Ayman al-Zawahiri might be dead

[ComputerGeek]

The problem with war, is that war is started by, and perpetuated by men. Eighty percent of the casualties of war are women and children. In a culture such as the Pashtun, Taliban, and mountain tribes of both Afghanistan and Pakistan, women and children have no say, and make no policy. They will always be the casualties of the wars their men make. They have no choice whether or not foreign fighters come to dinner, and they will die in war due to proximity.
If at my house, I hosted a team of foreign insurgents fed and sheltered them, and sent them off to bomb my city, then I would also die in an assault on my house, or I would never see the light of day again, once captured. I doubt that my neighborhood would be bombed by the government even though it is solidly democratic. I have seen a fully armed swat team here, however four houses away, in broad daylight.
All this crying out about deaths in the houses is ridiculous. In the houses, the guns, and hand held rocket launchers sit along the walls at dinner time. War is just a more personal experience for villagers that support Osama.
Rights for women and children is not just an attitude of "Western Superiority", There is a direct connection to women's rights, and the well being of any society. Do some homework, the societies with the worst poverty, and hopeless living conditions, have historically poor treatment and disenfranchisement of women.
The only reason that this might not hold true in the oil rich states, is the incredible income from oil.
The bodies were rushed off so quickly, that certainly someone very important passed on.

It still does not make them EVIL and in need to over throw or change. They certainly will be hostile to our influence.

It is wrong to think that everyone thinks like we do. and it is even more wrong that they want us to save them.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

It still does not make them EVIL and in need to over throw or change. They certainly will be hostile to our influence.
It is wrong to think that everyone thinks like we do. and it is even more wrong that they want us to save them.

To the extent that they are moral cripples who never learned the difference between right and wrong, they are no more evil than a rabid dog is evil. Still, a rabid dog must be put down with extreme prejudice.

The mullahs who have some learning have no excuse, however. Ayatollah Khomeni once said that Christians have distorted the word of Christ. No respectable prophet, according to him, would advocate turning the other cheek. So, he has seen both sides of the story, and still chose the dark side. Therefore, Khomeni counts as genuinely evil.

 

[ComputerGeek]

To the extent that they are moral cripples who never learned the difference between right and wrong, they are no more evil than a rabid dog is evil. Still, a rabid dog must be put down with extreme prejudice.
The mullahs who have some learning have no excuse, however. Ayatollah Khomeni once said that Christians have distorted the word of Christ. No respectable prophet, according to him, would advocate turning the other cheek. So, he has seen both sides of the story, and still chose the dark side. Therefore, Khomeni counts as genuinely evil.

Your moral absolutism is amazing! There is no such thing as a universal right or a universal wrong. You see the fundi Islamists as being evil because your ego cannot accept that your beliefs could be interpreted as wrong by anyone who was good.

This is not about the morality of 3000 dead people at WTC, or the thousands killed as collateral damage by US Bombs. This is about the ideas that drive each society and both of our societies having offended the other.

If people would respect the beliefs and cultural mores of everyone else when they are in those places, then the WTC would not have been attacked.

 

[Treadstone 71]

right and wrong

Define "right" and "wrong".

A lot of ethicists are waiting for this monumental discovery, so if you could hurry up...?

 

[russ_watters]

When your family becomes "collateral damage", let's see if you still uphold that point of view.

If my family dies because I invited terrorists to dinner at my house, I'll deserve the punishment I get.

 

[russ_watters]

there is something to be said about attempting to not kill innocent people.

Certainly.

There was no attempt here, and that is WHY the US is hated by, as our government considers them, "The Dirt People".

To the Bush admin, innocent brown skin people are not worth mitigating the damage over.

That quite simply isn't true. The western world is unique in that they do make an effort to minimize civilian casualties. 50 years ago, if you had a target to take out, you leveled the entire city block. Today, we go so far as to calculate angle of impact and size of munitions in order to reduce collateral damage. This was a precision strike: the people who died died because they were inside the buildings that were attacked.

It's bizarre that you would even mention this since you of course know that our enemies take actions designed specifically to maximize both our and their civilian casualties.

 

[russ_watters]

So Terrorists should be dealt with as if they are criminals?

I thought Conservatives saw them as a military force.

C'mon, you know that war has rules. Again, this appears to be trolling. You are looking for a way to take a potshot at conservatives (as if being conservative has anything to do with this) and saying things that you know are not true as a basis.

Right and wrong, good and evil, legal and illegal is all determined by the victor of an armed conflict.

No, it is not. There is an international body and an international court that can, and does, deal with such issues. You know this as well.

Why do you guys persist in saying things you know are wrong? Are you just plain trying to argue for the sake of arguing?

