Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
This Side of Jehenem
The Washington Post recently ran this front-page follow-up to the intentional massacre of 26 Baghdad children in mid-July. This appalling event was only the most recent such targeting of children by a malevolent jihadi; these murderers presumably believe that by killing themselves and those children standing too near an American, they gain martyrdom and the reward of paradise.
Yet in Arabic, the name of Hell itself is associated with the murder of children. Hell's most common name among Arabs is Jehenem, derived from the Valley of Gehena outside the walls of Jerusalem. In antiquity, this valley was an infamous place of ritual child sacrifice, and the horrors evoked by its name were long ago transferred to the concept of damnation.
In a sense it's quite appropriate that the name for Hell used by so many Muslims has such a root. One of the benefits of Islam's original spread was an end to the once-common pagan practice of infanticide, usually of girl infants, and most commonly by exposure. Jihadis today apparently see such things -- children and murder, Heaven and Hell -- differently.
|7.26.05 @ 11:31PM|#
Very interesting point. It would be nice if someone in the near future could work that into a speech being delivered in Arabic somewhere. An American audience could stand to know this too.
Daniel Koffler|7.26.05 @ 11:52PM|#
On the other hand, the destruction of Zoroastrianism as a world religion is surely a huge net minus, no?
Moorlock|7.27.05 @ 12:38AM|#
And when you look through the other end of the mediascope:
US forces kill human 'shield' child in Iraq
US forces have shot dead a child which they say was being used as a
human "shield" during an exchange of gunfire near the northern
Iraqi city of Mosul.
More than 20 people have also reportedly been killed in gun
battles, drive-by shootings and suicide bombings elsewhere in the
country.
A statement said US forces came under attack as they were carrying
out operations in Tal Afar, a volatile town west of Mosul that has
seen frequent violence in recent months.
"An Iraqi child was killed as terrorists and multi-national forces
exchanged fire in northern Iraq," the statement said.
"Terrorists used Iraqi children as shields when multi-national
forces returned fire. During the engagement, the child was
killed."
|7.27.05 @ 12:59AM|#
I allways wondered, in Islam suicide is a sin, to die as a martyr is devine, therefore the defining point of a jihadist's damnation or salvation would rest with wether he pressed the button or his enemy.
Adam|7.27.05 @ 6:39AM|#
I woke up a half hour ago, still pissed that I'm not in Iraq
killing these motherfuckers. God, that's annoying. Especially when
I read about monstrosities like this. And just plain ridiculous
when I read crap like
this.
Because I got high...
Because I got high...
Because I got hiiiiiiiiigh...
(Even though I was never convicted of jack
shiiiiiiit...)
(The nosy bastards ask too many
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/l/blsf86.htm">quuuestions)
(pdf question #24 a b c)
|7.27.05 @ 8:16AM|#
Adam
If you're so all fired up to go, do what everyone else does with
that question: LIE!
|7.27.05 @ 9:02AM|#
In order to maintain the perception that some libertarians are
anal retentive, here goes:
That use of Gehenna is news to me. I was under the impression it
was a garbage dump, where the fires would never end but the refuse
(including those sentenced to die) would be destroyed. I see that
there are Tanach and Old Testament verses referring to it as a
place of ritual infant and child sacrifice to Baal.
|7.27.05 @ 9:09AM|#
It is always this way with religious radicals. Of course they
"betray" the prophet.
Just like Bush, I mean, did you know that Bush's messiah requires
him to love and forgive his enemies? Or that Bush's messiah tells
him not to pray in public?
Nobody betrays their gods faster than a "fundamentalist", theirs or
ours.
If there is one thing Bush and the religious right and the modern
Muslims believe in, it is betraying their own most sacred
beliefs.
It's like an old joke, just recently Christian, Jewish and Muslim
leaders in Jerusalem came together and agreed on something....guess
what it was?
They all agreed that it is ok to hate gay folks.
We kill children, they kill children, IDF kills children, the
Palestinians kill children, the Brits killed children, the IRA
killed children....on and on....
and it's against all "our" religions. But we (meaning homo sapiens)
do seem to enjoy killing our children.
I like this post, it really points to the absurdity of modern
religions that betray themselves.
Hey, isn't one of the commandants that all the religions of the
"Book" (Judea-Christian-Muslim) that you aren't even supposed to
kill in the first place?
Funny, we want to post the commandants in court houses, just as
long as we don't have to pay any attention to them. Funny how they
want to live under religious law in the ME, just as long as the
leaders are exempt from Allah's laws.
|7.27.05 @ 9:16AM|#
What a pandora's box we open when we wage an unnecessary
war.
I'm sure bin Laden agrees with you, from whatever cave he has been
driven to this week.
Adam|7.27.05 @ 9:18AM|#
Comment by: - I'd like to think I'm above lying but the thought has crossed my mind. Unfortunately, I'm on record in the Cleveland Plain Dealer as a regular pothead, and any kind of interview - god forbid I should get promoted - with any of my friends, enemies or acquaintances would get me a swift kick in the ass out the door.
|7.27.05 @ 9:19AM|#
I was under the impression it was a garbage dump, where the
fires would never end but the refuse (including those sentenced to
die) would be destroyed.
The two are connected. To make sure the worship to Baal was
disrupted in the Jerusalem area forever, the city fathers under
David designated the ritual slaughter/worship area of Baal a
garbage incinerator pit.
Sorta like making Mecca into a nuclear storage facility.
|7.27.05 @ 9:21AM|#
RC-
Osama is in hiding because of the war against non-existant Iraqi
WMDs? I thought that was Afghanistan.
Adam|7.27.05 @ 9:23AM|#
Born Again Iconoclast - You're right, Rumsfeld's right, and Powell (and Shinseki) were wrong about troop strength - we've got plenty of people over there - but I've been a hawk from Day 1, I'm not afraid to put my ass where my mouth is, and I'm sure there's at least one guy or gal over there who wouldn't mind being home with his or her family and kids. I've been to the recruiter's office, volunteered to go, and got the "woah-oh-oh no way, you're a Bad American!"
