On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 8:14 PM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote:
> Actually, if anything it has been established that 'the people who > flew into the WTC' (read: muslims) are no different from the rest of > humanity in most meaningful ways. I would say that one meaningful way in which they differ is in their lack of respect for people who don't share their beliefs. Note that I am not making a generalization about all muslims. Just muslim fundamentalists who feel that it's ok to kill anyone who is not a follower of Mohammed. IMO that is the only meaningful way that is significant for the purpose of discussion. Of course there are subtleties that make every case different but overall the willingness for a man to strap a bomb to his chest and kill a bus full of children is an action that 99.9% of humanity would never consider under any circumstance. > As for 'non-combatants' a euphemism for civilians... Actually, no it's not. Non-combatants can include anyone who doesn't take an active part in fighting the enemy. For instance, truck drivers contracted by the military to carry food to outlying areas. Administrators whos only purpose is to keep utilities and other services running. And of course, health care workers. > if a final count were taken for each of the countries involved, the USA > would fare quite well....comparatively. > I assume here that you are referring to body count? If so then yes. The US would win hands down. If you are referring to the ratio of combatants to non-combatants who were intentionally killed then I think the numbers may be somewhat different. > Throughout history it has been the job of propagandists to de-humanize > the apparent enemy for the State or leaders. Currently, all involved > are quite good at such exercises. > All terrorists have reasons for what they do. It is rare for those reasons to justify their actions. I really have no problem de-humanizing those behaviors.
