02 Jun 08
Originally posted by bbarrThe point I'm making is that you make a distinction between deliberately targetting civilians and indiscriminately killing civilians whilst targetting something else.
Not if the force is deliberately aimed at the civilian population. I'm confused as to why you're having difficulty with this notion.
I don't.
It's pure hypocrisy and only serves to justify terrorist behaviour.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by shavixmirBut the war on terror served its purpose very well. It helped Bush stay in power for another term.
Yup.
Won't serve any purpose, what so ever.
Could you help me, omniscient one, to understand why this fatwah 'won't serve any purpose', not even at political level in India?
02 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIt's definitely a good sign that this influential school decided to go official about it.
A Muslim Indian seminary which is said to have inspired the Taliban has issued a fatwa against terrorism, insisting that Islam is a religion of peace.
Senior clerics from the 150-year-old Darul Uloom Deoband issued the edict saying they wished to wipe out terrorism. "Islam rejects all kinds of unjust violence, breach of peace, bloodshed, murder and /muslim-seminary-issues-fatwa-against-terrorism-838162.html
How important is this news?
I think it's too early to say if it's important. Fundamentalists generally use the tactic of accusing those that disagree of not being ready to do everything for their faith. So this can be important if others see it as a signal to voice their real opinions and not be afraid of being seen as doubting their faith. Even if it works, I think this will probably be contained to India, though.
02 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirI'm making a conceptual distinction, that is used in the definition of 'terrorism', not a moral distinction. I think that deliberately targeting civilians is wrong and indiscriminately killing them is wrong also. In any case, you are misguided here. It is as though somebody said "I am opposed to lying", and you responded "Oh, but you see there is no real difference between lying and simply omitting to tell the truth, and in fact those who aim at deception will often do the latter and then try to justify themselves by claiming that they did not tell an actual lie". But so what? It is still a good thing to be opposed to lying! What are you doing other than merely pointing out the banal truth that some folks try to exploit terms like 'terrorism' in order to obfuscate their wrongdoing?
The point I'm making is that you make a distinction between deliberately targetting civilians and indiscriminately killing civilians whilst targetting something else.
I don't.
It's pure hypocrisy and only serves to justify terrorist behaviour.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBecause, oh-not-so-omniscient one (I don't even know what it means), nobody who feels the need to use terror is going to listen to a bunch of stuck-up, middle class snobs who aren't suffering one little bit.
But the war on terror served its purpose very well. It helped Bush stay in power for another term.
Could you help me, omniscient one, to understand why this fatwah 'won't serve any purpose', not even at political level in India?
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by bbarrThere's nothing wrong with lying.
I'm making a conceptual distinction, that is used in the definition of 'terrorism', not a moral distinction. I think that deliberately targeting civilians is wrong and indiscriminately killing them is wrong also. In any case, you are misguided here. It is as though somebody said "I am opposed to lying", and you responded "Oh, but you see there is no real d ...[text shortened]... ome folks try to exploit terms like 'terrorism' in order to obfuscate their wrongdoing?
When your girlfriend asks you if she looks fat in that dress, you don't say: "Yeah, you look like a bloody elephant." do you?
To say you oppose lying is exactly the same kind of rubbish as saying you're starting a fatwa against terrorism or waging a war on drugs.
It's utter crap. Useless rhetoric to gain support for other matters. Nothing more and nothing less.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by shavixmirQuit being so damn dense. Of course there are some cases where lying is alright, just like there are some cases where violence is alright. But, in general, we shouldn't lie. And, in general, we shouldn't resort of violence. So, when somebody comes out publically against lying, or violence, and tries to motivate others to be honest and peaceful, and advocates against those that are dishonest and violent, they are doing good. It may be a small good, but it is a good nonetheless. That the disingenuous can exploit distinctions between terrorism and callous disregard for the welfare of civilians during combat is completely irrelevant to the issue.
There's nothing wrong with lying.
When your girlfriend asks you if she looks fat in that dress, you don't say: "Yeah, you look like a bloody elephant." do you?
To say you oppose lying is exactly the same kind of rubbish as saying you're starting a fatwa against terrorism or waging a war on drugs.
It's utter crap. Useless rhetoric to gain support for other matters. Nothing more and nothing less.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by shavixmirYou're completely off the mark. Darool-Uloom Neoband is described as "an ultra-conservative Muslim seminary", rather than "a bunch of stuck-up, middle-class snobs". If a "movement [that] has been recognised by analysts as a key force behind jihadi madrassas" actively renounces violence, it just might have an impact. Already, "analysts said the move was significant, partly because several previously divided sects chose to ratify the condemnation of violence".
Because, oh-not-so-omniscient one (I don't even know what it means), nobody who feels the need to use terror is going to listen to a bunch of stuck-up, middle class snobs who aren't suffering one little bit.
I get the distinct impression that you'd quite like to see more bombs going off.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by shavixmirYou don't start a fatwah, you issue one. I don't think you understand the concept at all, even though it's been explained to you by two different people. I can only think you're suffering from a terrible hangover: my condolences.
To say you oppose lying is exactly the same kind of rubbish as saying you're starting a fatwa against terrorism or waging a war on drugs.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by shavixmirShav, go eat some Space Cake and bone your fat girlfriend . You lost this argument ... 😀
There's nothing wrong with lying.
When your girlfriend asks you if she looks fat in that dress, you don't say: "Yeah, you look like a bloody elephant." do you?
To say you oppose lying is exactly the same kind of rubbish as saying you're starting a fatwa against terrorism or waging a war on drugs.
It's utter crap. Useless rhetoric to gain support for other matters. Nothing more and nothing less.
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBesides anything else, of course I'm suffering from a damned hangover...
You don't start a fatwah, you issue one. I don't think you understand the concept at all, even though it's been explained to you by two different people. I can only think you're suffering from a terrible hangover: my condolences.
Start, issue... potato, potato...
02 Jun 08
Originally posted by bbarrYou find it good.
It may be a small good, but it is a good nonetheless. That the disingenuous can exploit distinctions between terrorism and callous disregard for the welfare of civilians during combat is completely irrelevant to the issue.
I say it's rhetorical rubbish.
You can call me dense, but at least I see it as it is.