Adam|7.27.05 @ 9:29AM|#
Jennifer - and I thought Osama was hiding because we routed his support network in Afghanistan after he launched an unneccessary war on us. No matter how many times people remind you, you seem to insist on forgetting about that.
|7.27.05 @ 9:31AM|#
Uh, no, Adam, I already said Afghanistan is why Osama's in hiding--it's Iraq that was an unnecessary war based upon lies. But no matter how many times people remind you, you seem to insist on forgetting about that.
|7.27.05 @ 9:33AM|#
Somebody remind me, who was killing children in Iraq for
accepting school supplies in February 2002?
If you kick open my front door, BAI, and a bunch of thugs walk in
and steal my stuff, you're as bad as they are. They did it, buy you
made it happen.
|7.27.05 @ 9:34AM|#
Really Adam? Well, I guess that means they aren't blowing up any
subway trains? I don't know, last I heard we were so busy in Iraq,
Osama and the Taliban were doing just fine.
And you may think that Osama is on the ropes, but he still has 90%
percent of the ruling family and judges in Saudi Arabia still
supporting him, both with cold hard cash and religious support.
|7.27.05 @ 9:37AM|#
We've clearly got enough troops over there.
That's why we were able to so effectively maintain order, secure
weapons caches, and seal the borders from infiltrating jihadis.
|7.27.05 @ 9:50AM|#
"This is the kind of thing you never hear about from the
anti-Bush crowd, in their zeal to say how wrong the war was
etc."
Well, I voted for Bush, but in spite of rather than because of his
position on the war, which I continue to think was a tar baby that
he was way too quick to grab hold of. But even if invading Iraq in
the first place was a big mistake, it's water over the dam now, and
there can be few more noble causes than killing the insurgents who
pull this kind of shit. Whenever people talk about how many Iraqi
civilians we've accidentally killed, it would be instructive to get
some numbers on how many the insurgents have deliberately killed.
They pull off a London-style bombing every couple of days.
|7.27.05 @ 9:58AM|#
What the fuck?
Moorlock,
You want to equate collateral damage in a war to purposefully
killing kids because they would associate with the infidel? Its not
the fucking same I don't think. I think that they would do such a
thing is almost reason enough in my book to do war with them.
General Jennifer
thinks that we could do war with the Islamic extremists with Iraq
as unfinished buisness. Where it would be fine to take away stonage
Afghanistan from the enemy as a staging and training area, but
leaving them with the wealth and material to use in Iraq as a
training ground wouldn't hurt us at all.
I of course dissagree with Jennifer, so I am glad it went this way.
I think if we had left Iraq in any stage the war would be going a
lot worse for us right now.
|7.27.05 @ 10:01AM|#
Joe,
How many troops do you think it would take to seal that border,
pray tell?
|7.27.05 @ 10:01AM|#
Kwais-
I'm just saying that in a war against Islamic extremism, a secular
Islamic country is a stupid target. Likewise, if a bunch of
extremist Christian Protestants start terrorizing people, I don't
think that we should invade the Vatican, even if the Vatican
residents DO have the same skin color and Messiah as the
terrorists.
|7.27.05 @ 10:01AM|#
"...there can be few more noble causes than killing the
insurgents who pull this kind of shit"
How about allowing Iraqis to live in peace? The two may have some
overlap, but it seems that the more people we kill in Iraq -
admittedly, baddies - the more innocent Iraqis get
slaughtered.
It seems that whenever there is some kind of conflict in the Middle
East, the right is more interested in declaring our side to be
morally justified, than in actually achieving a positive
outcome.
For example, "That missile the Israelis fired killed 26 innocent
people." "Yeah, but that Hamas guy they were aiming at really had
it coming."
Well, yes, he probably did, but that's not really the point.
|7.27.05 @ 10:04AM|#
Jen,
I don't really care too much about skin color. I am just thinking
about the AQ training centers that moved to Iraq right after we
invaded Afghanistan. That Zarkawi and his friends.
|7.27.05 @ 10:05AM|#
Mm Hmm. And Iraqi agents bombed the WTC the first time,
too.
"No collaborative relationship" - 9/11 Report.
|7.27.05 @ 10:10AM|#
Kwais-
The terrorists were only in those parts of Iraq Saddam did NOT
control, due to the no-fly zones. Should other countries invade the
US, because of the Aryan Nations terrorists we've got out in Idaho
and Montana? Should it be said "The US provides a haven for white
supremacist terrorists?"
|7.27.05 @ 10:15AM|#
The one thing about incidents like this, is, I think that they
are really turning the Iraqi public against the insurgents.
I know that Joe and Hakluyt will tell me how my perception is just
wishfull thinking and that the war is getting worse.
Just about a couple of weeks ago some bad guys set up a mortar in a
square in a Sunni neighborhood, that used to be one of their
friendly areas. And they got shot at by the people in the
neighborhood, that are tired of their shit. I wrote before in one
of the threads that one of the police stations in Baghgdad got
assaulted a month or so ago, and the local residents came to their
assistance.
I remember we used to get shelled every day, sometimes three or
four times a day. In the last four months I think we have only been
shelled three times.
A couple of things about that. One may be that their tactics are
changeing because when the send of a mortar we can track it back to
its origin. So they have resorted more to car bombs. And though
mortars have gone down, car bombs have gone up. And they never got
the hang of aiming mortars.
Also, where some areas get better, other areas get worse.
|7.27.05 @ 10:18AM|#
Jen,
They operated and trained in the no fly zones. But they came in
through the Saddam controlled zones, and they were very likely
bankrolled, and provided with equipment by Saddam.
|7.27.05 @ 10:18AM|#
Should other countries invade the US, because of the Aryan
Nations terrorists we've got out in Idaho and Montana?
