Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 7
Tom Tancredo on Bombing Mecca
Topic Started: Aug 5 2007, 09:20 AM (2,055 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Aug 6 2007, 03:51 PM
Quote:
 
FDR did not allow the death camps. Had the death camps been under his authority, then he would have culpability.

You are confusing the moral agent.


No, I'm not. He could have altered strategy to divert his forces to liberate specific locations, rather than deploying his military assets in the manner that he did. Had he done so, he may have liberated a few camps sooner, but the war would have dragged on, killing more people, in uniform and in pinstripes in the remaining unliberated camps.

Of course you are, despite your statement to the contrary.

A moral agent is one who acts. The action of running a death camp was not done by FDR. In fact, it is debatable whether FDR had any moral obligation per se to liberate the concentration camp victims, and it is an absurd position to suggest that he in any way "allowed" it to happen.

Regardless of your armchair quarterbacking, none of this has anything to do with a moral decision to commit one evil act that another be prevented. In order to allow an act, one must be able to act to not allow it, and it must be under that person's purview.

Neither of these apply to FDR and the death camps, but they do apply to someone who chooses to allow 10K innocents tortured to prevent 100K from being tortured, which is morally reprehensible and would certainly violate Augustine's standards for a just war.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
My understanding of Christian morality would best be captured by an analogy: the Hippocratic oath. "make a habit of two things — to help, or at least to do no harm." Do no harm. That is my understanding of a course of action of which Jesus would approve.


Here we disagree. I do not agree that Jesus would, in every circumstance, say "do no harm." I base this on Jesus' own teaching, and on the broader teachings of the nature of God over the entire spectrum of the scriptures. If your understanding of Christian doctrine is as you say, then you must assume that Christianity requires pacifism. In this regard, you would be seriously mistaken.

Quote:
 
I think that Jesus would say that choosing between the torture of 10,000 children to save 100,000 children is a false choice. That God would not want us to make that choice. And that we have to remain true to our principles ...


Take the ridiculous example of torturing inocent children out of the mix; your point is just as effective on a far less outrageous level. To say that,

"Jesus would say that choosing between injuring 10,000 people to save 100,000 people is a false choice. That God would not want us to make that choice. And that we have to remain true to our principles..."

would be equally effective. And believe it or not, I agree with that statement. God's ideal is no war; no moral ambiguity; no injustice. That's pristine creation, as originally ordered. However, for human will to be able to operate, God gave us the ability to mess with that order. As a result, we live in a world where such pristine, perfect examples of moral clarity are rare, if they exist at all. Every decision must be weighed, calculated, contradictions understood, acknowledged, not slid under the rug. We know - and more importantly, God knows - that these are the realities of our existence. I have no delusion that any decisions that I make are, or even can be, completely consistent with God's ideal. In fact, the scriptures make quite clear that I can't ever hope to even come close to that goal. Left in that position, I can only opt for those actions which move more near to God's ideal. And I do not believe that it is God's will to stand on "principle" by saying that I would not agree, in the midst of warfare, to kill 1,000 people in order to save 50,000. Conversely, I do not believe it is closer to God's ideal to stand on "principle" and say that I would work to save 1,000 people, if doing so meant that 50,000 others perished as a result of my trying to save the 1,000. It's letting 3 people in the emergency room die, while first taking care of ten others who only needed a few stitches, just becaue they got to the emergency room first. That is not principle; it is a grotesque misperception of what God's ideal is, as well as which of the options actually comes closer to that will. It is misguided and hypocritical; placing supposed "principle" (if it can be called such) above doing the best possible thing in the face of competing priorities and limited resources - which goes to the scriptural teachings of Jesus that I referred you to. I'd guess that something like half of all of Jesus' teachings were criticisms and warnings against the supposedly "principled" hypocrisy that only served to push more people further away from God's ideal, both in terms of their relationship with God, as well as their physical experience of justice, mercy, and peace.

