War - Does the End Justify the Means?

So true. I try to view a whole than half. I know people fear Muslims but not all are bad but there religion is hard to understand when you see people getting killed by prejudice. I want to quote Shelby Foote in reference to the civil war. We must understand 19th century America to understand the event.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

CruzJ wrote: I mean simply that in the U.S you see peaceful Muslims. Muslims in other Country's are not all peaceful. There is a few peacefully. I have seen nightmarish pictures of women being beheaded just because she looked at someone. As well I can not understand how is justifiable to kill people because they do not follow their view. Right now scores of shiatte Muslim are being slaughtered by the thousands. I simple see the opposite of peace in this religion. Real Christians belive in peace and accepting others. Thats what I mean Here in the U.S people pass an American View on Things but do not look at the big picture. I am a history student we learn to look at both sides of the story not just one. I do not judge others I judge events. RIGHT or Wrong FDR, locked up Japanese Americans in fear of attack after thousands died in Pearl Harbor. How many could have died if this ever happen. We have to open our minds to become agents of peace and call things sometimes as they should. This is just my opinion.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

"Muslims" just killed 14 people and injured 22 more in a terrorist act in San Bernardino. This is 5 miles from where I currently sit at my desk. Muslims are everywhere. Christians are everywhere. Peaceful people are everywhere. Violent people are everywhere. Generalizations based on any title or label are dangerous and almost always inaccurate.

If you need specific examples, look to the Westboro Baptist Church as representing all Christians. Or the KKK as representing all white people. Or ISIS representing all Muslims. It never works.

Edit: It occurred to me that this sounded like an attack on your point of view rather than a clarification I was trying to make.

Perhaps a better way to look at this would be to imagine the very best person you know and then imagine the very worst person you know. When a stranger meets you for the first time and they try to put you into some sort of familiar label, would you rather be associated with the best person or the worst?

We tend to focus on the negative (aka extremist or radicalized) outliers rather than the normative majority. So, what do we call these "outliers"? These "best" and "worst"? We call them what they are. PEOPLE. Their names are usually enough to suffice.

Thats my point what do we call them then. As I said you have shiattes being killed by other Muslims. My problem is with the radilized extremists who use religion for there beliefs

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

CruzJ wrote: Thats my point what do we call them then. As I said you have shiattes being killed by other Muslims. My problem is with the radilized extremists who use religion for there beliefs

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

We call them extremists. That's what they are. There are good people and bad people in every community. Every group. Every religion, every nation, every race, every neighborhood, every age, every generation. However you want to divide humanity by, there is no single group that is either blameless or vile at an entirety. Generalizations like this are useless and usually harmful

I am grateful everyday to not be the one that has to make such decisions.

Really, there is not easy choices to make in war, and you want the ends you seek to be justified, but at the end of the day, I imagine, other than extremists, that no one really thinks the means are justified, but at the same time, necessary.

Justification is not a necessity, it is a luxury I imagine.

I make choices that define me, and I live with them.

Justification, is usually for other people, and in war, the real conundrum, is that the people want a justification, but as with everything, you cannot please everyone all the time.

So, while some would say such and such action is justified, others would say, no, not at all.

With such subjectivity, can means ever truly be justified? Is that even a fair question to ask of something such as war?

Hard questions, hard decisions. Even harder to be the one that has to come up with a "good" reason for war.

Would anyone except the simple notion that perhaps( I know not in all cases) all other attempts were tried and failed?

CruzJ wrote: Thats my point what do we call them then. As I said you have shiattes being killed by other Muslims. My problem is with the radilized extremists who use religion for there beliefs

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

This is true. Extremists twist religion to further their own goals. To understand how this happens, we need to look at the individuals doing the twisting, not the labels they are using.

Timothy McVeigh was a U.S. citizen who self-identified as an Irish American White Conservative Christian. He was a veteran of the U.S. Army. He also committed the most significant act of domestic terrorism in the history of the United States by committing the Oklahoma City Bombing.

It would be wrong of me to judge Irish Americans, whites, conservatives, Christians, or Army soldiers based on him or his actions. I can only judge HIM for HIS actions. Does this make sense?

CruzJ wrote: So true. I try to view a whole than half. I know people fear Muslims but not all are bad but there religion is hard to understand when you see people getting killed by prejudice. I want to quote Shelby Foote in reference to the civil war. We must understand 19th century America to understand the event.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Sometimes we need to go farther back. In the case of Islam, we have to see how that was developed and the emergence of the Sunnis and Shia.

If we judged a whole group of people for the events that took place, then we should be judging the Irish people, both north and south, for the IRA and their acts of terrorism. I agree that history has more than one side to it, and we often have to look at multiple sides to try and see a group's intention.

Brenna wrote:

No its not my experience or rational, nor was it meant to be a substitute for it. He simply explained the concept more eloquently than I.

reacher provided explanation of the conduct but without reason why violence is justified. but both explanation of conduct and rationale from yourself has yet to be demonstrated

You'll also notice I've not weighed in on the idea of it being justified, as that is a discussion far beyond simply being about war but about a whole system of ethics and morals. I dont pretend to be nearly clever enough to make a definitive call on that.

My contribution is simply that I do not agree with the statement about it being an intelectual failure.

Im curious about your own experience. What has prompted you to the statements you've made in the previous post?

an unjustified assertion is exactly that - unjustified. the call of onus is for the assertor to address diplomacy


Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

obviously I'm just not able to offer the response that you're looking for in this conversation. Sorry! Maybe Ill have better luck next time

CruzJ wrote:

I mean simply that in the U.S you see peaceful Muslims. Muslims in other Country's are not all peaceful. ~excised~

This is just my opinion.

Kamizu wrote:

You are being SUPER general about things. Do you KNOW any Muslims in other countries? I've met some. They're people just like me. There are extremists in every religion. Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind.

CruzJ wrote:

Serve in the Army see what soldiers see. As well you want to twist my words fine I know there's good Muslims and I am being general because I do not judge others I judge the events.

Kamizu wrote:

haha I love your assumptions. I'm currently serving active duty US Air Force and am hitting my 11 year mark next month. I have deployed twice, in support of OIF and OEF. Tell me again about what I'm suppose to be seeing?

I'm just trying to understand your words, they're very contradicting and I was giving you a chance to explain yourself.

CruzJ wrote:

I think we should simply agree to disagree and end it there.

the assertion was conceded when opinion was admitted. most people know people using the brand of a religion as a shield to conduct their own agenda uncelebrated by the rest of the religion

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk