News Iraq Bodycount Released (UPI)

1,120
7
Yes, understanding and supporting are 2 different things. I understand a lot of things I would never support. As do most of us.
 
I would agree with the two gentlemen above, many people are accused of being synmpathizers with soemthing just because they r trying to understand it, not because they accept it...

That's a new problem, people shouldn't judge others this way..Be carefull.
 
310
2
Don't worry alexandra, Me and Art have been called Terrorist Sympathizers more often than we can count :rofl:
 
29
0
russ_watters said:
Risk being accused?? She said flat out in the disclaimer that she is a terrorist sympathizer!! - to "understand" their situation/position/emotions is the definition of the word "sympathize". I said it before and I'll say it again: "understand[ing]" is not an acceptable, moral response to murder.

And thats even setting aside the fact that the vast majority of these attacks are not directed against the US, as she suggested in her first paragraph.
edit - rewriting what i really meant:

Just because you sympathise doesnt mean you agree it simply means you understand.

I guess you're not very big on compassion russ.
 
Last edited:
I

Informal Logic

How can you solve the problem if you don't try to understand it? How can you make peace if you ignore one of the parties in a dispute? Why is military action always the solution? IMO, the neocon/hawks in the US are not really interested in solving the problem.
 
MaxS said:
edit - rewriting what i really meant:

Just because you sympathise doesnt mean you agree it simply means you understand.

I guess you're not very big on compassion russ.
Erm..

He said understanding *is* sympathising.

Analyse more carefully before jumping to inane conclusions.
 
Bladibla said:
Erm..

He said understanding *is* sympathising.

Analyse more carefully before jumping to inane conclusions.
All well and good except for one thing ... he used the word sympathizer:

sym·pa·thize Audio pronunciation of "sympathizer" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smp-thz)
intr.v. sym·pa·thized, sym·pa·thiz·ing, sym·pa·thiz·es

1. To feel or express compassion, as for another's suffering; commiserate.
2. To share or understand the feelings or ideas of another: sympathized with the goals of the committee.
3. To be in accord; correspond.


sympa·thizer n.
sympa·thizing·ly adv.

sympathizer

n
1: commiserates with someone who has had misfortune [syn: sympathiser, comforter]
2: someone who shares your feelings and expresses sympathy or hopes that something will be successful [syn: sympathiser, well-wisher]
Used in conjunction with the word terrorist gives it a connotation that is quite nasty.

She sympathizes with the people who were invaded not terrorism.
 
29
0
Bladibla said:
Erm..

He said understanding *is* sympathising.

Analyse more carefully before jumping to inane conclusions.
Uh... lets see here:

"I said it before and I'll say it again: "understand[ing]" is not an acceptable, moral response to murder."

I think its quite plain what he was trying to imply and watch your mouth.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,640
4,874
Art said:
That's an interesting point of view because the excuse used by the apologists when US forces inflict civilian deaths or torture prisoners is that we need to 'understand' the pressure etc. that they are under. Double standards perhaps? Or just plain bias?
I've never heard that justification. Source?
 
Art said:
This posting is very reminiscent of the poem Tomlinson's Ghost by R. Kipling :smile:
Perhaps you should read the report before criticising it. At least you could then critique it from a position of knowledge rather than 'I read a piece that said this or I heard a guy who thought that' You will find the methodology and source material is extremely well documented throughout.
Perhaps you could have seen that I have read the report considering that I was quoting it's material and numbers and even provided a link to it. And no the source material is not "extremely well documented", it is just a long winded description of still mostly anonymous material. A description that you more or less have to take on faith because there is no bibliography of the actual source material. Yes I pointed out that I had read negative things in regard to the report and I added that this is simply what I had read, meaning not necessarily true, as opposed to others who parrot numbers from news articles and refer to them as known fact.