Quote:
 
I think that Jesus would say that, by forswearing the doing of any harm, you will, in the long run, achieve the greatest good, and peace, and justice, for as many people as possible.


Sorry, as I've already said, I disagree. This position presupposes that Christians must therefore be pacifists, which is most definitely untrue.

Quote:
 
And that allowing yourself to be trapped in a false choice is a Devil's bargain.


Oh, but we're already in a devil's bargain. All of creation, and all of our existence, is already in that exact situation that you seem to think can be avoided. It's already a done deal. All that we can do at this point is to do our best to pray for wisdom in working for a creation somewhat closer to God's ideal, and to seek God's graceful forgiveness and reconciliation for the gap between the true fulfilment of God's will, and where our efforts end.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Neither of these apply to FDR and the death camps, but they do apply to someone who chooses to allow 10K innocents tortured to prevent 100K from being tortured, which is morally reprehensible and would certainly violate Augustine's standards for a just war.


IT,

I have neither said that I would engage in, nor that I would allow those under my authority to engage in, the torture of innocents, child or adult, in any sense, whether it saved 100,000 others, or none. What I said was that if I were aware of such torture occurring by others' hands, and I had resources that could stop some of that suffering, I would not find it a moral obligation to act in that manner, if in so doing, it endangered even more people and/or prolonged the suffering of the victims. Without going back and scanning the exact words I've typed, I don't think I've said quite what you've just said, and if I did or was otherwise unclear, please accept this clarification. I take issue with the concept of torture even of enemy combatants; please don't misunderstand my position or put words in my mouth. That's what we have Quirt for.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Sorry, but that's the true hypocrisy. It's comparable to the old line about how it's better to ask forgiveness than permission.

You're saying, do what you gotta do, and then ask God to forgive afterwards. That's crap. You're supposed to do your best to live up to God's ideals. You're not supposed to consciously and deliberately take actions that are contrary to God's ideals with the understanding that we're all flawed and that God will forgive.

Frankly, this sounds like something my kids would say. "But Dad, God knows I'm a slob, and he made me this way, so it's OK." Wrong. God may know what your weaknesses are, but he wants you to try, as hard as you can, to overcome them.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Sorry, but that's the true hypocrisy. It's comparable to the old line about how it's better to ask forgiveness than permission.

You're saying, do what you gotta do, and then ask God to forgive afterwards.


Actually no, you obviously haven't understood a word I've said.

Quote:
 
That's crap. You're supposed to do your best to live up to God's ideals.


As I explained to you in detail in my last post, that is *precisely* what drives my beliefs, whether you like it or not.

It goes back to your several misperceptions about Christian doctrine - most notably, your apparent belief that Christianity requires one to be a pacifist. Sorry, you're wrong.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Aug 6 2007, 05:11 PM
Quote:
 
Neither of these apply to FDR and the death camps, but they do apply to someone who chooses to allow 10K innocents tortured to prevent 100K from being tortured, which is morally reprehensible and would certainly violate Augustine's standards for a just war.


IT,

I have neither said that I would engage in, nor that I would allow those under my authority to engage in, the torture of innocents, child or adult, in any sense, whether it saved 100,000 others, or none. What I said was that if I were aware of such torture occurring by others' hands, and I had resources that could stop some of that suffering, I would not find it a moral obligation to act in that manner, if in so doing, it endangered even more people and/or prolonged the suffering of the victims. Without going back and scanning the exact words I've typed, I don't think I've said quite what you've just said, and if I did or was otherwise unclear, please accept this clarification. I take issue with the concept of torture even of enemy combatants; please don't misunderstand my position or put words in my mouth. That's what we have Quirt for.

OK, Dewey. I looked at what you wrote:
Quote:
 
So, to your question. Would I torture 10,000 children, to achieve an allegedly noble goal? No, I would not. Would I have given the same order as Truman, to drop the two atomic bombs, which killed quite a few more chilren than your example? Yes, I would. A contradiction? Perhaps, but there it is anyway. As Augustine said in writing about just war, even a just war may be made unjust by certain means, and torture of innocent children would cross that line.

