Reign_Cryogen

Noooo.. you are an American. You are a filthy, pig-eating, infidel. There are people in the world who feel you should die with the rest of the Christian dogs.

Let's say that you're white. And male (I'm assuming nothing, just illustrating a point). You are an oppressive, racist scum of a man who should die.

Etc., etc., etc. You see a pattern here? When people want to hate, they will find a reason. And it's far easier to hate when painting with the broadest brush possible. You're American. For most, that's good enough.

And yes, I noted the part about North Hollywood. I grew up in Orange County. :P
No, my thinking is based on reality. Do you honestly feel that if we're invaded by an army of Muslims seeking to destroy the American pig-dogs, that they're going to stop when you scream, "I"m not a Christian! Lalalala! I hate Bush!" No, they're going to shoot the filthy American pig-dog. Just because you're above such archaic notions doesn't mean others don't act on them, with vigor.

arkirk

The difference in our ideas and attitudes are clearly the differences that exist between North Hollywood and Orange County. I know muslims. The ones I know don't talk about filthy American pig dogs. Your post is a perfect example of the kind of nationalistic and narrow thinking that helps arm Christian and Muslim armies against each other. I agree with Senator McCain. You will not find this ATHEIST in a fox hole defending this Christian country.

Dlx2

I have a very close friend from Pakistan. He doesn't talk about filthy American pig-dogs. He rather likes America despite all its faults.

That doesn't mean he hasn't met people in his home country who do talk about filthy American pig-dogs.

arkirk

That also doesn't mean that the Americans are innocent. The question I have is who is doing the killing today? Who is doing 90% of the killing? Could it be the "filthy American pig-dogs?" What country is spewing Depleted Uranium munitions all over an Arab country and not concerning itself about the cost of collecting this stuff up to prevent unimaginable genetic damage to future generations? What does the new face of Genocide look like? You guessed.

Our leadership is not only cowardly it also has no conscience. I guess that what you get with religious self-righteousness, money, and military might.
We had better hope nobody like George W. Bush takes power in the Arab world. We'll get a taste of what it is to be Iraqi. We had better hope they don't have their own George. The Arab world is clearly under the boots of the west. Leaders in those countries clearly do not want to be under our domination.

When you mistreat your neighbor, you make the beginnings of a motive for your "enemy" (one you create by abusing him or her) to attack you. It never ends till somebody on both sides is willing to really try to make it stop. it would help our world image if our leader were a peace maker.

Wiploc

Well, the suicide bombers certainly accept being collateral damage.

crc

Dlx2

I'm going to ignore the rest of your post because it is primarily red herring.

Now.

My point was not that Americans are innocent and that Muslims are all to blame. My point is that not all Muslims are moderate. There are people out there who have been lead to believe that America is the root of all their problems. Look at, say, the recent earthquake in Pakistan. There are hundreds of thousands of people now who have lost homes, villiages, and loved ones. Many of the more remote villiages are being recruited by Al Qaida. They are being told that their misfortune, which was an inevitable natural disaster when you live on a plate margin, is specifically America's fault (no pun intended). This is irrational hatred based on propaganda, and is not much different from racist Americans who believe that all Muslims are secretly looking to blow up American landmarks and Krispy Kreme shops (no, seriously). There are rational reasons that moderate (and not-so-moderate) Muslims dislike American policy. There are also rational reasons that moderate (and not-so-moderate) Americans dislike policies in the Muslim world (oppression of women, anyone?). However, there is a distinct difference between people who hold rational beliefs and people who hold irrational hatred based on propaganda. One of these divisions can be reasoned with and compromised with. The other division cannot.

That is my point. Thanks for sticking to the discussion rather than going off on a tirade about how American policy in Iraq is evil.

arkirk

:rolling: Earthquakes are only incidental. Al Qaeda gets its recruits not from MISPLACED ANGER, but from locations which are the collateral damages of our campaign of terror in Iraq, our support of Royalty in Arabia, our support of Israel in Palestine, our support of killing and torture and corporate world domination. These things create collateral damage. Some of the damage is that people are ready to die to stop us. Some are ready to die to punish us. Some are just going to die in the crosshairs of an F-16. That is the reality. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

There is a real problem with the word evil. That is something only you are bringing up. It is a shame you have such an appetite for herring that you always talk about it. I am sorry. I don't have any for you.:rolling: Check out the Des Moines Register. Maybe they have some...they're kinda far from the ocean though.