BTW in relation to the insurgents and unknown agents you referenced above you neglected to mention that the report says
The ‘unknown agents’ category is therefore likely to overlap to an extent with the ‘crime’ and ‘anti-occupation forces’ categories, but may also overlap with the ‘US-led forces’ category, since some of those killed were clearly opposed to the military occupation.
And? Does this in anyway clarify anything? Or does it just state that these catagories are fuzzy and continue with the reports trend of not clarifying it's numbers very well which I have already intimated?

Perhaps you should also have a look at the Oxford Research Groups's home page to view their credentials before trying to dismiss their report. http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/aboutus/aims.htm [Broken]
Firstly if you paid attention to what I wrote you would see that I have not dismissed the report but only shown hisitation to accept it as being very accurate or athoritative. Secondly John Sloboda is the individual who lead the project and whose credentials I was concerned with, not in fact the entirety of the Oxford Research Group.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
29
0
russ you hear it from pundits like hannity, rush limbaugh etc. I remember them talking about this stuff when the f18 bombed a wedding a couple years back i can't give you a direct source but i doubt i would be the only one who has heard them speak that way, or that they are the only ones doing so.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,640
4,874
El Hombre Invisible said:
As for 'understanding' being an unacceptable response to murder, I wonder where criminal profilers would be without it.
PerennialII said:
Trying to understand why someone does whatever someone is doing is not synonymous to accepting, or sympathizing, or even taking a moral stand on the action itself. This awkward fallacy seems to be responsible for quite a bit of ranting overall, and what is weird is how can this be turned against Alexandra who is categorically representing the humane side in these discussions.
The word "understand" has multiple meanings depending on the context. You can "understand" calculus but not sympathize with it. In the context of a criminal profiler, sympathy is not implied, just like it isn't implied with understanding calculus.

Perhaps you see one context implied and I see the other. On request from Evo, though, I won't pursue this line of discussion. Decide for yourself and I'll decide for myself.
 
Last edited:
29
0
Speaking of pundits, this off snopes:

Claim: Television evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said that liberal civil liberties groups, feminists, pagans, homosexuals, and abortion rights supporters bear partial responsibility for the terrorist attacks on the USA because their actions have turned God's anger against America.

Status: True.

Origins: During
a September 13 appearance by Jerry Falwell on the Christian Broadcasting Network's TV program "700 Club," hosted by Pat Robertson, the following exchange occurred:

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.

The story was covered in the next day's Washington Post, and a partial transcript of the broadcast was published on the web site of People for the American Way.

In a disingenuous attempt to put a good face on this one, Pat Robertson and CBN subsequently issued a press release in which they maintained that the whole thing was Jerry Falwell's fault, claimed that they didn't understand what he was saying, and blamed People for the American Way for "taking statements out of context and spinning them to the press for their own political ends." (If Mr. Robertson truly didn't understand Mr. Falwell's remarks, one has to wonder why he responded to them by saying "I concur totally" and then elaborating on the remarks he supposedly hadn't understood.)

Falwell attempted to quell the furor he caused by issuing a series of increasingly insincere "I didn't do anything wrong, but I'm really sorry people are mad at me" apologies.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,640
4,874
alexandra said:
No, Russ, I do not condone those tactics. Don't you dare accuse me of being a terrorist sympathiser!
I didn't say you "condone" the attacks, alexandra. You're talking about two different things and not disagreeing with what I said. If you want me to clarify that, PM me - I'm dropping this part of the conversation on request from Evo.

[edited on request from Evo.
 
Last edited:
29
0
You know whats sick russ? Is that you would call her a "terrorist sympathiser" in a derogatory context for exploring their motives.

I guess we should just bomb them all that'll solve all our problems!!
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,640
4,874
alexandra said:
I am a real Marxist. What that means is that I do not believe in effecting change through sectarian violence - it can never happen that way.......

