of opposing groups fighting for unknown goals and being at each others throats.

Same goes for every region the West mingled within the last one and a half decades. Actively working towards removing the secular powers of Iraq and Lybia took the lid off the boiling kettle. Which brings me back to point three. If you go in, you better know all about inner conflicts, ethnicities and believes, and what you, as the invading power, plan to do after the fighting is over.

[Mudhammam]

First and foremost my argument is the stupidity to believe that you can bomb any given opponent into submission.

Um, actually you can. It's hilarious and appallingly naive to suggest that we should simply sit down and try to reason with a group like ISIS.

It only strenghtens the resolve of the ones being bombed, if there are civilian casualties.

I'm still waiting on numbers of those whom you believe join terrorist organizations as a result of their loved ones being unintentionally killed. It seems to me that most are intent to join ISIS on the basis of so-called infidels invading Muslim lands or attacking Muslim groups, regardless if they have personally experienced loss as a result of collateral damage. And even this is a rather small percentage when considering the rest of the population who merely want to have opportunities and live a peaceful and happy life, which, unfortunately, is a goal that the groups you would prefer we leave in power make it difficult to fulfill.

The one and only occasion where bombs may have had some influence is Japan. But Japan already was on the ground and ready to negotiate if some terms would have been accepted. Foremost not touching the emperor, which they got in any case.

Um.. so we should have just sat down and negotiated with the Nazis too? Maybe they would have been willing to settle on peaceful terms, right?

Secondly, I freely admit that I would do my utmost to make the attacker pay, if one of my family fell victim to a drone strike. And that's not only me, that's also what some studies say on the effectiveness of these strikes. They create new enemies, which is only human. There's also precedent from WWII when allied crews have been lynched by the population, if they were unlucky enough to fall into their hands before getting to a POW camp.

Sure, there is the risk that we make some new enemies when a drone annihilates an unintended target... But you act like the people who are victims of drone strikes are not already victims of extremist groups in power in those regions, which, if I was (say) a secularist living in Mosul, would probably consider who was the intended target when reflecting on the tragedy of a family member getting caught in the crossfire. And it would seem you have no idea about the number of those whom lose family members as a result of collateral damage, and don't join one of the jihadist insurgencies who terrorize everyone not willing to submit to their fascist governance. That might help your case. Or it might not.

Third, which is the unpopular option, if you want to defeat any given enemy, you have to have boots on the ground, and you have to know who you're dealing with. Most of all, have a plan for the aftermath, since large parts of the region's population won't greet you with open arms, but treat you as an occupying force. As has been shown most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan with the blue eyed beacon of democracy approach.

And what percentage of those who were liberated from the rule of the Taliban or the Ba'athists wished to continue living under those brutal rulers? Of course, we (the Bush and Obama administrations) botched up the situation in Iraq badly, but that's a separate argument from whether or not the use of violence was and is sometimes necessary, and in particular whether or not we could have justly liberated two nations from the regimes that held so many innocents hostage and actually built up flourishing, democratic societies in their stead. If you claim that such a goal was immoral, make the argument that it's better to keep murderous lunatics like Saddam or the Taliban in power. If you believe that the goal was noble but the execution was poor, then we have no disagreement. If you think that the mere fact of our use of violence makes us no better than those whom we fought and must continually fight, you are delusional.

The cynical but only logical approach in regions like Syria, would have been to support Assad. If you don't know who's going to replace him - best recent example Lybia - you have to deal with the devil you know. And that's the only way to end the widespread bloodbath, since there are dozens of opposing groups fighting for unknown goals and being at each others throats.

Fine. But 1) acknowledge how truly depressing your statement is, and 2) stop pretending that an attempt to remove a person like Assad, even if it involves collateral damage, is equal to what Assad does simply to maintain his brutish control.

Same goes for every region the West mingled within the last one and a half decades. Actively working towards removing the secular powers of Iraq and Lybia took the lid off the boiling kettle. Which brings me back to point three. If you go in, you better know all about inner conflicts, ethnicities and believes, and what you, as the invading power, plan to do after the fighting is over.

Agreed. We made mistakes, and it is costing us now. That, of course, doesn't make us as bad as our enemies... which should be clear to any thinking person (and no, philosophy isn't necessary here, but apparently it could help).

[abaris]

Agreed. We made mistakes, and it is costing us now. That, of course, doesn't make us as bad as our enemies... which should be clear to any thinking person (and no, philosophy isn't necessary here, but apparently it could help).

Yeah, but you can frame that argument, hang it over your bed and feel good about it. It doesn't matter. For you to constantly repeat it either points to a complete inability to walk in the shoes of the ones being on the receiving end or to a complete unwillingness to do so.

It's something for the garbage bin of reality.