Job Discussion Forums

[justcolleen]

[Bindair Dundat]

[guest of Japan]

Dear TEF_LON,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

I have no desire you refute your beliefs because your beliefs in no way appear to be harmful to others, or carelessly made.

I will say that I am technically in the "them" catagory, and as such either will not or cannot believe some of your contentions. I do feel that your your polarization of the parties involved seems a bit simplistic and in striking contrast to the other ideas you expressed.

I'm also a bit pensive in regards to your feeling that Islam can only be judged by those who profess belief in it. I'm pensive because "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Those who are to be given the responsibility to interpret and judge will tend to make judgements that reinforce their own positions. The conservative clerics in Iran come to mind as I write this. It would seem that the only way to insure that the best judgements are made is if there is a balance of power between the competing interests. Forgive me, I know this is very American of me.

Again, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

[Bindair Dundat]

[Bindair Dundat]

[usool]

Dear BD

In the US many people carry or have firearms at home. In Europe this is not the case. In the US people carry firearms because of a specific culture. This culture forces people who would normally not carry firearms or keep them to do so out of a concern for their safety. Yet these same people if they were to live in Europe would not dream of ever buying a gun and have no desire to do so. The fact that, say, a single woman in the US buys a gun and keeps it is not because she wants to perhaps but because the culture is such that she is forced to do that.

What we, as Muslims desire, is to create an international status quo away from mass weapons that do not distinguish between military and civilian personnel. These weapons were invented by the secular Jedeo-Christian west etc and as Muslims we dont like them. The fact that Muslim countries now have these same weapons is similar to the people in the example above who carry arms not out of a wish to do so but because the culture forces them to so. What we seek is to alter the culture so it is no longer acceptable for politicians to order young men and women to fly planes over cities and drop bombs on faceless people. If we change this, then less civilians will die, more militray casulties will be suffered and politicians may think twice about going to war. At the moment its all too easy.

As for the other examples you gave then as Muslims we cant defend the actions of a group of people like Al-Qaeda whose leadership was trained by the CIA. We condemn him and the CIA for this.

As for the Israeli issue then I believe it has been answered earlier in this thread but as a point to note when the US went into Afghanistan after 9/11 more than 20,000 civilians were killed. I dont think the US has any problems with killing civilians in pursuit of military objectives and as such am unclear as to why they would be offended by suicide operations in Israel. Is the killing of children by dropping bombs on their heads in Afghanistan somehow closer to goodness than suicuide missions? Perhaps you can clarify this line of thinking for us.

Best wishes and as always kind Regards

[Bindair Dundat]

[usool]

Dear BD,

As for your comments then I'll deal with them one by one.

The example of the gun culture was just to show that if in any specific culture something lethal becomes common others are forced to do so out of necessity. The example of the US, compared to say the UK, is that Guns are lawful to be kept at home. Because of so many gune being available some people will keep a gun not because they want to but because they feel its neseccary in case they are burgled by some bloke carrying a gun. Its called a deterrent. It would be irresponsible of any sane country to not pursue a policy of nuclear capability whilst others have them. The US started this with the development of the first bomb now its difficult to change. I can see a situation where a strong Muslim power made a deal with the US to simultaneously destroy all nuclear bombs etc in some kind of deal. This however looks unlikely. The US does not like international treaties that treat them as equal (Kyoto, World court etc) .


If you are able to distnguish between inflicting harm on a given individual by intention and inflicting harm on the same individual by accident

This is the primary argument used by those who seek to establish a difference between the actions of the IRA and those of the US in Iraq. One kills civilians intentionally the other by accident. I think this is a very dangerous line of argument for it is very easily refuted. I assume from this that you would agree with this scenario: say a suicide bomber got on a bus and wanted to kill one bloke on the bus from the army. He blew himself up and everybody else with him by accident, he was just targetting the militray guy. If you say that this is not an accident because he knows the other people will be killed then you may refer back to many statements by US Army chiefs who say after killing some civilians in a bombing missios that in war civilian casulties are inevitable.

Regards and best wishes

[Bindair Dundat]

[usool]

Dear BD

The point I was making was one of moral consistency and it doesnt apply to you. I'm saying that those who consider that there is any difference between the bombing of civilians from 1000ft and from within a bus are mistaken since in reality theres no difference. Im sure you accept that.

I must make my position clear. I dont condone the killing of civilians period.

Regards and best wishes

[johnslat]

Dear usool,
People in the USA who keep guns at home are clearly ignorant of the facts, if they think doing so is going to make them "safer":

"Douglas Wiebe of the Firearm Injury Center at Penn (FICAP) at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia agrees. Last month, Wiebe and colleagues found that people who keep guns at home have a 72 per cent greater chance of being killed by firearms compared with those who do not, and are 3.44 times as likely to commit suicide (Annals of Emergency Medicine, vol 41, p 771). A 1997 survey by the CDC that compared the US with 25 other industrialised countries, including the UK and Australia, showed that the number of gun-related homicides in the US per 100,00 children below the age of 15 was 16 times that of all the other countries combined. The proportion of children below 15 who use guns to kill themselves was 11 times higher.:



Also, read "Firearm Facts" here:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=firefacts

[usool]

Dear John

Im not sure I follow you on this. It may be the case that more people are killed as a result of keeping firearms in the house, this has nothing to do with that specific example since I was talking about the specific motive for keeping a gun. If Americans are mistaken in this then its not the first time that they are engaging in an action that causes them harm when they perceived in it benefit.

As for the transfer to nuclear weapons then yes if we take your figures then a direct transfer would be irresponsible but on the level of the international arena can any state that one day hopes to challenge the US's political hegemony seriously consider doing that without an Atom bomb. I mean come on man, the US would just bomb them out of this world.

Regards and best wishes

[johnslat]

Dear usool,
OK, I'll try to make it more understandable.

[Bindair Dundat]

[Bindair Dundat]