Quote:
Originally posted by CDSmith
Yes, however those examples too have been described from varying points of view. I'm not talking about the right or the wrong of it, I'm talking about the TRUTH of what really happened. Historians will write about an event or a war etc, and people will talk about it, and 100 years later there will still be arguments as to what really happened, and why.
My point stands.... the truth lies somewhere in the middle of all the viewpoints.
|
You say it's not about the right or wrong of it, but it is. Sure, there's always some arguments about what really happened, but that doesn't mean you can't develop a moral position on the bottom line.
What happened in the war you were talking about, is something which we commonly consider to be wrong these days. No matter if 200k or 500k people were killed, what happened was wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by CDSmith
Muslim extremists that hate the west with a passion seem to disrespect weakness or a weak response. In any other circumstance I would support treating the wound with more diplomacy, more friendship, more love etc etc yadda yadda yadda....
But when dealing with the extremist muslims, it seems the only option that does make an impact is to hit them hard right where it hurts most. You of course have a right to disagree, seeing as how you live..... wait, where do you live? If you live in a "free" country then you do have a right to disagree. Fact is, terrorists don't care what your views are, they simply hate you, period. You can support diplomacy all you want, but if I want to applaud someone in history for taking a hard line stance on terrorism, I will.
No one said this was the magic solution, so you can quit trying to play the "naive" card.
|
You are applauding someone who took a hard line stance against "terrorists" who were actually fighting against the occupation of their country by hostile forces who killed many thousands of their citizens. That's like applauding Hitler for taking a hard line stance against the "terrorist" resistance.
Now, obviously, the modern day muslim terrorists are not such a kind of resistance, so a hard line stance against them doesn't have the same moral implications - they probably do indeed deserve it.
However, there are also practical implications. One of those is that taking hard action that is not very clearly targetted only at those who have been proven to be active terrorists pisses off muslims worldwide and causes many of them to sympathize with and maybe even join the terrorist cause. Clearly, that is an undesirable effect.
As for a hard line stance against religious groups producing good results... look at what the Romans did to the Christians. Then look at where the Christians are now.