Would I have ordered Sherman to the sea, despite the inevitable suffering of innocents it caused? Yes. Would I have instructed his troops to torture and rape the population as they did so, to increase the psychological impact? No, I would not.

Would I have ordered saturation bombing to the extent seen in WW II over civilian and military targets? Yes. Would I do so today, given superior armaments? No. Would I target non-military, but highly significant psychological targets (which is exactly what we're discussing here)? Yes.

Would I allow 10,000 innocent children to be tortured in the short term, in order to allow actions that would save 100,000 or more from being tortured in the longer term? Yes.


The last paragraph was particularly troublesome, because there was no context and a confusion of who was "allowing" the torture. It seemed a complete reversal of everything that you had written about just war, which is why I tried to draw the distinction of who was the acting moral agent.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Dewey
Aug 6 2007, 07:30 PM
Quote:
 
Sorry, but that's the true hypocrisy. It's comparable to the old line about how it's better to ask forgiveness than permission.

You're saying, do what you gotta do, and then ask God to forgive afterwards.


Actually no, you obviously haven't understood a word I've said.

Quote:
 
That's crap. You're supposed to do your best to live up to God's ideals.


As I explained to you in detail in my last post, that is *precisely* what drives my beliefs, whether you like it or not.

It goes back to your several misperceptions about Christian doctrine - most notably, your apparent belief that Christianity requires one to be a pacifist. Sorry, you're wrong.

I understand what you're saying, even though you manage to contradict yourself repeatedly.

Saying you'd torture 10,000 children to save 100,000 others is not living up to God's ideals. I can't believe I even have to explain this to you.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I couldn't think of a better arrangement of two posts, than the two immediately above this one. Thank you, Quirt.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Horace
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I'm coming around to seeing why the end doesn't justify the means. Reducing aggregate suffering isn't a perfect justification in the real world because aggregate suffering is an amorphous term that could never be objectively calculated. Therefore the precedent set by using brutality ostensibly to minimize that suffering would simply lead by example - the example of brutality - and in the long run your enemies would follow that example to the best of their ability. And the number and ferocity of those enemies would probably increase due to your brutality. People enjoy feeling morally outraged and they enjoy hating - if they feel it is justified hate. You don't want to set yourself up as the target of justified hatred.
As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
In other words, incinerating Mecca would very likely have quite the opposite effect from that intended.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
JBryan
Aug 6 2007, 09:25 PM
In other words, incinerating Mecca would very likely have quite the opposite effect from that intended.

I honestly don't understand why that isn't obvious to many people.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Perhaps they do not have in the historical record of their country a period in which an attempt was made to break their will with terror bombing.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HRC
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
JBryan
Aug 6 2007, 05:25 PM
In other words, incinerating Mecca would very likely have quite the opposite effect from that intended.


The Journey begins with a single step.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Horace
Aug 6 2007, 07:22 PM
I'm coming around to seeing why the end doesn't justify the means. Reducing aggregate suffering isn't a perfect justification in the real world because aggregate suffering is an amorphous term that could never be objectively calculated. Therefore the precedent set by using brutality ostensibly to minimize that suffering would simply lead by example - the example of brutality - and in the long run your enemies would follow that example to the best of their ability. And the number and ferocity of those enemies would probably increase due to your brutality. People enjoy feeling morally outraged and they enjoy hating - if they feel it is justified hate. You don't want to set yourself up as the target of justified hatred.

Then let's boil it down to simpler terms...you win, and you survive. Or you don't, and you die.

Frank's right. Feces, brains and blood smells and looks the same on a burning wall, whether the carnage is caused by a smart bomb, a nuclear weapon, or a dumb 155 mm howitzer shell.

And that is what war is...horrible, indescribable, inhumane. A lifetime of nightmares.