If those terrorists knock down an office building full of innocents
and the American regime in DC refuses to turn over the baddies, the
other countries would be wise to invade and clean up the mess in
Idaho.
|7.27.05 @ 10:24AM|#
Kwais-
But that doesn't answer the question about the terrorists the US
"harbors." Hell, some of them, like McVeigh, were trained by our
own military! Others collect welfare benefits--our own government,
funding terrorists! So by the same standards you use to justify our
invasion of Iraq, wouldn't a powerful, primarily black country be
justified in invading us because of all the anti-black terrorists
we've got here?
|7.27.05 @ 10:27AM|#
Actually, kwais, you'll get no argument from me on that
observation.
Twba,
That description perfectly captures the invasion of Afhanistan.
However, Jennifer was commenting on invading Iraq.
So, when we're 2/3 of the way done with cleaning up Idaho, would it
be a good idea to pull a bunch of troops out to take over
Mexico?
|7.27.05 @ 10:34AM|#
You want to equate collateral damage in a war to
purposefully killing kids
Calling it "collateral damage" will not bring the kid to life. You
can play with words any way you want, but the fact remains that
they shot and killed a child.
Chalres, since when US politicians care about Iraqi children?
"60 Minutes", May 12, 1996:
Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions against Iraq:
"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean,
that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know,
is the price worth it?"
Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the
price -- we think the price is worth it."
|7.27.05 @ 10:34AM|#
"So by the same standards you use to justify our invasion of
Iraq, wouldn't a powerful, primarily black country be justified in
invading us because of all the anti-black terrorists we've got
here?"
Is there an award for dumbest comment posted in any given
thread?
|7.27.05 @ 10:35AM|#
Jf-
I'm just pointing out that our government has just as much control
over our Aryan terrorists as Saddam had over Iraq's Muslim
ones.
|7.27.05 @ 10:37AM|#
Jennifer,
When our Aryan supremacists start blowing up stuff in Africa, and
our government not only doesn't act to shut them down,but funds and
trains them, then your analogy will fit.
Gotta go to work. Got to work tonight.
|7.27.05 @ 10:38AM|#
The one thing about incidents like this, is, I think that they are
really turning the Iraqi public against the
insurgents.
It really is a matter of perception isn't it? If enough preachers,
err propagandaists in Iraq go around telling the sheeple that it's
the westerners that are causing all this, who are they more likely
to believe? their own people or the strangers?
We just need a far bigger propaganda campaign in Iraq - sure it
would be easier if more Iraqis had televisions and the like to get
the message out, but seriously, the damn place is one bungle after
another. This really isn't the type of war one could hope for. If
it were about our survival, we'd see technological and human
innovation pushed to the limits on our side making great strides
towards accomplishing our goals. Unfortunately, we're seeing a lot
of that on the other side and not so much on ours. It's very
disappointing.
|7.27.05 @ 10:43AM|#
"have the same skin color and Messiah as the terrorists"
Oh, stop it already. Disagree all you want with Bush's strategy (or
lack there of), but let's not pretend anyone actually believes
that.
gaius marius|7.27.05 @ 10:44AM|#
We kill children, they kill children, IDF kills children,
the Palestinians kill children, the Brits killed children, the IRA
killed children....on and on....
agreed, mr skeptikos. there is a cultural rationale at work on both
sides whihc is remarkably similar.
You want to equate collateral damage in a war to purposefully
killing kids because they would associate with the infidel?
mr kwais, that you think killing innocents in one way is better
somehow than killing them in another is a very revealing statement
to your pathetic amorality.
innocents wind up dead either way. there is zero difference to
them. the only difference is that one way, the advance of your
ideology is retarded -- the other, it is forwarded.
you endorse killing anonymous innocents to forward your values.
congratulations. you are the bankruptcy of western
civilization.
|7.27.05 @ 10:46AM|#
That may be the most righteous smackdown I've ever seen you deliver, gaius. I would offer you a high-five, but that would be a sign of cultural degeneracy.
|7.27.05 @ 10:46AM|#
Wellfellow--
So you think our invading Iraq on false premises had NOTHING to do
with the fact that it was an Arab country whose residents said
"Allah" when they mean "God?"
gaius marius|7.27.05 @ 10:47AM|#
I think that they are really turning the Iraqi public
against the insurgents.
i'm sure they are, mr kwais, at least some of them. unfortunately,
that doesn't turn them toward us. and it doesn't make what we've
wrought in iraq any less another american suicide attempt.
|7.27.05 @ 10:47AM|#
Gaius,
Before you go calling kwais immoral for thinking the manner in
which a person is killed determines the morality of the act, just
remember that "collateral damage" is a term for "accident." I would
hope that no one would purposely kill a child in any situation, but
the shitty thing about this war is that the accidents that kill
children (while going after legit targets) are all unnecessary.
|7.27.05 @ 10:53AM|#
"mr kwais, that you think killing innocents in one way is better
somehow than killing them in another is a very revealing statement
to your pathetic amorality."
Really, Gaius? Killing by accident is the same as by intention?
Pathetic amorality indeed! I suppose malpractice is no different,
morally, than deliberately prescribing poison?
"you endorse killing anonymous innocents "
Did he?
gaius marius|7.27.05 @ 10:54AM|#
remember that "collateral damage" is a term for
"accident."
dropping 500-pound bombs into city blocks is not an accident, mr
carter.
neither is invading a country halfway around the world without a
material reason.
|7.27.05 @ 10:54AM|#
"You want to equate collateral damage in a war to purposefully
killing kids"
'Before you go calling kwais immoral for thinking the manner in
which a person is killed determines the morality of the act, just
remember that "collateral damage" is a term for "accident."'
I repeat, "It seems that whenever there is some kind of conflict in
the Middle East, the right is more interested in declaring our side
to be morally justified, than in actually achieving a positive
outcome.
For example, "That missile the Israelis fired killed 26 innocent
people." "Yeah, but that Hamas guy they were aiming at really had
it coming."
Well, yes, he probably did, but that's not really the point."
