Islam in Europe: perception and reality

[Mudhammam]

In a smaller domain: Drunk driver gets into car and subsequently kills three others in a wreck. He didn't intend to kill anyone, he only wanted to get home. Is he more or less culpable than the guy who grabs his gun and kills three people in a spree killing at your local mall.

I don't think intent is as morally decisive as you seem to think. That's fine, morality is relative and subjective anyway. I'm enjoying the discussion, btw.

I'm inclined to think that the drunk is less culpable but still deserving of whatever punishment vehicular homicide (or would it be manslaughter?) entails. My reason being that there is some amount of bad luck involved for the drunk, who perhaps 9 out of 10 times drives without ever killing someone. Now, of course, the fact that he decided to get drunk and drive still makes him responsible, but intention, here, indeed matters. Is he a bad person in the same way that a sober-minded individual who decides to go on a killing spree is a bad person? Probably not. So, while intention might not change the consequence or lighten the sentence in all instances (and we can say he intended to drink and drive if he had not set up a prior arrangement to get home, which was foolish for all the reasons made evident in the tragedy), it still makes a huge difference if we are to ask ourselves what danger that person might pose to the rest of society in the future. For the drunkard, there's probably not much of a danger so long as he or she is not drinking and driving (unless making compulsively bad decisions is a pattern that effects other areas of his/her life); for the mass shooter, I'm willing to bet that there exists a danger, in terms of violent and aggressive tendencies, which is bound to manifest itself regardless of whether or not he/she has a gun in their possession.

And if morality is subjective, well, then there's no right answer to any of these questions and this debate has been completely pointless. ;P

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I agree completely. I don't want anybody to unjustly die as a result of war. It's just a fact, though, that it will happen, and sometimes war is necessary. Do you think we are justified in waging war against a group like ISIS or the Taliban? And if so, don't you have to acknowledge that is a reality in which civilians will die as a result of our bombs; do you think that this automatically makes our fight unethical?

Btw, I'm aware that the U.S. has done some truly unethical and horrendous deeds in recent and distant wars, but I don't think that these are representative of overall strategy or policy when deciding to engage in military action, and certainly not representative of the overwhelming majority of our soldiers. Indeed, the case could easily be made that soldiers or commanders who have intentionally targeted innocents ought to be held accountable, more than the few instances in which they have; whereas ISIS fighters who burn pilots alive in cages or bury a pile of villagers in a pit are not merely "a few bad apples."

Forgive me, Mudhammam. I know this wasn't directed at me, but I feel I need to answer it, too.

I think we are absolutely justified in waging war against groups like ISIS or the Taliban. The question is whether what we're doing causes more problems than it solves (thus all the mention of our bombing campaigns, especially the drones, as a major recruiting tool for terror groups), and whether we're justified in the methods we use to wage that war. Further, when we engage groups like those, but ignore others like Boko Haram, it give the (strong!) impression that the USA only wages war when it suits our economic interests, and makes us look like total hypocrites when we claim moral justification.

No one is saying that ISIS (etc) are anything but scumbag thugs. Every one of them deserves death, in my opinion. And no one is saying that our soldiers are to blame for the policies their leaders ask them to enact (that's why we prosecuted the hierarchy of the Nazi regime, and left the Wehrmacht soldiers alone)... indeed, I'd say that a large chunk of the rate of PTSD and suicide among returning veterans comes from what they had to do, and had to witness being done, to their fellow human beings. One of the more interesting chapters in Phillip Zimbardo's book, The Lucifer Effect, dealt with the psychology of getting soldiers to comply with such immoral orders from their leadership, and its effects on those men and women. Everyone should read that book. Seriously. Here's a sample:

http://www.translibri.com/pdf/Lucifer_Sample.pdf

I also recommend you read some of Noam Chomsky's works which detail US actions (and the unclassified/declassified papers which support his arguments about our deliberate decision to engage in what could only be called state terrorism by any rational person) abroad, and how we get our people to support our war-adventurism. Again, keep in mind that I am ex-mil, and am not against justified, defensive wars... I just am highly skeptical of the claims of current and past leadership, given our record. And it's that record, of which other nations' citizens are well-aware, which causes them to be even more skeptical (to put it mildly) in the face of US bombs and Hellfire missiles falling on them, their neighbors, and their families.