You can easily confirm this by reading every one of my posts
I'm a little unclear on what you mean by "sectarian violence", but you were quite clear in other threads in saying that you do support violent revolution because that's what a "Marxist revolution" is. Further, you acknowledged that you understand that people will not willfully give up their material posessions and as a result it will need to be taken from them by force. You can't have it both ways.
...but of course, those who hate me (for ideological reasons, I imagine) have already made their minds up and won't bother to give me a fair hearing by doing as I suggest.
I assume you mean me - I don't hate you. I honestly don't understand how you can hold some of your opinions, but heck - I don't even dislike you: You're relatively polite for someone with such an unpopular point of view.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,640
4,874
MaxS said:
russ you hear it from pundits like hannity, rush limbaugh etc.
I know it probably makes it easier to believe that I listen to those guys, but I don't. I abhor Rush Limbaugh. Hannity I have no opinion of, since I don't recall ever listening to him.

Its probably comfortable to believe that I'm the sterotypical Republican, but I'm not. I'm not very religious, I'm not pro-life, I'm not anti-gun control. Scary as it probably seems, I'm quite moderate.
 
29
0
FFS I never said you listened to them you asked for sources and I told you where I heard it.
 
A real supporter of terrorism

Bill O'Reilly Calls for Mass Starvation of Civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya
Aim Is to Force Civilians to Overthrow Those Governments
September 17, 2001

Bill O'Reilly, Fox News talk show star, called tonight for mass terrorism against the civilian populations of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

O'Reilly advocated completely destroying the civilian infrastructure of those countries, as well as mining the harbors of Tripoli, Libya.

Then, O'Reilly said, those populations will have two choices: starve, or overthrow their governments.

"Knock their food supply out and their water supply out and those people will have to overthrow the Taliban. It's either that or they die."

"The population must be made to endure another round of intense pain" O'Reilly said of Iraqi civilians.

Note: Targeting and harming civilians for political purposes is the very definition of terrorism.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,640
4,874
MaxS said:
FFS I never said you listened to them you asked for sources and I told you where I heard it.
Um, so when you say "you hear it..." you didn't mean that "you listened to them"? :uhh:

So does anyone really wonder how misunderstandings happen here?
 
29
0
oh sorry i see how that could be mis interpreted pretty easily, its just a figure of speech, some times typing the way you talk doesn't pay off i guess =P

When I said "you hear it" I meant to imply its something one would hear listening to those folks etc, not specifically you.
 
MaxS said:
oh sorry i see how that could be mis interpreted pretty easily, its just a figure of speech, some times typing the way you talk doesn't pay off i guess =P

When I said "you hear it" I meant to imply its something one would hear listening to those folks etc, not specifically you.
Listen ... Ive told you a thousand times and I'm telling you again.... Be clear with your posts.

We have all heard what it says in the rules.

Evo told me to read them.


:surprised

Edit: That's a joke, Evo. :biggrin:
 
russ_watters said:
Decide for yourself and I'll decide for myself.
You're free to decide to yourself. But for the sake of common decency, please keep it to yourself. I certainly don't include you in this, but some people on this forum are basically decent people and don't deserve that kind of BS.

As for your 'sympathy' comment - YOUR statement was that UNDERSTANDING is not a reasonable response, not sympathy. Defending your argument by changing it is not really defending your argument. Give it up.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,640
4,874
El Hombre Invisible said:
As for your 'sympathy' comment - YOUR statement was that UNDERSTANDING is not a reasonable response, not sympathy. Defending your argument by changing it is not really defending your argument. Give it up.
Since they are exact synonyms in some contexts, saying that "understanding" is unacceptable is the same as saying "sympathy" is unacceptable if the context is the same. For clarity, here's me saying that both are unacceptable.
 
A

Art

russ_watters said:
Since they are exact synonyms in some contexts, saying that "understanding" is unacceptable is the same as saying "sympathy" is unacceptable if the context is the same. For clarity, here's me saying that both are unacceptable.
This is getting lost in semantics to get back to the issue are you still saying that Alexandra is a terrorist sympathiser? :confused:
 

Related Threads for: Iraq Bodycount Released (UPI)

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • Posted
Replies
11
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top