Yes, our intentions are more noble than those of Zawahiri. I
suppose this matters very much on the day you meet Saint Peter, but
here on the ground, that and 50 cents will get you a pack of
lifesavers.
|7.27.05 @ 10:54AM|#
gaius marius...thanx.
kwais,
Robert Novak, the conservative, was kind enough to let us in on the
secret that the Bushies began planning the Iraq war on the eve of
the first inaugaration, long before 9/11. And many, many
conservatives have pointed out that they bushies wanted to go to
Iraq before even going after Bin Laden...you keep telling yourself
that this isn't a crusade, I'm sure that will help you believe it,
but it won't make it objectively true.
Me personally, I think Bushie von Bushie kinda likes Osama,they
have a lot in common. Belief in theocracy.
That's why I like the news that they are going to use the Iraqi
constitution to build us another anit-us muslim country. Hurrah for
our side. More religious governments.
|7.27.05 @ 10:55AM|#
Jennifer, I really don't. There are a lot of Arab countries that refer to God as "Allah."
|7.27.05 @ 10:56AM|#
wellfellow,
I have a number of military friends. Many of them fine and noble
men and women.
Many of them however joined to gut them some sand-n*****s. If you
don't know this, I am amazed.
gaius marius|7.27.05 @ 10:57AM|#
Killing by accident is the same as by intention?
same to the dead innocent, isn't it, mr wellfellow? the identical
net effect.
kant may have decided that intent is the arbiter of morality, but
he lived in a world before "collateral damage" became a euphemism
for "murdering people who are too close to the target and not
valuable enough to keep from getting the target".
you want pragmatism? you want reality? you want reason? it isn't in
kant, my friend.
|7.27.05 @ 10:58AM|#
So let's see, the continuing campaign of Islamist terror in Iraq
turns the Iraqi public against Islamists, and also convinces them
that Americans and a democratic Iraqi government are incapable of
protecting them from those Islamists.
If the Tikritis start a political campaign premised on the need for
a strongman to keep order, what % of the Iraqi public do you think
would find that argument convincing?
|7.27.05 @ 11:05AM|#
Wellfellow--
True, but none of those Arab countries had leaders whom Bush talked
about wanting to "get" even before 9-11 happened.
|7.27.05 @ 11:06AM|#
Gaius,
"same to the dead innocent, isn't it, mr wellfellow? the identical
net effect."
And that is how you judge morality? By net effect? That's really
bizarre. A poor driver is as morally culpable as a murderer? An
ignorant doctor is as morally culpable as Jack the Ripper? If I
want pragmatism, I'll understand why a rational justice system
distinguishes between types of murder.
|7.27.05 @ 11:07AM|#
Gaius and Joe,
I think you misunderstood me - I'm not shilling for anyone, and I
don't think we should be in this nasty mess. I'm just saying that
there is a difference between an accident and a murder. This is why
we have 2 different crimes: manslaughter, and murder. I think it's
a little over the top to say that the army is gunning/bombing for
little kids. But maybe, I'm wrong, I don't know, I'm not there.
|7.27.05 @ 11:08AM|#
Jennifer,
So it's not just because of the skin color and common God? That's
my point.
|7.27.05 @ 11:09AM|#
Just browsing the comments, but it seems to me that several people are dangerously close to arguing that no action can ever be taken against a hostage taker because an errant shot could kill the hostage. Hostage takers always get what they want. Big picture, I just don't know if that is a good place to be.
|7.27.05 @ 11:09AM|#
wellfellow,
a poor driver (for instance one with bad nightvision who still
insists on driving at night) is very culpable, as is an ignorant
doctor who presents himself otherwise, yes.
Islamic mulahs who advocate the killing of innocents are also
culpable, as are writers named Anne who advocate blowing up the
NYT.
|7.27.05 @ 11:10AM|#
True, Wellfellow. I misspoke. After all, if it were merely skin-color and God-name, we'd've invaded Saudi Arabia, since they're not only dark-complexioned Wahhabi extremists, they were actually the ones behind 9-11, and funding the madrassas where Al-Qaeda guys train!
|7.27.05 @ 11:12AM|#
Skeptikos,
Fair enough, however,
"as is an ignorant doctor who presents himself otherwise,
yes"
Unless he's omniscient, this describes every doctor. This is why we
have the word 'accident' in our vocabulary.
gaius marius|7.27.05 @ 11:18AM|#
Did he?
mr wellfellow, to say that he didn't -- and let's not pick on poor
old mr kwais, for there are millions just like him -- you have to
believe that this war was started without foreknowledge that many
thousands of innocent bystanders would be put to the sword.
that simply isn't so. we know that our method of warfare -- which
hides expensive american soldiers by flattening whole cities under
bombs with only minor consideration of their occupants -- is
designed SPECIFICALLY to increase civilian casualties in an effort
to save american military casualties. the entire path of our
military technological development since the first world war has
been to hone that point. and the purpose is betrayed by the fact
that we don't even try to count civilian casualties -- for they are
irrelevant to the design, and disturbing reminders of our moral
vapidity.
if we did count, i think we would quickly find that the postmodern
american war machine murders more innocents per military casualty
than any prior incarnation of militarism in human history. it is,
after all, immensely efficient, in accordance with its industrial
lines of construction.
that is a very black indictment of how we have evolved in the west,
but it is nonetheless as honest i can manage to be. the minor
mitigations we put forward to clothe the reaper in white -- "we
really try not to hit them", et al -- are pathetic rationalizations
to assuage our guilt at the purposeful design of civilian murder we
have produced.
|7.27.05 @ 11:19AM|#
Without getting into all the policy issues of our presence in
Iraq, I've just got to comment on some of the rhetoric that's
flying around here.
1. Participating in an activity that may cause the accidental death
of children is not morally different than killing the children
deliberately.
2. People who operate automobiles in the U.S. precipitate
accidents. These accidents occur regularly and in some cases kill
children.
Conclusion: The moment you turn that ignition key, you're no better
than the Jihadists.
Conclusion: Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta should be
prosecuted as a war criminal for allowing the Freeway System to
continue.
Conclusion: Ted Kazynski got a bum rap and should be pardoned
immediately. Sure, he bombed a few people, but at least he lived in
the woods and rode a bicycle ...
