American Civilian Beheaded in Iraq

  • #126
22
0
honestrosewater said:
At who or what are you outraged? Is there a bit of the "us and them" mentality in your statement?
I wouldn't say outraged at a group of people in particular. The outrage is directed at the violence happening in the world.

I should have been more clear earlier, what I meant is that I am outraged American soldiers abuse Iraqis, when arabs behead American civilians, when Canadian soldiers shoot Somalians, when Arabs kill Arabs, and when some punk kills and old lady for her purse, etc.

I don't like the "us" and "them" mentality, because that just makes it easier to kill "them". They're humans, and we're humans. We just look a little different. There's no difference to me between a dead Iraqi, American, Canadian, etc.

simon666 said:
That is my signature line on another forum. I like it, it seems a number of Americans think the Iraqis are a lot happier when killed or tortured by a democracy than by a dictator.
I have no authority to comment on what Americans think, as I am not. But I am amazed at the ability of some Americans to brush aside stories of abuse, just as I am amazed that some muslim zealots think the brutal beheading of a civilian can be justified.
 
Last edited:
  • #127
honestrosewater
Gold Member
2,105
5
revelator said:
I wouldn't say outraged at a group of people in particular. The outrage is directed at the violence happening in the world.
You seem to be avoiding saying that you are outraged at anyone- you don't hate people, you hate what people do. Is that accurate?
Do you think people can be responsible for their actions? If so, the people responsible for the violent acts can be put into a group. Are you outraged at that group?

If a person is responsible for an act, then they are connected to that act in such a way that your outrage at the act *is* outrage at the responsible person. I think drawing a line between the two does more harm than good. People can change, acts cannot. Why not be outraged at people, if you think they deserve it?

Does your part in the violence end with feeling outraged? Or does your outrage prompt you to take action to end the violence altogether?
How can you change violent acts without changing people?

revelator said:
I have no authority to comment on what Americans think, as I am not.
As you are not an American? Or as you are not all Americans?
What gives someone authority to speak for another?

Should I stop asking questions? :rolleyes:
I don't mean to be annoying- maybe I should stay out of this forum :uhh:

Happy thoughts
Rachel
 
  • #128
22
0
My apologies for the delay, but I've been off of work this week and as such have not been online.

Don't stop asking questions. Questions are good.

honestrosewater said:
You seem to be avoiding saying that you are outraged at anyone- you don't hate people, you hate what people do. Is that accurate?
Do you think people can be responsible for their actions? If so, the people responsible for the violent acts can be put into a group. Are you outraged at that group?
Accurate. I don't hate people. Hating people will do me absolutely no good, and it will not fix anything. I do believe people are responsible for their actions. I suppose the reason I try to limit my outrage to the act, is because I believe that many of the people responsible are ordinary people who are driven by various circumstances to commit violence.

If my country were being occupied, my countrymen imprisoned and tortured, my family killed in a "shock and awe" campaign, all in an unprovoked war, then I can't say how I'd respond. I know I'd be angry, that's a given. I like to think myself a peaceful man, but every (wo)man has a breaking point. If I found myself in such a situation, I believe I would fight back, with every last bit of energy I could muster.

I've been rambling a bit, so I'll get to the point. I can't be outraged at these people, because I can't say for sure, that I wouldn't be violent under such circumstances. As much as it pains me to say it.

honestrosewater said:
Does your part in the violence end with feeling outraged? Or does your outrage prompt you to take action to end the violence altogether?
How can you change violent acts without changing people?
At the moment yes. I don't know what if anything I can do to put a stop to it all. I would very much like to figure out a solution, and share it with the world, but alas I have come up with none.

But if I can say this on the subject of terrorism. It won't be defeated with bombs and guns, such weapons will only breed more terrorism. I believe the only way to defeat terrorism, is take away the conditions that cause terrorism. Bush and his regime would have us believe that people become terrorists because they hate freedom. That just seems overly simplistic to me. It would seem to me that the reason terrorists attack America and Americans is because they have some grievance with America. Not a surprising thing to hear from one's President though, it's much easier to believe that the reason the terrorists are attacking you because they're a bunch of nuts who hate freedom, rather than they are attacking you because they have a legitimate grievance with your country.

honestrosewater said:
As you are not an American? Or as you are not all Americans?
What gives someone authority to speak for another?
As in I am not American. As for the second question, my answer is the individual in question. I suppose I could give someone else authority to speak for myself if I felt so incline. Regardless, I never meant to imply that people have a natural authority to speak for others. Apologies for any misunderstandings.


I believe a lot of my frustration over recent events, is largely due to my feeling conflicted. I hate violence, I speak against it regularly. But at the same time, I couldn't tell an Iraqi not to fight back. I believe very strongly in defending oneself and loved one's from aggressors. Likewise, if America was being occupied, I could not tell Americans not to fight back.

I think a big problem is that a lot of Americans (forgive me if I'm wrong) only see their country as "America the liberator", and not "America the aggressor". It's as if Americans look at the actions of their country whilst wearing rose coloured glasses.

People will argue that Saddam had to go. I agree, he was one sick sonofa*****. But we must remember, that human rights was not the reason for war (at least not the first one), and even if it was, it's been blown out of the water by recent American actions at Abu Ghraib. Originally it was the WMD threat. It wasn't until after no WMD were found, that humanitarian causes became the major reason for the war. I am sure Iraqis understand this also, and is one of the causes for their antipathy towards America(ns). I think Americans need to understand, as most of the rest of the world does, that America is not necessarily a benevolent force in the world. Remember that 20 years ago, America was arming Saddam.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on American Civilian Beheaded in Iraq

  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
94
Views
8K
Replies
81
Views
7K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
143
Views
12K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
5K
Top