Dlx2

Tell that to the Pakistanis.

My point is that incidental things out of our control result in anger because these people are told that we are a good target for their anger. This is no different from radical racist Americans blaming everything on Muslims, or on the French.

Actually, it does.

We were getting slammed on Iraq when we weren't there. We got slammed on Iraq when we kept sanctions to try to prevent Hussein from murdering Kurds. And then we get slammed for getting involved.

Frankly, the problem in Iraq is not the fault of the US, it's the fault of the British mandate for Iraq back when Europe was still in the habit of cutting up regions with no respect for local tribal boundaries. If you think the Middle-East is messed up, you ought to take a good long look at Africa. The US has remained relatively neutral (read: apathetic) in most African conflicts, and there's a good deal more innocent blood being shed there than there is in the Middle-East. Bloodshed is not the result of American intervention, but rather the effects of wanton European colonialism from the last 400-some-odd years.

So if we're against an Arab government, we're in the wrong. If we're for an Arab government, we're in the wrong. If we were to look the other way, we'd probably be in the wrong, too.

Because "wrong" implies that a "right" exists, please explain what the "right" course of action would be, because you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Israel isn't "in" Palestine. Israel IS the Palestinian Mandate. The West Bank is part of the Trans-Jordan Mandate, which was subsequently taken by Israel in a defensive war, and only now has the military tension subsided enough for normalization of borders to commence. Gaza is now almost entirely under Arab rule. If your problem is the existence of Israel itself, this direction to the conversation is over.

Somehow, I don't think Syrians, Iranians, Afghanistanis, Saudis, and so forth really give a damn about torture or killing considering the governments they tolerate in their own countries. This is not to say I condone these policies (I don't) but they really have no merit to this discussion. As for our "corporate world domination," Arab nations like Kuwait are among the most materialistic nations in the world. They love our products.

And some people suffer for reasons that are entirely independant of American policy. They are all recruited equally by Al Qaida, Hizballah, and other organizations, who teach them that their suffering is all the result of greedy Americans. They are not taught the issues. They are taught to hate. Hate, on BOTH SIDES of the issue, does not lead to understanding the conflict and eventually resolving it. It leads to demonizing the opposition, polarization, and overzealous nationalism. This only leads to elevated conflict.

Neither can you.

REALLY? BECAUSE I COULD HAVE SWORN I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT ANYONE BEING EVIL. I said that some people on both sides of the conflict are irrational and racist and hateful. This is true. This says nothing about the root moral value of either side.

Either you don't understand what a red herring is or you're too proud to admit that this entire conversation is one. This thread is not about the validity of American involvement in the Middle East. It asks whether one's opinion on the morality of "collateral damage for the greater good" changes when one is asked to sacrifice one's self for the greater good. This entire conversation, then, about American Middle-East policy, while certainly a worthwhile discussion topic and important center of debate, does not apply directly to the OP and either exists because you feel the need to talk about nothing but the Middle-East (in which case, I believe this discussion board has a politics forum, which would be a more appropriate venue for this discussion) or because you are not comfortable with the original post, in which case this red herring exists to change the subject from the original discussion.

I am sure the Mods and the original poster are tired of this, and it's not fair to do this to any of them. If you wish to discuss this further with me, please do it via PM. Otherwise, I've said my piece and I'm going to try as hard as I can to return to the original point of this topic. I think everyone would appreciate it if you'd do the same.

exile

Well, the OP did mention Iraq. A mistake of course. In fact the OP doesn't make sense. If you're a combatant in a war you are not "collateral damage" which refers to civilians killed unintentionally.

A better example might be

- you are a civilian in France in 1942. You hate the Nazis and wish the Germans to leave your country. You know that this will only happen if the Allies win the war. But - the Allies are now bombing your cities, factories and railroads. And they might very well kill you in doing so . So - do you help the Allies or not?

Dlx2

In terms of a strict definition of collateral damage, no, a soldier is not collateral damage. However, in terms of sacrificing yourself for the greater good, which I assume is the intent of the OP, it's still an example, albeit a charged example which does not promote discussion as well as other examples might.