[Mudhammam]

Forgive me, Mudhammam. I know this wasn't directed at me, but I feel I need to answer it, too.

I think we are absolutely justified in waging war against groups like ISIS or the Taliban. The question is whether what we're doing causes more problems than it solves (thus all the mention of our bombing campaigns, especially the drones, as a major recruiting tool for terror groups), and whether we're justified in the methods we use to wage that war. Further, when we engage groups like those, but ignore others like Boko Haram, it give the (strong!) impression that the USA only wages war when it suits our economic interests, and makes us look like total hypocrites when we claim moral justification.

No one is saying that ISIS (etc) are anything but scumbag thugs. Every one of them deserves death, in my opinion. And no one is saying that our soldiers are to blame for the policies their leaders ask them to enact (that's why we prosecuted the hierarchy of the Nazi regime, and left the Wehrmacht soldiers alone)... indeed, I'd say that a large chunk of the rate of PTSD and suicide among returning veterans comes from what they had to do, and had to witness being done, to their fellow human beings. One of the more interesting chapters in Phillip Zimbardo's book, The Lucifer Effect, dealt with the psychology of getting soldiers to comply with such immoral orders from their leadership, and its effects on those men and women. Everyone should read that book. Seriously. Here's a sample:

http://www.translibri.com/pdf/Lucifer_Sample.pdf

I also recommend you read some of Noam Chomsky's works which detail US actions (and the unclassified/declassified papers which support his arguments about our deliberate decision to engage in what could only be called state terrorism by any rational person) abroad, and how we get our people to support our war-adventurism. Again, keep in mind that I am ex-mil, and am not against justified, defensive wars... I just am highly skeptical of the claims of current and past leadership, given our record. And it's that record, of which other nations' citizens are well-aware, which causes them to be even more skeptical (to put it mildly) in the face of US bombs and Hellfire missiles falling on them, their neighbors, and their families.

Thanks for the suggestions and thoughtful input. A brief word about Chomsky, though; I've been interested in reading his stuff for a while, but I am weary about his point of view which is that the U.S. is the biggest terrorist state in the world, thinks that the U.S. and Britain are the most evil regimes on earth--a notion that I find ludicrous, not to mention his knee-jerk reaction to blame the U.S. for September 11th while people were still trapped under the rubble, which I found both masochistic and disgusting.

[abaris]

Do you think we are justified in waging war against a group like ISIS or the Taliban? And if so, don't you have to acknowledge that it is a reality that civilians will die as a result of our bombs; do you think that this automatically makes our fight unethical?

The question isn't the if, it's the how. Do we run a recruitment office for ISIL or other extremists, thereby actually making the problem worse? My answer would be a yes, for reasons I have given in this thread.

My point is the same since 2003 when all this military madness started. This isn't a war with an opposing army and an opposing government to negotiate terms. This is as assymetrical as it gets. If you want to take out opposing leaders, fine. But do it the Israeli way, by planning it out and employing agents on the ground to take care of them. Don't determine, simply by spotting something from above that could or couldn't be enemy combatants, to run an air strike. These are regions were everybody is traditionally armed and firing into the air is part of ceremonies, among them weddings. A few of them have been bombed. And killing the groom or the bride, doesn't exactly win hearts and minds.

It's the Gung Ho approach I'm opposed to. Often, as has been proven, with insufficient reconnaissance and general knowledge of the country and it's traditions. Not the action in itself.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In a smaller domain: Drunk driver gets into car and subsequently kills three others in a wreck. He didn't intend to kill anyone, he only wanted to get home. Is he more or less culpable than the guy who grabs his gun and kills three people in a spree killing at your local mall.