;-)
|7.27.05 @ 11:32AM|#
Jason, I don't know if you're looking my way, but I'm arguing
against simplistic reductionism, not in favor of it. The
proposition was put forth that it doesn't matter if our actions
kill lots of innocents, because we didn't do so on purpose.
gaius, I don't think you have a very good grasp of modern military
tactics. Our military uses small smart bombs - sometimes, concrete
rounds with no explosives - instead of area bombing for the purpose
of avoiding civilian casualties. The Marines evacuated the
population of Falluja before levelling it. Why do you think they do
the dangerous room-to-room fighting, instead of levelling
buildings?
You raise a lot of good points about the inevitability of civilian
casualties, but you're just plain wrong on this one.
gaius marius|7.27.05 @ 11:39AM|#
And that is how you judge morality?
i am saying, mr wellfellow -- that our individual moral conceptions
of events are not a matter of physical fact.
beyond what i said above about what our true intent really is as
evidenced by the pattern of construction of our military machinery
-- that morality ajudged in the moment by the individual without
the exegesis of tradition is useless. people are weak, irrational,
stupid and animal. "intent" is nothing, not a thing, not divinable
and not observable, and to believe that you or i as people can look
at what is going on in iraq and divine from each bullet a rational
inner purpose is ludicrous. we will see in events what makes us
feel in whichever way we wish. is that useful?
this is why the abandonment of accumulated wisdom in the modern age
is so damaging. we have replaced the moral law of a hellenic
christian church with statistical modeling and kantian
personal-intent-divination/rationalization. this invites the most
amoral sort of destruction.
|7.27.05 @ 11:43AM|#
I can't tell how astonished I am to see gaius toss overboard one
of the keystones of classical ethics and philosophy - the idea that
the moral/ethical status of an action is related to the intentions
behind the action. Makes me wonder how deep his fealty to classical
values really runs.
Still, I suppose any stick will do to beat Bush.
|7.27.05 @ 11:44AM|#
Gaius,
If I'm juggling on top of a roof and I drop a ball, it falls and
lands on your head and you die, it's an accident. It's asinine to
claim that intention doesn't matter. Regardless of the kantian
personal-intent-divination/rationalization hoozimawhatsis that's
involved.
|7.27.05 @ 11:46AM|#
And let me also say how disturbed I am to agree with joe twice in as many days. At this rate, I'll probably be stuffing ballot boxes for Hillary! in 2008.
|7.27.05 @ 11:51AM|#
Just to give a flavor of the classical take on the importance of
intention: I believe Aristotle is credited with stating that "the
intention makes the crime."
Say it ain't so, gaius.
|7.27.05 @ 12:02PM|#
"'...there can be few more noble causes than killing the
insurgents who pull this kind of shit'
"How about allowing Iraqis to live in peace?"
That would be nice, but you're deluding yourself if you think that
if we leave Iraq it will suddenly become peaceful. There will be a
nasty civil war between Sunnis and Shiites (with maybe the Kurds
staking out a third position) that will make the 1973-75 denoument
of the Vietnam War look like a romp in the park. We broke it; we
have the responsibility to buy it.
gaius marius|7.27.05 @ 12:05PM|#
Our military uses small smart bombs - sometimes, concrete
rounds with no explosives - instead of area bombing for the purpose
of avoiding civilian casualties.
does that make you sleep better at night, mr joe, over the fact
that we've killed tens of thousands -- no one even knows the number
because no one bothered to *try* to count -- in iraq while losing
exactly 1,779 american soldiers? that's a ratio of at least 10:1,
possibly more, possibly much more.
the napoleonic wars were reknown for their utter brutality, in
stark contrast to the "gentlemens' wars" of the 17th c. there were
likely some 2.5mm military casualties over the 16 years
(1799-1815), and civilian casualties of around 1 million. two and a
half professionals for every civilian.
the first world war: 15mm professionals, ~9mm civilians -- 1.6
soldiers per civilian.
the second world war: 19mm military, ~20mm civilian (excluding
german concentration camps and the sino-japanese conflict) -- about
1:1.
american phase of the vietnam war: 940k military on all sides, ~1mm
civilians.
teh advance of military technology is decidedly not the advance of
morality, mr joe.
|7.27.05 @ 12:22PM|#
Joe,
Credit goes where credit is due. gaius marius made himself look
extremely uninformed in his ridiculous and factually incorrect rant
against American military procedures vis a vis civilian casualties.
I expected him to get called on it; that it was you, somebody who
generally agrees with his political mindset, is a testament to your
honesty and intellectual integrity. If more Democrats (I am
assuming that you tend that way based on your writings- if I am
mistaken, my apologies) had that same willingness to be honest in
regards to their brethren's overheated rhetoric, then they might
become competitive again.
gaius marius|7.27.05 @ 12:27PM|#
the idea that the moral/ethical status of an action is
related to the intentions behind the action.
typically shallow reading, mr dean.
i would gladly toss aside unguided individual moral judgment --
it's all but useless. it has allowed many like you, for example, to
essentially claim that iraq will be a "good thing" regardless of
how many are put to death because the principle is right. it
allowed the german people to justify any manner of unspeakable
atrocity because the principle -- the struggle for national
freiheit -- was right. people unguided by tradition and law are
animals, and prove it at every step.
it is only if they are conditioned by tradition, law and philosophy
that they develop a moral framework which can be considered
meaningful.
I believe Aristotle is credited with stating that "the intention
makes the crime."
aristotle said many things, but it is important to contextualize
him. he spoke as a participant in the bankruptcy of the classical
age, a time of greek political collapse, tyranny, apathy and
lawlessness, totally corrupted by antisocial selfish individualism,
itself cut loose from the orphic wisdom and traditions that had
overseen its growth and flowering.
aristotle's ethics are a brutal, dark, selfish and machiavellian
interpretation of life and its meaning as an exercise in
narcissism. if you want to cite him as your advocate, you should
know that.
