« Last post by BlackLight on April 28, 2017, 06:34:06 PM »
Who is "our", I need to know who you include in your "we" and why?
You're in the wrong place thinking that the people of WWGHA disregard the influence of religion on people's actions, but where you seem to be lacking is recognizing that same thing in your "we/us".
From what I've seen, they don't disregard the influence of religion when it comes to Christians. If the Westboro Baptist Church suddenly started killing gay people, I'd expect no shortage of folks around here pointing out the link between a plain text reading of the Christian holy books and the behavior of the WBC. But when ISIS members in Syria take sex slaves, or throw gays off rooftops, I see little-to-no recognition from folks around here of how a convicted belief in fundamentalist Islam could lead one to behave this way. Just a litany of outrage at The West for its foreign policy evils (actual and otherwise).
You say that Sam has not denied that the US has "a lot to apologize for" but here is the point; why do they just have to apologize for a billion deaths while these Islamists deserve to die for thousands? It's because you and Sam have your pom poms out cheering for your team instead of addressing the topic reasonably or not hypocritically. It is that hypocrisy that likely fuels some people to the hatred they have.
Yesterday, you said the following:
1st. There is an unknown body count for the West in these countries. So to try to compare #'s is worthless. That cannot be disregarded.
Now today, you blithely tar the West with the responsibility for "a billion deaths," while Islamists are only on the hook for "thousands." Never mind that you haven't any way of substantiating these figures, you take it a step further, asserting that the real hypocrites in this conversation are people like Sam and myself. Another thing Sam was right about, it seems - some ironies really are harder to detect than others.
To at least answer your question in principle, the reason that jihadists need to die for what they've done is that they fully intend to keep doing it. It's their explicit mission statement. Even if the West began "behaving itself" (however you define that in your own mind), the mission of ISIS and like-minded groups would continue: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers, kill apostates, and conquer the world. There is no moral equivalency here. Without a second thought, a jihadist will shield himself from being killed in a drone strike by camping out next to a hospital, or living in a residential area - knowing full well that an American military will take steps to avoid killing innocent people. If that same military tried to protect themselves from attack by using innocents as human shields, everyone would get massacred. Because from the perspective of ISIS, killing innocent people is the whole point.
If you are in the act of doing underhanded things, and you kill an innocent bystander while attempting to kill an ISIS member you are indeed no better than the ISIS member, and I would argue you are worse. Until you and Sam realize this you will be on the wrong side of this discussion.
Killing an ISIS member is not an underhanded act.