I don't think intent is as morally decisive as you seem to think. That's fine, morality is relative and subjective anyway. I'm enjoying the discussion, btw.

I'm inclined to think that the drunk is less culpable but still deserving of whatever punishment vehicular homicide (or would be manslaughter?) entails. My reason being that there is some amount of bad luck involved for the drunk, who perhaps 9 out of 10 times drives without ever killing someone. Now, of course, the fact that he decided to get drunk and drive still makes him responsible, but intention, here, indeed matters. Is he a bad person in the same way that a sober-minded individual who decides to go on a killing spree is a bad person? Probably not. So, while intention might not change the consequence or lighten the sentence in all instances (and we can say he intended to drink and drive if he had not set up a prior arrangement to get home, which was foolish for all the reasons made evident in the tragedy), it still makes a huge difference if we are to ask ourselves what danger that person might pose to the rest of society in the future. For the drunkard, there's probably not much of a danger so long as he or she is not drinking and driving (unless making compulsively bad decisions is a pattern that effects other areas of his/her life); for the mass shooter, I'm willing to bet that there exists a danger, in terms of violent and aggressive tendencies, which is bound to manifest itself regardless of whether or not he/she has a gun in their possession.

And if morality is subjective, well, then there's no right answer to any of these questions and this debate has been completely pointless. ;P

Well, I can tell you from personal experience that alcoholics are prone to make repeated poor decisions, including deciding to drive drunk.

As for relativity rendering this discussion pointless, I humbly disagree. When something can change depending on circumstance and subject, then discussion about the varying degrees of the matter help me clarify my thinking on it. For this reason, I've found this discussion interesting and useful.

[Mudhammam]

This seems like a good place to conclude my participation in this lively but entertaining debate.

[scoobysnack]

Europe is doing a lot to hide the crimes of migrants especially the rapes so they don't empower those who are opposed to the idea that everyone including your ememy should be allowed to have entry. That's an exaggeration but the result.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/magazine/the-s...-j72t7fppc

The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has admitted he “got almost everything wrong” on Muslim immigration in a damning new report on integration, segregation, and how the followers of Islam are creating “nations within nations” in the West.

Phillips, a former elected member of the Labour Party who served as the Chairman of the EHRC from 2003-2012 will present “What British Muslims Really Think” on Channel 4 on Wednesday. An ICM poll released to the Times ahead of the broadcast reveals:

One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house;
39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband;
31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife;
52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal;
23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament.

Writing in the Times on the issue, Phillips admits: “Liberal opinion in Britain has, for more than two decades, maintained that most Muslims are just like everyone else… Britain desperately wants to think of its Muslims as versions of the Great British Bake Off winner Nadiya Hussain, or the cheeky-chappie athlete Mo Farah. But thanks to the most detailed and comprehensive survey of British Muslim opinion yet conducted, we now know that just isn’t how it is.”

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/...wn-better/

[account_inactive]

Islam is a threat. It shouldn't be tolerated in Europe.

Well, the more Conservative sects shouldn't be, anyway.

[Mudhammam]

So, I just watched this video. I believe it recently occurred. I must admit that it does not appear, at least in the overwhelming majority of these strikes, that our intentions were good.

https://youtu.be/SYS15ZaROrw

Sickening. Somebody in our government and/or military should be held to account for these deaths.

[abaris]

So, I just watched this video. I believe it recently occurred. I must admit that it does not appear, at least in the overwhelming majority of these strikes, that our intentions were good.

I watched it too. And listening to the former drone strike operators spilling the bean is one of the reasons why I don't put much stock in intentions. Morality aside, this is just stupid, and a sure way to create more enemies.

As I said before, who wouldn't hate the ones being responsible for something like that, if they hit friends and family?