If I'm juggling on top of a roof and I drop a ball, it falls and
lands on your head and you die, it's an accident.
and you're going to jail, mr carter. :) can you see how
manslaughter is a holdover from a time when the kantian ideology of
personal morality mattered less than the social morality of
law?
gaius marius|7.27.05 @ 12:29PM|#
gaius marius made himself look extremely uninformed in his
ridiculous and factually incorrect rant against American military
procedures vis a vis civilian casualties
it's quite painful to recognize the bankruptcy of our society for
the first time. i expect a lot of people who haven't considered
what we are in the context of civilizational history will find it
shocking and angering, mr swede.
|7.27.05 @ 12:35PM|#
gaius marius,
You exclude a lot of reasons for a lower American military death
rate during this war. You automatically seem to think that the only
reason the American military is not suffering deaths at the same
rate as in previous conflicts is because of some evil intent on
ourpart. Not so. Other factors which contribute to our soldiers
survival rate include: better body armor, better medical treatment
(including battlefield technologies unheard of even in the Gulf
War- this includes powders which clot the bllod flow in fresh
wounds so soldiers don't blled to death), better training, having a
professional all volunteer force rather than relying on draftees,
better weapons, and and more remote weaponry and military tools
which allow more soldiers to do what they have to do without
putting themselves in direct harm's way. There, gaius, are just a
few reasons why the ratio might be higher this time around.
One more point, gaius. Many Iraqi civilian deaths have come at the
hands of the insurgents/terrorists, not our military. I would say
that that is an important thing to remeber before you post again on
this issue.
|7.27.05 @ 12:40PM|#
Why are you excluding sino and german atrocities against
civilians?
They came to war from the western tradition as well as the US.
gaius marius|7.27.05 @ 12:58PM|#
only because, mr curious, i don't think those examples demonstrate the western method of warfare, even as they may reflect a decline of general morality.
|7.27.05 @ 1:06PM|#
Gaius,
You repeatedly assert that intent is meaningless, yet you accept it
in your own premise. Example:
"that is a very black indictment of how we have evolved in the
west"
Not so, according to your morality, it is no more black than the
engineer who miscalculates when designing a bridge should it
collapse and cause death. Should the body count be equal, a society
that builds poor structures is as morally bankrupt as the society
the builds war machines? Just how do you describe this decadence,
then? We are as amoral as those primitive tribes that have yet to
discover medicine and so cause the death of countless? Truly
bizarre, Gaius. Due to poor living conditions, insufficient
medicine, poor hygiene,(all forms of ignorance) etc. it seems the
glory days of the 'gentleman's wars' were quite decadent. After
all, many died and that is your metric.
|7.27.05 @ 1:10PM|#
Gaius,
You repeatedly assert that intent is meaningless, yet you accept it
in your own premise. Example:
"that is a very black indictment of how we have evolved in the
west"
Not so, according to your morality, it is no more black than the
engineer who miscalculates when designing a bridge should it
collapse and cause death. Should the body count be equal, a society
that builds poor structures is as morally bankrupt as the society
the builds war machines? Just how do you describe this decadence,
then? We are as amoral as those primitive tribes that have yet to
discover medicine and so cause the death of countless. Truly
bizarre, Gaius. Due to poor living conditions, insufficient
medicine, poor hygiene,ie. any form of ignorance, it seems the
glory days of the gentleman's wars killed even more people. How
decadent! After all, as intent never matters, ignorance is no
excuse.
|7.27.05 @ 1:18PM|#
The commandment "Thou shallt not kill" in the Ten Commandments
forgets that "your neighbor" needs to be stuck on the end. "Your
neighbor" means those in your group.
In 1966, Israeli psychologist Georges Tamarin questioned 1066
schoolchildren ages eight to fourteen about Joshua's destruction
of, and killing ALL living things in, Jericho. When given a choice
among total approval, partial approval or disapproval, or total
disapproval, 66 percent chose total approval and 26 percent chose
total disapproval. However, when "General Lin" was substituted for
"Joshua" and "a Chinese kingdom 3,000 years ago" for Israel he
found only 7 percent (of a different group of children) totally
approved and 75 percent totally disapproved.
My point is that it is part of human nature to dehumanize
competitors, and remove the strong sanctions societies have against
extreme selfishness. And Mr. Marius's statement that without
traditions and law people are animals seems to me to be incomplete.
I would say that people are animals even with
traditions and laws. Germany and Japan acted completely
consistently with their traditions and laws when they attempted to
destroy Jews and Nanking, respectively.
Also, Mr. Marius, if you want to play statistical games about more
civilian deaths per military deaths, when the military deaths go
down, but the civilian deaths don't go down as much, wouldn't that
produce the same effect? We can also play another game of comparing
percentage of civilians killed in a given area over different wars.
We can also arguably include the deaths of conscripts in the
military as "civilian" because they wouldn't have been deaths if
they hadn't been drafted. I would strongly suspect those
considerations would change your ratios.
|7.27.05 @ 1:24PM|#
can you see how manslaughter is a holdover ...
American law has several levels of culpability ... not that it's
the last word in morality, but it might be a basis to add a little
structure to this discussion. American courts perceive four
categories of culpability, of which I give you extremely
oversimplified explanations:
Accident: A reasonable person would not have foreseen that the
victim would get hurt. The court does not punish you.
Negligence: You didn't mean to hurt the victim, but you should have
been more careful. The court won't impose criminal charges, but the
victim's family can sue you civilly.
Recklessness: You didn't mean to harm the specific victim, but you
were doing something dangerous and clearly didn't care whether
anyone got hurt. You can receive lower-level criminal penalties -
if the victim died, you are guilty of manslaughter, but not
murder.
Intentional: You meant to hurt the victim, and you did. Full
criminal penalties apply - for a death, murder.
Let's all agree that warfare by definition involves intentional
murder of enemy soldiers, that nobody has managed to very
successfully apply this civil standard to warfare yet, that I've
missed all sorts of valid doctrines like self-defense and strict
liability, and that I have no idea what Aristotle would have said
about late-term abortion.
