posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:48 PM
You're extrapolating too much from what I've said, but you're not alone. It's not our fault that people choose to blow themselves up, it is our
fault that we invaded and brought misery to people. Do bad things, bad things happen. It's a self-perpetuating cycle, and we're helping it along
My point is that if you provoke a group of people, for whatever reason, you are not directly responsible for their choices, but you are absolutely
responsible for defining the context in which they are forced to make their decisions.
If you put a man in a room with no doors, and he breaks his way out through the drywall, is it not partially your fault that the wall was damaged?
Certainly the one doing the kicking and the punching, and the tearing down, is MOSTLY responsible, but to ignore the primary act is to be blind to the
nature of consequence.
No, she definitely wasn't the first female suicide bomber. The fact that never before, to my knowledge, has an Iraqi woman had cause to terorize
another nation signifies, to me at least, that something has changed. We invade, people start blowing themselves up in the backyard of our
supporters. It's just cause and effect, and I want people to recognize that fact.
It's not an issue of responsibility for the act, which should be clear just by looking at who pushed the button so to speak, it's an issue of
willfull negligence. Was the goal of opening the Iraqi market worth the cost of tens of thousands of human lives? I don't think it was.
Again, it was most definitely her choice. I'm a big believer in personal responsibility, you'll see that theme repeated over and over in my posts.
The point I'm trying to make is that we need to examine OUR personal responsibility for the condition of the world, and do what we can to create a
world where necessity of murder cannot be widely rationalized, as it is today.
People in the West are using the same exact process to rationalize massive violence. The similarities between the opponents in this conflict run
deeper than the differences, and that needs to be explored.
If I thought I was wrong, I would have stated whatever opinion I thought was right instead. The opinion stated is the one I think is right. The fact
that I even have to explain this baffles me.
Where have I justified the act? Can you quote the portion of my post where I said I agreed with the methodology of suicide bombers?
Sane, rational people don't blow themselves up to prove a point, or to protest injustice. If she set herself on fire in a concrete depression or
something, I could justify her action, and I would indeed do just that. Self sacrifice is one thing, sacrificing the lives of strangers for your own
pet cause is insane, it's murder, there is no justification.
The fact that I have to say this in every Iraq/terrorism discusion is disconcerting to say the least.
Can anyone explain that to me? Why is that?