It doesn't matter whether it is modern mechanized warfare, or war as fought two thousand years ago. There may be few barriers that one does not cross, but in the end, it's all about winning, make no mistake.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Jolly
Aug 5 2007, 11:33 AM
Dewey
Aug 5 2007, 11:24 AM
If that is reprehensible or crazy, I've been so for quite some time - I've said the exact same thing for several years, and like Tancredo, I stand by it.

As have I.

Me too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
As a practical matter, all considerations of morality aside, I don't think incinerating Mecca would cause the world's Muslims to then bow to us. I would expect a different reaction.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
JBryan
Aug 6 2007, 09:29 PM
Perhaps they do not have in the historical record of their country a period in which an attempt was made to break their will with terror bombing.

It's ingrained in the psyche of my father's generation.

How did the majority of people of New York feel, I wonder, on September 12th 2001, regarding their countries support for Israel, compared to, for example, how they felt on September 10th? Dropping bombs on people is a very good way of p!ssing them off.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I think Tom Tancredo is a nutjob, sorry. For an American official to be talking about bombing Mecca is a disservice to humanity, as far as I am concerned. Let's all be crazy and think the world is going to end and maybe we might just have to (or should) bomb Mecca. Not in my name, you won't.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
JBryan
Aug 7 2007, 04:16 AM
As a practical matter, all considerations of morality aside, I don't think incinerating Mecca would cause the world's Muslims to then bow to us. I would expect a different reaction.

Yeah... That'll show 'em!! :rolleyes2:

When the bombs are falling, they hole up. When the bombs stop falling, they come out, bent on murder and death. The idea of bombing Mecca, as much as I understand the frustration and sentiment, is just asinine.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
"Not in my name."

What does this mean? If the generals, right now, sent a squadron of bombers over Mecca, would they be doing it in your name? Would "your name" somehow stop them from doing this, if they otherwise chose to do it? How? I honestly don't understand this... I've heard this, "Not in my name" thrown around before, and maybe I'm dense, but I truly don't understand it. Esplain, please?
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Frankly speaking this whole argument is silly. The West is not (yet anyways ) at war with the Saudi state so bombing Mecca (and Medina) is merely a posturing hypothetical. Therefore bombing Mecca to reap retribution upon Islam is ridiculous and lacks any credibility. In any case, if we were at war with Saudi Arabia and if it served a tactical or strategic purpose to do so, then fine, bomb Mecca.

There are no such things as holy sites and cities, only enemy held targets and positions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
xenon
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
I find it silly to think that a threat of bombing Mecca will do anything but give more fodder to the terror recruiters. There would be potentially a billion people literally ready to blow themselves up to take down everything the west holds dear. Are we ready to take the brutality to that level?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Frank_W
Aug 7 2007, 05:16 AM
"Not in my name."

What does this mean? If the generals, right now, sent a squadron of bombers over Mecca, would they be doing it in your name? Would "your name" somehow stop them from doing this, if they otherwise chose to do it? How? I honestly don't understand this... I've heard this, "Not in my name" thrown around before, and maybe I'm dense, but I truly don't understand it. Esplain, please?

Well, yes, of course, Frank, if the generals decided to do that, then nothing we are saying on a posting forum means a bit of crap.

I guess "not in my name" is a cliche meaning I don't want to be associated with it.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
xenon
Aug 7 2007, 02:51 PM
I find it silly to think that a threat of bombing Mecca will do anything but give more fodder to the terror recruiters.

Good point.


It would be interesting to know the number of individuals who will be recruited into terrorism just by virtue of that statement alone.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
None of the people on 9/11 asked to be associated with it, either. In whose name was THAT done? Why do we get to pick and choose? :shrug: I probably wouldn't have chosen to go into Iraq at the time we did, but I don't think anyone will refute that it was an eventuality, as Pakistan will probably also become an eventuality. We're living in tough times and the folks calling the shots are making some tough decisions. Maybe we don't always agree with them, but as Americans, (indeed, it could be argued that all of western civilization) are in the soup together, for better or worse...
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 7