But maybe if we specify where we think various US, Iraqi, and
insurgent actions fall in this continuum we will have a bit clearer
discussion than just arguing "it's all intentional" vs. "it's all
an accident."
|7.27.05 @ 1:28PM|#
gaius:
You have possibly the most absurd analysis of the evolution of
military power in the west I've ever seen. No offense, but it is
not a reflection of the evolution of the west or the west's
decadence that certain cultures choose to fight in such a way as to
maximize civilian casualties on their own side. The armor being
employed isn't kevlar, it is diapers on their own children.
Again, once this tactic is employed, you are looking at a hostage
situation. There are only so many outcomes to a hostage situation.
I am not sure that pre kantian ethics tells you much about what to
do. If you always capitulate to demands, you expand the incidence
of hostage taking. Perhaps people have largely abandoned hellenic
ethics because they failed to serve as reliable standards given
certain criteria.
|7.27.05 @ 1:32PM|#
gaius:
You have possibly the most absurd analysis of the evolution of
military power in the west I've ever seen. No offense, but it is
not a reflection of the evolution of the west or the west's
decadence that certain cultures choose to fight in such a way as to
maximize civilian casualties on their own side. The armor being
employed isn't kevlar, it is diapers on their own children.
Again, once this tactic is employed, you are looking at a hostage
situation. There are only so many outcomes to a hostage situation.
I am not sure that pre kantian ethics tells you much about what to
do. If you always capitulate to demands, you expand the incidence
of hostage taking. Perhaps people have largely abandoned hellenic
ethics because they failed to serve as reliable standards given
certain criteria.
gaius marius|7.27.05 @ 1:50PM|#
choose to fight in such a way as to maximize civilian
casualties on their own side.
don't confuse what their militant martyrs do and what we do, mr
ligon. i'm talking about our military design. i wouldn't testify to
the health of islamic civilization, which is largely over. but if
you think that every iraqi casualty was an innocent babe being held
as a shiled by a bad guy, you've lost connection with what
industrial warfare is.
gaius marius|7.27.05 @ 3:17PM|#
You repeatedly assert that intent is meaningless
mr wellfellow, that would be not my view but the view of a strict
empiricist. we can entertain ideas, can we not, without adopting
them? :)
it is perhaps in this discussion that we see how far the west has
gone from where it was. there was indeed a period of western
development that eschewed inner motive as indiscernable and
irrelevant to moral action, where morality was evidenciary and a
social standard and not a personal intuition. it is why kant was
revolutionary -- prior to his work (and its widespread adoption in
the west), good works socially-defined were seen as the standard of
morality, not good intentions self-ajudged.
my view happens to be that
i would gladly toss aside unguided individual moral judgment ... it
is only if [people] are conditioned by tradition, law and
philosophy that they develop a moral framework which can be
considered meaningful.
we live in an age which is very much the former and not the latter,
which answers
Just how do you describe this decadence, then?
|7.27.05 @ 3:29PM|#
Gaius, I'll push you a little bit here with a situation in which
intent determines the morality of an action:
Man A knows Man C is allergic to lobster. Man A hates Man C, and
orders him Lobster Egg Foo Young and tells Man C, "You gotta try
this, it's sooo good. Just try it, then I'll tell you what it is."
Man C tries it, puffs up like a horrible fleshy beach ball and
dies.
Man B does not know Man C is allergic to lobster. In fact, Man B
thinks lobster is soooo delicious that he orders an extra large
Lobster Egg Foo Young for Man C, brings it home, and says, "You
gotta try this, it's sooo good." Man C tries it, and you know the
rest.
Is Man B a murderer? Is he a better or worse person, morally, than
Man A?
|7.27.05 @ 4:05PM|#
Randolph, clearly person A is the manifestation of post-modern
perverse Neitzchian uber-hubris born of the relativistic German
romantic period, where as person B is merely a product of the
defunkt culture of techne as God and the Religion of Science who
can hardly be blamed for his imposition of the decadent western
value system he knew since birth. The past 500 years should answer
your question sufficiently. ;)
Gaius, I kid! You make a good point, however, even if I except what
you're saying in your last post, I'd argue that tradition, law and
philosophy clearly take into account one's intention.
I'm starting to think that Kant is your straw man, because I don't
think anyone here is claiming that "unguided" or "self-adjudged"
individual morality should be the measure of right and wrong. As in
the examples provided by myself and Randolph, intention is indeed
something that can be determined. This is why we have courts of law
and degrees of culpability, as Vynnie pointed out.
Now, I suppose that arguement is for the empiricist.
If your suggestion is to look at culpability within a given context
of tradition, law and philosophy, then I stand by my statement that
deliberately targeting a child is infinitely more horrid than
accidentally killing one.
|7.27.05 @ 4:15PM|#
Jason Ligon has a great hostage taking analogy there.
Gaius,
You misrepresent the military. Name a city that we have flattened
to save military lives.
Your point seems to be that a low level of military deaths on our
side is a bad thing. If more US military died to even the ratio
would that make you happier.
Lastly, the US military goes to great lengths to avoid civilian
casualties, even to the extent of harming their cause. Never do we
allow more civilian casualties (we did in WW2, but not now) to help
us win the war.