 

[russ_watters]

If those people were collateral damage on an attack to kill enemies of the US, then the 3000 dead in the WTC are the same to the terrorists.

No. The 3000 killed on 9/11 were primary targets. Part of the reason for selecting the planes, the towers, and the time was in order to maximize civilian casualties.

think about that. You justify the deaths of innocents by claiming righteous motivations. That is exactly what the terrorists did to justify the deaths of the 3000 innocent people on 9/11. They are no more evil than the US.

No. The terrorists on 9/11 purposely killed 3000 civilians. If they had a way to kill 10,000 civilians, they'd do that as well.

You know these things. If you want a discussion, stop saying things that you know are wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

So... a culture is evil because they do not have the same values as we superior westerners?

You're damn right!

What is right for us is not right for them. that is a fact, it is not good or evil.

That type of philosophy, complete moral relativism, ended in WWII and the countries of the world made a pact to keep it from happening again.

 

[russ_watters]

Tut tut Russ - I already answered this post but you have deleted my response without any reason given, presumably as it exposed the weakness in your rationale.

I did not delete your post, another moderator did.

 

[ComputerGeek]

You're damn right! That type of philosophy, complete moral relativism, ended in WWII and the countries of the world made a pact to keep it from happening again.

That is quite possibly the most atrocious thing I have read in a while.
To presume that what a culture does as part of their way of life is some how evil because it is not our way just astonishes me.

We are not talking about Murder is good vs. Murder is bad. We are talking about Patriarchal vs. semi-egalitarian. just because the other culture is not semi-egalitarian does not mean they are evil in any way.

Now, if they tried to foist their way of life on us, we would not take kindly to it, how do you think they feel?

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Your moral absolutism is amazing! There is no such thing as a universal right or a universal wrong. You see the fundi Islamists as being evil because your ego cannot accept that your beliefs could be interpreted as wrong by anyone who was good. . . .
If people would respect the beliefs and cultural mores of everyone else when they are in those places, then the WTC would not have been attacked.
. . . . .
Define "right" and "wrong".
A lot of ethicists are waiting for this monumental discovery, so if you could hurry up...?

I am absolutely NOT a moral absolutist, although Osama and company absolutely are. I am a moral realist. There's a big difference. And as a matter of fact I have extensively published my views on right and wrong right here in these forums:
https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-98081.html
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=105519
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103182&page=4
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103182&page=5
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103182&page=6

 

[ComputerGeek]

I am absolutely NOT a moral absolutist, although Osama and company absolutely are. I am a moral realist. There's a big difference. And as a matter of fact I have extensively published my views on right and wrong right here in these forums:
https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-98081.html
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=105519
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103182&page=4
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103182&page=5
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=103182&page=6
WARNING: If you like your knowledge to come in little bite-sized chunks like the way you two write, you will find this too much to swallow

I am a moral pragmatist. Absolutes are for suckers.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Moral pragmatism is but one step removed from moral relativism. Moral relativists do what they want. Moral pragmatists do what whatever works--for them!

 

[ComputerGeek]

Moral pragmatism is but one step removed from moral relativism. Moral relativists do what they want. Moral pragmatists do what whatever works--for them!

What ever works in the situation. I have a code of ethics that keeps me from hurting others (either physically or monetarily), and I tell the truth, accepting the consequences.

I do, however realize that situations may change, and I must be flexible. does that mean I might kill? sure, if I was in a fight for my life. Might I steel? sure, if I needed to escape some place and needed to steel the key.

Moral pragmatism and moral relativism does not mean that the person is a hedonist or an anarchist.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Today a tape of al-Zawahiri was released but nothing in the tape indicates that he is still alive as nothing refers to current events. It seems to me that one of two things could be happening here: First, it could be that this was released by other groups to force a showing. It could be that his body was secreted away along with two others right after the strike, and some people might suspect that he is dead. Or, I wonder if this could be a set of instructions for terrorists to initiate various pre-planned attacks.

 

[Treadstone 71]

If my family dies because I invited terrorists to dinner at my house, I'll deserve the punishment I get.

Your punishment is irrelevant to the fact that your FAMILY dies for what you do, your FAMILY is the "collateral damage".

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Moral pluralism by far and away makes the most sense. Relativism taken to the extreme is absurd, so is utilitarianism, only way is to be flexible.

To be frank it never ceases to amaze me why some people seem to think their culture is superior or to judge other cultures as inferior. But then that's nationalism for you, quite morally bankrupt really. I'm afraid that's what lead to WWII, the idea that your culture is superior to others. What gives you the right to judge? Why do you think you can dictate what culture is the best and why should anyone care what you think?

Me I'm a great admirer of the Massai culture, but then I don't judge people as wanting because they chose a certain way of living.

I just noticed this thread has returned from the dead.