Hell we even aviod killing enemy whenever we can. One of the
criticisms of the way the war was handled is that we went too far
trying to avoid killing Saddams soldiers, and they are the ones
causing problems now.
|7.27.05 @ 4:44PM|#
Wellfellow,
I should have realized in my reading of King Heffelweizer in the
Court of Duchy that this very lobster case has actually occured,
and the noble, community-centered King who had been served the
dread shellfish (after a shot from an epi-pen) properly and
ruthlessly slaughtered both men because they did not realize thier
proper place in the social order.
gaius marius|7.27.05 @ 4:59PM|#
man c is dead. man a and man b are both going to prison.
i would say that this is right -- as there is no real situation in
which we know that man a and man b had different reasons to kill
man c. "intent" is not perfectly divinable, and never will
be.
the institution of western law has gone a long way in
differentiating criminal intent (evil plans) from simple intent
(responsibility). in the hypothetical, man a has criminal intent,
man b only simple intent -- but in reality, it is exceedingly
difficult to know which of the two, or both or neither, have
criminal intent. so both are punished because both are immediately
responsible. and if criminal intent can be divined by confession or
some other means, then man a gets his heavier sentence.
does the bush administration have criminal intent in starting the
iraq war? as an empiricist, i don't know and it doesn't matter.
they should be punished, because they started a war which was not a
demonstrable response to anything material. and i suspect the
reason they lied about wmd and actual 9/11 connections is because
they knew they lacked an material event or condition to which it
could be a demonstrable response.
does it matter if they genuinely believed that there were wmd and
9/11 connections? no. they went in and there were no such
conditions. and they should be punished despite intentions because
it puts a heavy social incentive on all parties to act with
reasonable moral restraint. if we later find criminal intent, then
we can increase the sentence.
what i will *not* assent to is this notion of personal moral intent
which says that, if man b did not intend to kill man c, if in fact
he had only the best intentions, he is not culpable for the
devastation wrought of his actions. it removes the impetus for
sensible moderation that is part and parcel to moral behavior,
making morality not about society, the victims and the act but
about the individual, the perpetrator and his frame of mind.
gaius marius|7.27.05 @ 5:14PM|#
You misrepresent the military.
mr kwais, the military is corporate murder. it's hard to
misrepresent that. there's utterly nothing moral or virtuous about
killing.
Name a city that we have flattened to save military lives.
how about hiroshima? or nagasaki? or tokyo? or berlin? or dresden?
or countless others? we flattned those cities to the ground along
with millions of innocents to save american soldiers' lives. and
the tendency now is to believe that this was the right thing to do,
and that the more we do that the better off we are -- that not only
will it save our expensive soldiers from having to die, but that
such places and peoples are economic engines that benefit the enemy
and are therefore legitimate targets.
which is about as amoral as one can get.
the US military goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties,
even to the extent of harming their cause.
oh, yes, many platitudes about "limiting collateral damage". never
mind that the entire engine of total warfare is so perfectly
designed to kill indiscriminately that, even trying to prevent
civilian deaths, we chalk up record ratios of civilian:professional
with every new war.
you're deluding yourself, mr kwais, if you can't see how warfare
changed in the last two hundred years from something like the sport
of royalty to the consumer of worlds.
|7.27.05 @ 5:24PM|#
Gaius,
I will say that the "sport of royalty" consisted of a great deal of
brutal slaughter, disease, burned cities, and raped women.
Especially in the New World. Total war is nothing new, it started
in Carthage during the Punic Wars. We just have shinier toys
now.
I fear I may have tread too deep into Gaius' home
territory...
p.s. don't take any of what I just said as a justification for what
is going on with military forces in Iraq and around the world. I'm
just saying our civilization isn't uniquely evil.
|7.28.05 @ 1:47AM|#
jf,
Is there an award for dumbest comment posted in any given
thread?
These awards best given on the spot as the need arises. You just
gave the first. But help me now, I'm not sure really not sure how
to catagorize this one.
You can play with words any way you want, but the fact remains
that they shot and killed a child.
No mention of the "insurgent" animals who deliberately used
children for shields....now this would be a deserving
target of gauis' diatribe. But no, that isn't gauis' target.
Instead, this gets "The Most Pathetic Thing gauis marius Ever Said"
Award.
mr kwais, that you think killing innocents in one way is better
somehow than killing them in another is a very revealing statement
to your pathetic amorality.
And after this
that is a very black indictment of how we have evolved in the
west, but it is nonetheless as honest i can manage to
be.
I won't even try to guess what mental malady afflicts gaius marius.
But it seems to involve some sort of philosphical delusions.
Unfortunately, we've spent so much on the war in Iraq that they
probably had to shut the mental institutions down.
Sadly enough, this means gauis marius will be left to wander the
streets. Let's just hope it isn't contagious.
joe,
How about allowing Iraqis to live in peace?
You mean they lived in peace before we got there? Get a grip. This
isn't even the core of the problem anymore.
Metalgrid,
It really is a matter of perception isn't it?
Perhaps. But you make me fear that gm's malady really is
contagious.
The Bush bashers are blind to the kind of animals we're fighting in
Iraq. The Bush lovers (are there any of those left?) are blind to
the fact that maybe Bush's reasons for going in were just a tad
spurious.
I see few people in the West who are still capable of arriving at a
rational grasp of war as a concept. We're predominantly pacifists
now. That isn't a good omen for our longevity.
Inability to get a rational grasp of war a) gets us into crap like
invading Iraq, and b) makes it a double-whammer because we then
give up the cause before we can salvage the few goods that could be
gotten from it.
Oddly enough, reality may laugh last at both sides. What nobody is
willing to "perceive" -- except kwais, Michael Young (gasp!), and a
few others -- is that in spite of it all, Iraq may turn out to be a
better place in the long run.
Wouldn't that be a cruel joke?
Of course there are those who will say it wasn't worth the price.
It would have been far better if the Iraqi people had bled slowly,
for decades or centuries under Saddams, rather than have it all out
at once and make one generation pay the whole price.
Freedom has never been had for free. Neither has anything else that
was good.
If invading Iraq was a "bad", then the best we can hope for is to
pull a "good" out of it via making Iraq a better place.
If that can be done. And I haven't seen the evidence yet showing
that it can't be. In fact, kwais' on-location info gives me
hope.
|7.28.05 @ 2:03AM|#
btw, I don't advocate making Iraq a better place just for
altruistic reasons, though many here have argued against the US
invasion for altruistic reasons (like wouldn't the Iraqis be better
off without us).
The Iraqis seem to like being rid of Saddam.
But it wouldn't be good for us if the "insurgents" got control of
all those oil wells. These are the same people who are
using children for shields, among other attrocities.
Defeating these "insurgents" is high on the list of US
interests.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245